Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

...
Anything going north is a problem for the UK and NI, not us. [/I]!'

Ref: the linked article

I think the 211 Irish farmers in Donegal, RoI will feel it's a bit of a problem, when their milk is no longer collected. The dairy in Omagh likely can't afford the tariffs on the processed milk - or worse cheese - going back into Ireland.

Integrated economies can't live with different standards, rules and even less with delaying controls and high tariffs.

These farmers and the dairy, I am sure, are only a small part of the businesses along both sides of a very long land border, that will suffer badly.

Lars

prawnsambo

reslfj wrote:

I think NI and Ireland should hope for a max crises at Dover, so the UK will come back to Brussels very soon.

Lars

I think that's the most likely outcome of a hard brexit. The time of the year couldn't be worse for the UK either. A border in the Irish Sea would be the very first item on the agenda.

Strazdas

Pheonix10 wrote: »

What is most likely in your or anyone's opinion?

I'm not sure at all. Johnson is talking the talk and the Brexiteers are convinced the UK is leaving on October 31. But it could just be a big bluff on his part and the only thing he is interested in is being PM, not Brexit.

FrancieBrady

Has Andrew Neil gone full on defend Boris on the Beeb, Fairly impassioned defence there.

Call me Al

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You see it that way, I see as a way to protect the GFA

I don't agree with his point of view. However I do think it is worthy of rational discussion.

Professor Moriarty

John Major is a must watch on Hardtalk BBC just now. Very well informed and erudite. Deconstructed each and every aspect of the Brexiteer argument.

ILoveYourVibes

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not sure at all. Johnson is talking the talk and the Brexiteers are convinced the UK is leaving on October 31. But it could just be a big bluff on his part and the only thing he is interested in is being PM, not Brexit.

You would think they would be rational enough to realize this.

The thing is the more this drags on the more extreme and insistent brexiters are likely to become.


They will want a hard no deal brexit.

Peregrinus

BluePlanet wrote: »

I haven't really heard of rationalisations as to WHY checks should be done away from the border?

Is it just to keep the early promise of no border infastructure?
I don't see that promise being all that important.

It's not at all important that checks be done away from the border.

"No hard border" requires no border infrastructure, and no related checks and controls. Checks that relate to the border harden the border, regardless of where, physically, they are actually implemented. So if there have to be checks, that's a problem.

Sitll, if there have to be checks, they do have to be implemented somewhere, and once we get to the point of having to have checks a decision has to be made about where. And factors that go into that decision will include: Where will checks be least intrusive? Where will checks be most effective? Where will checks be cheap or convenient to operate? Etc. But the answer to the question of where they will be operated doesn't really change the fundamental truth that they harden the border, and so represent a failure to deliver on the no-hard-border guarantee.

However there's a strain of Brexiter thinking that, for many months now, has tried to argue that the no-hard-border guarantee only means that there will be no infrastructure at the border and no related checks and controls at the border, and if nothing happens actually at the border then the no-hard-border guarantee has been honoured. This is of course nonsense, and is flatly contradicted by what is said in the Joint Report, but Brexiters are highly motivated to "read down" the no-hard-border guarantee to minimal levels so they can pretend it has been honoured when, in reality, the border has signficantly hardened, as must be the case if there is a hard brexit or a no-deal brexit, and the backstop is not operated.

Dytalus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not at all important that checks be done away from the border.

"No hard border" requires no border infrastructure, and no related checks and controls. Checks that relate to the border harden the border, regardless of where, physically, they are actually implemented. So if there have to be checks, that's a problem.

Sitll, if there have to be checks, they do have to be implemented somewhere, and once we get to the point of having to have checks a decision has to be made about where. And factors that go into that decision will include: Where will checks be least intrusive? Where will checks be most effective? Where will checks be cheap or convenient to operate? Etc. But the answer to the question of where they will be operated doesn't really change the fundamental truth that they harden the border, and so represent a failure to deliver on the no-hard-border guarantee.

However there's a strain of Brexiter thinking that, for many months now, has tried to argue that the no-hard-border guarantee only means that there will be no infrastructure at the border and no related checks and controls at the border, and if nothing happens actually at the border then the no-hard-border guarantee has been honoured. This is of course nonsense, and is flatly contradicted by what is said in the Joint Report, but Brexiters are highly motivated to "read down" the no-hard-border guarantee to minimal levels so they can pretend it has been honoured when, in reality, the border has signficantly hardened, as must be the case if there is a hard brexit or a no-deal brexit, and the backstop is not operated.

There is, I suppose, an argument to be made that the main fear on the British side is more civil war in Northern Ireland. The difficulties of farmers and small businesses (who will be hit hard by the checks, either at the border or not) probably don't come up all that often in talks between Tory colleagues.

I could easily imagine that they see no infrastructure at the border as being enough to uphold the GFA and stop those nutty Irish from getting agitated again. And if that can be prevented, well who cares about the rest of it? (A great many people, but again...Johnson probably doesn't know of or care for their plight). It's the bare minimum they can do that allows them to pat themselves on the back and say "well done, old chap" while ignoring the decay of Northern Ireland's welfare.

johnnyskeleton

Dytalus wrote: »

There is, I suppose, an argument to be made that the main fear on the British side is more civil war in Northern Ireland. The difficulties of farmers and small businesses (who will be hit hard by the checks, either at the border or not) probably don't come up all that often in talks between Tory colleagues.

If they did fear it, or st least think it, that wouldnt be so bad. Typically they seem to either dismiss it as not a real possibility or jingoistically proclaim that they will reinstall the British Army if there is any violence. Not sure Ive evee heard a Tory pay anything more than lipservice to the peace project.

If they did, they woild indeed say that Northern Ireland is a special case, where both Irish and British governments have a significant stake in its governance, and where little things like red postboxes, national flags take on a new significance and free travel for people goods and services is absolutely essential to peace.

In a sense, the physical infrastructure is item one on a list of maybe ten things that need to be resolved, and the talks seem to have gotten hung up on it. Just as important is that a plumber in Newry doesnt think twice about going to Dundalk for an emergency callout etc. The border in peoples minds is fsr worse than the physical checks IMO.

J Mysterio

Stumbled upon a good blog I thought I would share. By Chris Grey 'Professor of Organization Studies' at Royal Holloway and previously prof at Warwick and Cambridge:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-darroch-leak-and-what-it-betokens.html?m=1

Zubeneschamali

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The thing is the more this drags on the more extreme and insistent brexiters are likely to become.

They will want a hard no deal brexit.

While that would be a hard blow for us and especially for the UK (for as long as there still is a UK), it might be the only thing which will lance the boil and show the UK public what a complete tissue of lies the whole Brexit project is.

Russman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

While that would be a hard blow for us and especially for the UK (for as long as there still is a UK), it might be the only thing which will lance the boil and show the UK public what a complete tissue of lies the whole Brexit project is.

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

trellheim

The Dail is now out of session till September. In two weeks time so will the UK Parliament - also till 3 September

When Tusk said "don't waste the extension" The UK seems to have doubled down, went into the bathroom and snorted lines of coke.

Andrew Neil and Portillo on last nights penultimate Week in Politics - next weeks' one should be a dinger - unfortunately seemed to move towards supporting Boris which means I can't understand them now at all .

with Robbins gone and the civ service absolutely fked off with Johnson who will they get that has any credibility at all to go into the negotiating room ?

Stop moaning ffs

How many times does it have to be said and by how many?

Negotiations are closed.

The backstop is going nowhere.

Ireland didn’t get the EU to back it up on the border issue only to ‘cave’ to the Brits simply beciase they haven’t a bulls notion what they’re doing. Then or now.

Or to be ‘nice to them’ because we might need them or it’ll be hard on us too.



Can anyone posting that tripe please do some reading up on it?
Backstop is going nowhere.

Call me Al

Russman wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

Viewed objectively you say. But they aren't objective.
Acknowledging the absolute mess in store requires the acceptance of the fact they were and are wrong as to the consequences.
They look with rose tinted glasses to a glorious past, and can't (or choose not to) remember the basket case they were in the 70s when they asked to be admitted.
They aren't comfortable being 1/28th but see themselves as an equal to a whole 27/27.

Objectivity doesn't feature in their analysis.

IAmTheReign

trellheim wrote: »

with Robbins gone and the civ service absolutely fked off with Johnson who will they get that has any credibility at all to go into the negotiating room ?

But the thing is, and what everyone in the UK seems to forget, is that there is no negotiating room anymore. Negotiations on the WA are finished. Under the terms of the last extension the UK agreed that there would be no further negotiation. It doesn't matter who the Torys send over, they'll be politely told they can either sign the WA or not, but signing the WA is a prerequisite for any further negotiations.

Leroy42

Russman wrote: »

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

You simply have to look at the changing argument to see what is going on. There is no longer any argument about the benefits of Brexit, not even Farage is talking that rubbish, the only arguments they make now is that of the "will of the people" and the "sake of democracy".

It also takes account of the desire to not admit to being wrong, and not only wrong, but duped into that position. Rather than accept that they were wrong, people will continue to come up with ever wilder reasons for why they are right.

Hence the recent acceptance that Widdecome had a point in terms of oppression and slavery to the EU, when in fact any discussion will quickly show that none of that is even remotely true. But again, and people like Fintan O'Toole has been saying this since the start, that the EU needs to be painted as this terrible conquerer and oppressor in order for people to accept the significant consequences of leaving the club.

As you mentioned the media has a significant part of blame in all of this. Even apart from the papers like the Express, the BBC has been absolutely terrible in covering the reality. Take Brexitcast for example. No discussion of reality, its all a joke, a bit of a laugh and sure who knows that is going to happen, Johnson might get a deal. Despite all the evidence pointed to the probablility that he won't and the price that such a gamble may have.

It thought it was funny that recently the BBC come under attack for stating that pensioners would lose free TV licence yet the BBC, and others are saying almost nothing in the acceptance of both tory candidates that '0000's of people are going to lose their jobs.

Everyone in the UK thinks that they will be alright, that it will effect the foreigners, the young, the lazy, the uneducated, the educated. Basically everyone but themselves. You can see this is people saying that they don't export to the EU or don't go on holidays to France so no skin off their nose. Seemingly completely unaware that everything around them is based on freedom of movement.

trellheim

IAmTheReign wrote: »

But the thing is, and what everyone in the UK seems to forget, is that there is no negotiating room anymore. Negotiations on the WA are finished. Under the terms of the last extension the UK agreed that there would be no further negotiation. It doesn't matter who the Torys send over, they'll be politely told they can either sign the WA or not, but signing the WA is a prerequisite for any further negotiations.

That is not entirely true - for example the Political Declaration draft is still up for discussion.

In addition if new UK PM said "they were the old red lines. My new negotiating team starts Monday with FOM and CU/SM red lines removed. I've got enough firepower to get another 3 month extension internally through - I'm asking you for the same, what do you say? " then a different story would emerge.

Highly unlikely though.

Leroy42

issue with that is that Johnson has stated, many times, that 31 October is do or die. So even if they move their red lines, which they have given no indication they would and would appear to actually be hardening, they will not have enough time to renogiate.

In addition, the EU would be quite right, IMO, to say that since the red lines have moved, and the WA specifically allows for an transition period, then simply sign the WA and we can discuss the new situation after that. Or alternatively, revoke A50 as clearly the UK position has significantly changed.

At no point does the EU need to change anything.

trellheim

removing certain red lines removes the need for a backstop .... that is one way out of the mess.

Leroy42

But why would the EU believe the UK? Would the changes be included in the WA and what changes could be that would give the assurances of the backstop?

The UK have painted themselves into a corner, what advantage to the EU would be changing the WA to remove the backstop?

trellheim

But why would the EU believe the UK

Because everything HMG has said so far officially - agreeing the WA and so forth, it has done more or less openly and in more or less good faith. Ratification by the House is what the stumbling block is.

Stop moaning ffs

They’re playing for no deal cos both Johnson and hunt know the WA won’t get through Parliament. That’s whats going on so any talk of more negotiations and dropping the backstop is fantasy talk. If they were willing to drop some of the red lines it would reopen but then you have a huge cohort screaming it’s brexit in name only. So it’s a non starter.
They’re going to claim no deal as a victory if it happens. They’ve a general election to get through first though

IAmTheReign

trellheim wrote: »

That is not entirely true - for example the Political Declaration draft is still up for discussion.

In addition if new UK PM said "they were the old red lines. My new negotiating team starts Monday with FOM and CU/SM red lines removed. I've got enough firepower to get another 3 month extension internally through - I'm asking you for the same, what do you say? " then a different story would emerge.

Highly unlikely though.

They would say sign the WA and then we can discuss future trade arrangements. The UK dropping their red lines doesn't change the fact that the EU still need assurances from the UK regarding citizens rights, outstanding payments and the need for the backstop.

trellheim wrote:

removing certain red lines removes the need for a backstop .... that is one way out of the mess.

Removing certain red lines does not remove the need for the backstop. It removes the need to implement the backstop. The UK agreeing to CU and SM membership now doesn't stop them from changing their mind in the future so the backstop will always be needed even if it's never implemented. Even the UK agreeing to a border in the sea wouldn't require reopening the WA, it would simply come under the provision for 'alternative arrangements' to the backstop.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Because everything HMG has said so far officially - agreeing the WA and so forth, it has done more or less openly and in more or less good faith. Ratification by the House is what the stumbling block is.

True, but TM is gone and being replaced with a either a person that thinks EU is like the Soviet Union or another person that thinks the EU has been terrible for the UK.

And both of them are absolutely sure that the WA is dead and No deal is a very real option. They have not signalled any want to change any red lines. Why would the EU think they can get an updated WA based on new assurances from the new PM through a HoC and their own party they just spent the last 6 weeks lying to?

sandbelter

Russman wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.


We are now seeing the emergence of the external enemy narrative now....the EU/Ireland has played such a blinder that I don't think either fits the villain narrative (that may prove to be Theresa May's enduring legacy) but an Trump military adventure in the South China Sea or Iran will see the UK actively participate as much the reaffirm the Union and make the SNP/Irish nationalists appear treasonous ..... This is what happens when elites decide to commit suicide.

Bit cynical

reslfj wrote: »

Without a the backstop or - if it can be found - another equally good solution the UK can not leave the EU at all without breaking the international GFA treaty, which has the US and EU as very 'non forgiving sponsors' (ref. e.g. Nancy Pelosi).

In short, in the end it's the EU that decides (all 27 members).

Which party to the GFA is going to say that the GFA is broken in the event of Brexit?

Bit cynical

sandbelter wrote: »

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.

Although obviously we in Ireland would like some sort of deal, there are some advantages of no deal from the UK point of view. For example, the divorce payment of 100 billion (or whatever the figure was) no longer exists. The UK and the EU, if they choose to talk, get to start again with a clean sheet without the complexity of pre-existing agreements.

Professor Moriarty

sandbelter wrote: »

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.


We are now seeing the emergence of the external enemy narrative now....the EU/Ireland has played such a blinder that I don't think either fits the villain narrative (that may prove to be Theresa May's enduring legacy) but an Trump military adventure in the South China Sea or Iran will see the UK actively participate as much the reaffirm the Union and make the SNP/Irish nationalists appear treasonous ..... This is what happens when elites decide to commit suicide.

The elites won't suffer and some (not looking at you, Jacob) will profit. They're throwing the proles under the bus so England can stay white and English. Couldn't be having any more foreigners about the place.

Crashing out will be an eye-opener for all concerned. However, the cost of making the UK "see sense" via a hard Brexit will be 80,000 Irish jobs and a 100 billion hit to the economy over 10 years. Plus an unstable NI.