Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Tell me how

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It would be massively divisive.

And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again.

But at least the question would be more defined than before.

And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess.

Nothing else does.

There is a lot more evidence which would refute the claims originally made such as "The day after Brexit we hold all the cards", "Negotiating trade deals will be the easiest thing in the world", "£350M per week can go to the NHS", "We will be talking directly with Berlin, not Brussels" and so on.

There is a deal on the table, there can be no pipe dreams of what might be under the rainbow.

Akrasia

I think the point is that no matter what happens, there already is division, and there is no way of avoiding that.

Crashing out of the EU will be incredibly divisive when every remainer blames the brexiteers for their loss of livelyhood and the economic crisis that follows. The Brexiteers will still blame everyone else for the crisis that happens, the soft brexiters will blame the hard brexiters, the hard brexiters will blame the remainers and the EU, and remainers will blame everyone except themselves. The Tories will blame Labour for not supporting whatever half baked plan they prefer, Labour will pretend they had their own plan but weren't allowed to implement it. It would be a total sh1tstorm, and then if they decide they want to rejoin the EU later on, or have a deal like EFTA they'll be up against a hostile EU who have every right to blame the UK for the damage to their own economies caused by the UK's utter recklessness these past 3 years.

Leaving the EU on May's deal will be divisive as there will still be years of infighting and sniping at each other about the terrible deal May negotiated and the backstop and the future relationship and the EU being unfair and vindictive etc

Remaining in the EU would be divisive but at least not economically destructive and if it was preceded by a referendum where a significant majority of the population voted to remain, at least they can reassure themselves that both sides got a good opportunity to voice their views and debate it before coming to an educated conclusion.

hill16bhoy

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a lot more evidence which would refute the claims originally made such as "The day after Brexit we hold all the cards", "Negotiating trade deals will be the easiest thing in the world", "£350M per week can go to the NHS", "We will be talking directly with Berlin, not Brussels" and so on.

There is a deal on the table, there can be no pipe dreams of what might be under the rainbow.

You wouldn't have the exact same lines, but there would be a load of other disinformation. Have no doubt.

And of course the Leave side's main trump card would be a furious appeal that "the will of the people is being disregarded".

Even if we still don't know what the will of the Leave voters is, because they're hopelessly divided.

You'd hear World War II invoked all over the place.

And God only knows what tactics the Russians would have in store this time.

Inquitus

Onwards past 50k posts and its still all up in the air!

hill16bhoy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where are we?

We're at the situation where I keep thinking of the words of The Simpsons' Reverend Lovejoy when Marge and Homer were going through difficulties in their marriage.

“Marge, as a trained marriage counsellor, this is the first instance where I've ever told one partner that they were 100% right. It's all his fault. And I'm willing to put that on a certificate you can frame.”

I don't need to tell you which one of Britain or the EU is Homer.

Tell me how

I do have a small, sneaky feeling in the back of my mind that at some point in the future, we in Ireland will be in a situation where we are being told we are expected to pay for the support which Ireland was given by Europe at this time.

Whether that is in acceptance of a Euro-wide tax scheme, or adjustment of our Corporation tax or military support or whatever (I'm not trying to argue for or against any of these issues here). I hope our government and MEP's are sufficiently strong to hold the argument that Europe's support now was because of a legally signed off Good Friday agreement and not because of any irrational good will towards the Irish people.

We have been very closely aligned with the UK in our history, we know about the bad stuff but there has been plenty good stuff also and I hope we don't (which we are not doing so far) adopt a gloating position if they do experience difficulties in the case of a hard border.

I think we have been fine as a government and media so far (Can you imagine what their media would write about us if the roles were reversed?) and I hope it continues this way.

Professor Moriarty

More can kicking by May today:

I don’t expect an immediate breakthrough, but what I do hope is that we can start to work as quickly as possible on the assurances that are necessary.

What work? What part of "It has been agreed and won't be renegotiated" do you not understand? Of course, she understands but is just playing party politics with international diplomacy and international agreements and treaties.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

More can kicking by May today:

I don’t expect an immediate breakthrough, but what I do hope is that we can start to work as quickly as possible on the assurances that are necessary.

What work? What part of "It has been agreed and won't be renegotiated" do you not understand? Of course, she understands but is just playing party politics with international diplomacy and international agreements and treaties.

She as good as said it last night that she is not expecting changes to the agreement.

I think the best she is hoping for is the EU to collectively say something along the lines of;

We needed to put in the backstop because there has to be contingency. However, we are largely confident that we will not need to implement it as we will work with the UK to create and implement solutions which will render it unnecessary

This would be to try to convince 120-150 non-hardline MP's that her deal is worth voting for. She is never convincing JRM, Davis, Johnson etc.

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

not because of any irrational good will towards the Irish people.

This may be the first time we've agreed on anything. One of the reasons why we need a legally binding backstop is not only because we can't trust Teresa May, but I don't believe we can trust the EU either - once we are no longer a useful stick to beat the UK with.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

She as good as said it last night that she is not expecting changes to the agreement.

I think the best she is hoping for is the EU to collectively say something along the lines of;



This would be to try to convince 120-150 non-hardline MP's that her deal is worth voting for. She is never convincing JRM, Davis, Johnson etc.

They've already said that anyway. The truth of the matter is that Mogg, Johnson, Davis etc. are using the backstop issue to bring the deal down. They actually don't give a crap about NI. If the backstop was removed, they would focus on some other weakness in the agreement. There is no placating the ERG with anything other than Crash Out or Canada+.

Tell me how

Laois_Man wrote: »

This may be the first time we've agreed on anything. One of the reasons why we need a legally binding backstop is not only because we can't trust Teresa May, but I don't believe we can trust the EU either - once we are no longer a useful stick to beat the UK with.

First and only time I'd say. :pac:

I'm not massively sceptical about the EU, I'm just....... a little bit wary.

fash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You wouldn't have the exact same lines, but there would be a load of other disinformation. Have no doubt..

"Well I saw remain voter but after seeing how the EU has bullied and mistreated the UK, how could anyone not vote leave?" Etc.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

More can kicking by May today:

I don’t expect an immediate breakthrough, but what I do hope is that we can start to work as quickly as possible on the assurances that are necessary.

What work? What part of "It has been agreed and won't be renegotiated" do you not understand? Of course, she understands but is just playing party politics with international diplomacy and international agreements and treaties.

EU can and will add assurances in the written political statement; the problem is UK has not said what assurances they are seeking (what a surprise).

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They've already said that anyway. The truth of the matter is that Mogg, Johnson, Davis etc. are using the backstop issue to bring the deal down. They actually don't give a crap about NI. If the backstop was removed, they would focus on some other weakness in the agreement. There is no placating the ERG with anything other than Crash Out or Canada+.

No. But, these guys don't have massive support either in the HoC.
Look at their failure to challenge her leadership a few weeks ago.

The majority of members of the HoC I suspect are still thinking along the lines of what is best for our constituents and country. These are the ones she is trying to convince. She would be perfectly happy to win a vote by a majority of 1.

But, it is true that the EU have already said this and thus far haven't reacted to her please with any great show of support. Junckers statement that the deal cannot be renegotiated but that they will try to help with it being accepted was probably closest but there has been nothing since.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

No. But, these guys don't have massive support either in the HoC.
Look at their failure to challenge her leadership a few weeks ago.

The majority of members of the HoC I suspect are still thinking along the lines of what is best for our constituents and country. These are the ones she is trying to convince. She would be perfectly happy to win a vote by a majority of 1.

But, it is true that the EU have already said this and thus far haven't reacted to her please with any great show of support. Junckers statement that the deal cannot be renegotiated but that they will try to help with it being accepted was probably closest but there has been nothing since.

All of which leaves her very vulnerable though. The DUP and ERG will vote en masse to reject her deal. That's about 40 votes against before you bring Labour/SNP etc. into the picture. She will need cross party support so she's dependent on the kindness of strangers in the HoC. Best of luck with that, Theresa.

Peregrinus

Where we are now:

At this point the story has three possible endings:

1. Cancel Brexit

2. Brexit on the terms of May’s deal or something very very like it.

3. No-deal Brexit.

Those who fantasise about “renegotiating” the deal are, well, fantasising. This goes both for Tory Brexiters and for Labour. The renegotiated deal they envisage is not attainable, partly because it’s fundamentally unacceptable to the EU and partly because there simply isn’t time to renegotiate so radically.

The only significant renegotiation that could be possible is if the UK dropped some or many of its red lines and indicated that it wanted a much softer Brexit – Norway+, say. This is possible because (a) the EU would love it, and (b) it doesn’t actually require much in the way of change to the Withdrawal Agreement; it would all be the political declaration, which is a much smaller and less detailed and less legally significant document. But I don’t see any appetite for it in the leadership of either party in the UK, so for the time being I discount it as a possibility.

There are other things that could intervene – a second referendum, a general election. But they don’t change the fundamentals; they would simply be alternative ways of picking one of the three options outlined above if parliament can’t or won’t do it.

The choice could be deferred if the UK asked to extend A50 and the EU agreed. But there seems to be no point in that unless extending A50 was going to change something, and remove whatever barrier was preventing parliament from making a choice. It’s unlikely that the EU would agree to a deferral that wasn’t going to change anything, just put off the necessity for making a choice

It is, basically, parliament’s job to make the choice between the three options though, as noted, they could delegate the that responsibility to the people via a referendum or an election. (Or partly delegate it; they could e.g. rule out one option and invite the people to choose between the other two in a referendum). If parliament refused to make a choice no-deal Brexit is the default which will apply; failing or refusing either to approve May's deal or to cancel Brexit is functionally equivalent to actively choosing no-deal Brexit.

May says she will put her deal to Parliament no later than 21 January. By then she will probably have obtained some honeyed words from Brussels to the effect that nobody likes the backstop and they are determined that it will not continue permanently, but that will not be enough to get the deal through parliament, given the scale of distaste for the deal and the number of MPs who have nailed their colours publicly to the mast on the need to abolish or strictly limit the backstop, or provide a unilateral exit (none of which is or will ever be acceptable to the EU).

So the deal will be rejected by parliament at the first time of asking.

The Labour party will promptly put down a motion of no confidence in the government. But this will not pass. It could only pass if the DUP or the ERG voted against the government, which would mean a general election, and neither of those groups imagine that their position would be strengthened by a general election.

When Labour’s bid to force a general election fails, the party leadership will come under considerable pressure, both internal and external, to back a second referendum. They won’t be too happy about this, but I can’t see that they will have much choice; what other course is open? And it’s possible that enough Tory rebels will back them to secure the passage of a motion calling for a referendum.

At this point things get very confused. A motion saying that parliament wants a referendum doesn’t, in itself, result in a referendum. The government needs to introduce a Bill providing for the holding of a referendum which has to tackle such controversial issues as what question is to be asked?, which options are to be put to the people?, how are abuses of the kind that happened last time to be prevented?, etc. This will all be very messy, and while it is happening businesses will be implementing no-deal contingency plans in ways that people will notice (and suffer from) and the markets will be signalling extreme displeasure in ways that will also be very noticeable.

At this point (or, perhaps, before this point but in anticipation of it) parliament may be minded to give May’s deal a second hearing, and perhaps to approve it. That, at least, is May’s hope, I suspect. Those who have indicated that they would die on the barricades rather than approve the deal will justify their change of position by pointing to the grave national crisis/the risk of losing Brexit altogether/yadda yadda yadda.

If that doesn’t happen then, to be honest, I don’t know what does. A crash-out no-deal Brexit is a possibility. Cancellation of Brexit by parliament is also a possibility but, honestly, more a theoretical one than a realistic one.

I state a lot of things above with an air of simple confidence when, in reality, they are not at all simple and my predictions are not at all confident. This is the best roadmap I can come up with at this point but, to be honest, it’s almost certain wrong, particularly as regards what happens after 21 January. I’m just not sure in what way it will prove to be wrong.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All of which leaves her very vulnerable though. The DUP and ERG will vote en masse to reject her deal. That's 59 votes against before you bring Labour/SNP etc. into the picture. She will need cross party support so she's dependent on the kindness of strangers in the HoC. Best of luck with that, Theresa.

Absolutely she is walking a tightrope. But, so will anyone. There is literally no question of anyone getting a deal of unanimous support.

It's not kindness she is looking for. It is people to realise what is in the best interest of their constituents. I think must members are already at the place of ignoring party directions and making up their own minds.

That is why her not creating a cross party governmental focus group at the outset of starting negotiations was such a bad mistake. The same deal would probably be on the table but less could argue they had nothing to do with it.

Water John

EU should give TM the soft words and platitudes they can give in the next day or two. Along with that they should make it clear, that's it. Thus TM cannot pretend she has ongoing talks to delay the HoC vote.

seamus

Tell me how wrote: »

I do have a small, sneaky feeling in the back of my mind that at some point in the future, we in Ireland will be in a situation where we are being told we are expected to pay for the support which Ireland was given by Europe at this time.

I understand the wariness, but realistically we already have our red lines with Europe, and they have no leverage to "force" us to do anything to cross them.

That's not to say there can't be comments made under people's breath, snide insinuations made. But at the end of the day, the EU is not a single country, it is a union of many countries, including us.
As has been proven continuously over the last two years, it is not a fiefdom of Germany or France, it is a unified entity of all countries. So unless ALL of the other EU countries were to turn on us for "repayment", the concern that we are being protected by the EU in exchange for future favours, I think is misplaced.

We have enough ammo anyway. Arguably the EU is repaying us right now for saving the union's banking system.

Enzokk

Where are we? I am going to try and say where we are but will also quote Marina Hyde as she is infinitely better with words than I am.

And so to where we stand after a preposterous 24 hours – a midwinter night’s dream after which nothing has changed as far as the Brexit deadlock in parliament goes. But at least the ERG have been aggressively made love to by an ass.

Finally, some good news: the ERG has been aggressively made love to by an ass

So we are exactly where we were when they voted for Brexit. They want to leave the EU and take control of their borders, money etc. but due to international treaties they cannot do this without a border in the Irish Sea. They cannot put a border in the Irish Sea because NI depends on the rest of UK trade as much as anything else so the whole UK needs to be in a customs union and in effect the single market to ensure there is no border.

They cannot do that because then they will not take back control of their borders and laws and money etc. so to take back control they need to leave the EU. They cannot do that because of international treaties...and on and on and on.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All of which leaves her very vulnerable though. The DUP and ERG will vote en masse to reject her deal.

Perhaps not. She can threaten them with another In/Out referendum if her deal fails, and then they might get no Brexit at all.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where we are now:

The only significant renegotiation that could be possible is if the UK dropped some or many of its red lines and indicated that it wanted a much softer Brexit – Norway+, say. This is possible because (a) the EU would love it, and (b) it doesn’t actually require much in the way of change to the Withdrawal Agreement; it would all be the political declaration, which is a much smaller and less detailed and less legally significant document. But I don’t see any appetite for it in the leadership of either party in the UK, so for the time being I discount it as a possibility.

I don't think an agreement along the lines of Norway's arrangement is possible with the EU since the Irish border issue, though reduced in the case of the Norway model, still remains. Depends, of course, on what is meant by Norway+.

Kermit.de.frog

Sweden and Finland seem to be indicating legally binding assurances on UK ability to exit the backstop are on the table.

Both have said "it's difficult to see changes" but they are anxious to help.

That's diplomatic code for not ruling it out.

RobMc59

seamus wrote: »

I understand the wariness, but realistically we already have our red lines with Europe, and they have no leverage to "force" us to do anything to cross them.

That's not to say there can't be comments made under people's breath, snide insinuations made. But at the end of the day, the EU is not a single country, it is a union of many countries, including us.
As has been proven continuously over the last two years, it is not a fiefdom of Germany or France, it is a unified entity of all countries. So unless ALL of the other EU countries were to turn on us for "repayment", the concern that we are being protected by the EU in exchange for future favours, I think is misplaced.

We have enough ammo anyway. Arguably the EU is repaying us right now for saving the union's banking system.

You are correct that Ireland can't and shouldn't be forced to "repay favours"-but if for example Europe wanted Ireland to be more proactive in its own and the general defence of Europe(troops,air force and navy etc)-that is a reasonable expectation surely?

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sweden and Finland seem to be indicating legally binding assurances on UK ability to exit the backstop are on the table.

Both have said "it's difficult to see changes" but they are anxious to help.

That's diplomatic code for not ruling it out.

That's a polite way of saying "there will be no changes".

Also, the only place I can see that online is on the "Daily Express".
Care to link a real world source?

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sweden and Finland seem to be indicating legally binding assurances on UK ability to exit the backstop are on the table.

Both have said "it's difficult to see changes" but they are anxious to help.

That's diplomatic code for not ruling it out.

Of course there are legally binding assurances on the UK's ability to exit the backstop, just not unilaterally.

keane2097

This is obviously an unrealistic proposition but how would people feel if there was a suggestion of, say, a 50 year time limit on the backstop? Just out of interest...

Harry Palmr

The amount of political time and energy that Brexit has sucked up like an infinite sponge is criminal really. What's more we're only in phase one, the exit will churn up UK politics for a decade as it's going to set of a chain reaction that could well see the UK cease to be. Scotland isn't going to just sit there and be quiet and a bad Brexit will only give the SNP and others more energy to campaign for a another referendum.

I'd not be shocked to see the Tories split albeit on a 90/10 basis as the hard right seek to carve out something which can be leveraged against a hung parliament at a future point (though beyond the next election which will surely come too soon for any new party to be fully organised) we could end up with Tories+Hard Right as a post election coalition (or maybe supply and demand arrangement). Labour's failure to take any firm lead on Brexit with regard to alternatives could well cost them - but you could argue they are fecked either way - a lot of ageing, white working class voters already hostile on the one hand and plenty of urban, metropolitan, young voters angry on the other - Corbyn has managed to annoy everyone he is lucky that Prime Minister May has drawn so much fire away from his shocking leadership.

seamus

RobMc59 wrote: »

You are correct that Ireland can't and shouldn't be forced to "repay favours"-but if for example Europe wanted Ireland to be more proactive in its own and the general defence of Europe(troops,air force and navy etc)-that is a reasonable expectation surely?

Perhaps, but there's nothing Europe can do about it unless we agree to it. We have a permanent opt-out, and there is no legal way we can be sanctioned for exercising it.

Tell me how

Wouldn't you love to have the self-belief/self-confidence of a politician?

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1073135950992195585

ancapailldorcha

My opinion on how things have gone?


To be honest, I just sort of assumed that I would vote Remain. Then I saw that The Economist had a special report on the subject called "The Reluctant European". I picked it up. It did an excellent job of providing a brief overview of Britain's involvement in the European project including the rebate and the veto, Cameron's decision to withdraw the Conservatives from the European People's Party in a bid to placate the Eurosceptics in his party and what would happen if Britain chose to leave. Most importantly, it dismantled every single leave argument including sovereignty and immigration. It mentioned that the EU member states would each have to ratify the EU-UK trade deal, a fact rarely mentioned at the time.


I was living in very liberal/left-wing Brighton at the time, a better exemplar of the loony lefty elitist caricature you could not possibly find in the UK. I wasn't too worried. Like many, I thought that Remain would claim the day if only narrowly. On Friday the 24th June, there was a horrible shadow over the medical school I was working in at the time. Most of the staff were from Europe, namely Portugal, Spain & Italy. Few, if any got much work done. It took some time for the shock to kick in. That was it. The UK had voted to leave and somehow, nobody was too bothered about the fact that the NHS wasn't getting $350 million a week extra.


However, and it was extremely naive of me in hindsight, I did expect politicians to... "Grow up", for want of a better phrase. I mean, this is the future of the country for crying out loud. Instead, Cameron resigned on the spot rather than try to sort out the mess he'd made while the Tories turned on each other. Labour decided to just keep calm and carry on with very little. Since then, we've seen judges which Brexiteers have told us must be able to enforce the law of the land derided as traitors along with democratically elected MP's. Parliament itself, which is supposed to be sovereign became a target for vitriol. Suddenly, the Good Friday agreement, something barely mentioned at all before the referendum had become an inconvenience. Jacob Rees-Mogg became an envoy of the working man. The party of big business and stability became the party of economic ruin and chaos while Jeremy Corbyn did and still does continue to fiddle. Up became down and black became white.


I knew it'd be a tough few years but I didn't count on so much farce being prevalent in actual Politics that Armando Iannucci would feel surplus to requirements. And what does it look like we'll be left with? Either giving up as opposed to the status quo of pooling sovereignty in order to avoid economic ruin or said economic ruin. And for what? Bananas which are now bendy? More powerful vacuum cleaners? Blue Passports? Spam for dinner? PM Boris Johnson whose new populist Tory party might win power on little over a third of the popular vote?


If British politics was an animal, I'd argue for it to be euthanised. Ironically, it's the undemocratic elements of it which seem to be holding the vaunted democracy somewhat together. The House of Lords seems to doing some decent work in holding the government to account while the civil service, based on a contact of mine in Liam Fox's department seems to be well ahead in preparations for disaster though the easiest trade deal in history is some ways off. Meanwhile, we have a load of Tory rebels who were unhappy with Theresa May's election so they agitated for a second vote.


I don't know any more. Maybe someone here will figure out a way to package and sell irony because that seems to be the only growth industry here at the moment.

DOCARCH

Tell me how wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1073135950992195585

Great reply on Twitter to that...

Captain of the Titanic: "it’s time for the iceberg to get serious about avoiding a collision”.

:P

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

More can kicking by May today:

I don’t expect an immediate breakthrough, but what I do hope is that we can start to work as quickly as possible on the assurances that are necessary.

What work? What part of "It has been agreed and won't be renegotiated" do you not understand? Of course, she understands but is just playing party politics with international diplomacy and international agreements and treaties.

I think she needs it in slogan form: 'we can't return to the borders of the past'.

Tell me how

I have a friend working in a company near Bristol. The company makes parts for various car manufacturers including BMW, Toyota, Peugeot, etc. She mentioned to me before that there was little to zero conversation amongst workers about Brexit.
Her and I are in a group chat and last night we were discussing Brexit with others.

She just sent me a message that she had shown the chat to a colleague because she asked them what they thought of May yesterday and they shrugged and said they didn't really pay attention.

When the colleague saw the chat a group of people (most in Ireland) were having about Brexit, he said, "you people need to get a life".

Thatnastyboy

Tell me how wrote: »

I have a friend working in a company near Bristol. The company makes parts for various car manufacturers including BMW, Toyota, Peugeot, etc. She mentioned to me before that there was little to zero conversation amongst workers about Brexit.
Her and I are in a group chat and last night we were discussing Brexit with others.

She just sent me a message that she had shown the chat to a colleague because she asked them what they thought of May yesterday and they shrugged and said they didn't really pay attention.

When the colleague saw the chat a group of people (most in Ireland) were having about Brexit, he said, "you people need to get a life".

It's alright - the way it's looking now they'll have plenty time to read up on it after the fact.

seamus

Tell me how wrote: »

When the colleague saw the chat a group of people (most in Ireland) were having about Brexit, he said, "you people need to get a life".

To be fair to them, it's hard to see why your ship is sinking when you're standing on the deck.
I'm in an open Slack channel with mostly British people, smart British people, and they don't really understand what's happening themselves. There's very much a, "I can hear what's being said, Brexit is going to hurt, but I don't really know what it is that we can do about it".

Britain has had the privilege in recent history of being able to "soldier on". "No matter what happens, we will soldier on, and in the end, we will be fine". "Keep calm and carry on".

And that's proven true. Through wars and recessions, and more wars and recessions, Britain put the head down, worked through it and came out the other side, usually as one of the strongest economies. So I think culturally the same attitude is prevailing, that a rough ride is ahead, but Britain will put the head down and when the dust settles, Britain will be stronger.

But they can't see that this is different. This is not a global problem. This is not a collective issue that every country is going to have to work through. It's barely even a regional issue. Britain, and Britain alone is going to feel the full weight of this, and putting the head down and pushing through is the worst strategy.

joe40

There are only 3 options, Cancel Brexit, No deal Brexit, or WA exit.

Brexit will only be cancelled as a result of another referendum, which in my mind would be perfectly democratic since things have changed so much since 2016 and I was hoping for that outcome.

I'm now coming round to the idea that the best outcome in the long run for all concerned would be for Britain to exit the EU with the current WA (maybe some tweaks or fudges)

Even if a new referendum were to vote remain Britain's continued existence in the EU would be toxic. Even a labour government would not be able to heal wounds with the EU because of the abysmal attitude of their leadership throughout this.

The Marriage has failed, an amicable divorce might be the best outcome.

Enzokk

This should be a warning to the UK on the upcoming non-negotiations about the WA.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1073232373939097601

It sure doesn't seem like the EU will back down and throw us to the wolves, or at least if they do you can be sure that the border issue will be sorted quickly when the love for the EU will turn sour very quickly here.

Laois_Man

Varadkar interview on Sky News:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1073228261109452800

And a second bit about the 2030 World Cup bid

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1073229338563219458

Pushing the case for extending article 50!

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They've already said that anyway. The truth of the matter is that Mogg, Johnson, Davis etc. are using the backstop issue to bring the deal down. They actually don't give a crap about NI. If the backstop was removed, they would focus on some other weakness in the agreement. There is no placating the ERG with anything other than Crash Out or Canada+.

The UK, instead of badgering the EU to change their position, could be using this time to flesh out their plans for a 'frictionless border' with NI and prove that the backstop won't be needed. The only reason the backstop is even a thing is because the UK insists they can sort out a frictionless border and the EU are saying 'Yeah, we don't believe you, but if you insist we'll let you try. If you can't make it work, you must agree to our way to comply with the GFA as a fall back plan B"

May could get the votes she needs by announcing something like the following

"The backstop exists as an insurance policy, but I have commissioned tech genius company x to develop a wireless, paperless, cameraless frictionless way of tracking the 110 million border crossings a year between the ROI and NI"

This genius tech guy assures me that he'll have a system up and working and ready to roll out by the end of the transition period in January 2021 and (and it will cost peanuts)"

Nobody will actually believe her, but they might be able to 'accept her assurances' for the purposes of passing the deal. May is going to be gone before the next election so afterwards, they'll be able to blame the backstop on her and whoever the new leader is can say s/he never agreed to her plan but now his hands are tied.

Leroy42

That is a possible solution, except for the fact that the backstop is just the top line of the issues.

They don't want oversight by ECJ, they don't want to pay the €39bn, they don't want to continue to pay, they don't want to continue to follow the rules, they want fishing sorted on 29th.

So even, even if it was possible for something to be done on the backstop, they will simply move onto the next area.

The backstop was agreed a year ago, and yet the UK parliament is still arguing about it!

10000maniacs

Tell me how wrote: »

Wouldn't you love to have the self-belief/self-confidence of a politician?

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1073135950992195585

"Its time for the icebergs to get serious about avoiding a collision." That was a spot on comment in the feed.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

The backstop was agreed a year ago, and yet the UK parliament is still arguing about it!

To be fair, parliament themselves did not agree to the backstop. Appointed UK negotiators did. Therefore, parliament feel it's within their rights to complain since they're the ones who have vote such an agreement into law per the meaningful vote clause.

Professor Moriarty

Headline from The Telegraph website:

Irish Premier suggests MPs could simply cancel Brexit

Liars.

Imreoir2

DOCARCH wrote: »

Great reply on Twitter to that...

Captain of the Titanic: "it’s time for the iceberg to get serious about avoiding a collision”.

:P

Former leader of the Conservatives cominig out with an equlouent "I know you are but what am I" style argument to defend his stance on the biggest issue to face his country since the second world war.

DOCARCH

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Former leader of the Conservatives cominig out with an equlouent "I know you are but what am I" style argument to defend his stance on the biggest issue to face his country since the second world war.

More like the superior Tory attitude....'Don't you know who we are? We are GREAT Britain'!

Huge issues of misguided self-importance.

'Fog in Channel....Continent Cut Off'.

CelticRambler

Tell me how wrote: »

I do have a small, sneaky feeling in the back of my mind that at some point in the future, we in Ireland will be in a situation where we are being told we are expected to pay for the support which Ireland was given by Europe at this time.

As Seamus says:

seamus wrote: »

Arguably the EU is repaying us right now for saving the union's banking system.

For several decades, the Irish have shown themselves to be good Europeans. We played the Celtic Tiger game and lost, and with an ironically British sense of fair play, took a hit for the German banks and the EU. (I personally believe that the Irish were, collectively, a bunch of feckin eejits and the German banks didn't deserve anything like the amount of blame that was attributed to them, but that's beside the point) The support of our fellow Europeans in the face of Brexit is our reward for being "a great bunch of lads".

Where we'll be held to account will be later on - probably at the time of a reunification of Ireland. That's when the spectre of Corporation Tax and/or Digital Tax and/or Financial Transaction Tax will bite. There'll be a package of Reunification Aid on the table, but a bunch of strings hanging out of it and (no doubt) someone saying "you did really well out of Brexit, getting all those fintech companies, didn't you ...?"

My perspective on where we are is: very close to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. For all the reasons given in the posts above, there is no simple Brexit that can be acceptable to a majority of the UK electorate, with NI and Scotland being the most vociferous agitators. The DUP has boxed Theresa May into a "hard Brexit" corner, and the Scots have boxed her into a "unilateral revocation of A50" corner. It can only be a question of time before the English nationalists' frustration at taking back control turns to real resentment of their Celtic cousins' role in Westminster.

I think the DUP will be given the boot very soon after Brexit (and probably have their £1bn bribe cancelled), and after a few years of BRINO sluggishness, Scotland will be "encouraged" to have another referendum, to allow the English to follow the True Brexit Path to Greatness. In both cases, NI (reunited) and Scotland will rejoin the EU as willing members before the English have resolved their own identity crisis.

DOCARCH

CelticRambler wrote: »

....very close to the dissolution of the United Kingdom....

This question went through my head yesterday....

Why don't England leave the United Kingdom?

I'd agree with CelticRambler suggestion that the UK is likely to dissolve sooner or later!

Akrasia

DOCARCH wrote: »

This question went through my head yesterday....

Why don't England leave the United Kingdom?

I'd agree with CelticRambler suggestion that the UK is likely to dissolve sooner or later!

They want to keep access to the goldmine that is the Scottish fishing industry

Laois_Man

CelticRambler wrote: »

Where we'll be held to account will be later on - probably at the time of a reunification of Ireland. That's when the spectre of Corporation Tax and/or Digital Tax and/or Financial Transaction Tax will bite. There'll be a package of Reunification Aid on the table, but a bunch of strings hanging out of it

IMO, a reunification referendum would struggle to pass in the republic as it is - it might have some chance though if the EU outlined assistance before such a referendum. Us being asked to give up or taxation solvency as a price for it would give it no chance whatsoever.