Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Would Parliament vote for an NI only Ackbay Opstay? I'd have to say unlikely. Passing Mays deal is a bad deal for the UK (in Labours eyes) but it would be a disaster for Corbyn, since Johnson would go into the election as The Man Who Delivered Brexit. The Brexit Party would shout about BRINOs and treachery, but no-one much will care. The Tories would get their Hard Brexit and a thumping majority too.


Better for Corbyn to reject whatever deal Johnson brings, force an extension and then fight the election with Johnson as The Man Who Failed To Deliver Brexit, the Brexit Party fighting the Tories from the Right, the LibDems from the centre.

Labour would most likely be presented with a deal worse than May's deal, which they rejected. No permanent Customs Union, no protection of workers rights or keeping the same standards as the EU, so I cannot see how they possibly could back her deal with some stuff taken out.

Tell me how wrote: »

I suspect if they weren't recording it for television, it wouldn't have been on today, there wasn't a huge amount new to discuss since their last one.

You mean unless you remove her from the news there wasn't a lot to discuss. Only the Supreme Court and Johnson openly lying once again, which may play a role in a election that will determine what happens with Brexit. Other than that, nothing much in the eyes of the journalists I suppose.

Valhallapt

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

beggars_bush

Valhallapt wrote: »

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

It's the huge uncertainty that is causing the issues and the UK continually changing their position

Even the DUP have changed their tune recently when they saw how the wind was blowing

10000maniacs

Every time a Tory politician appears in the media, an inevitable torrent of untruths ensue.
Kwasi Kwarteng on Radio 4 this morning saying two years ago the EU would never discuss alternatives to the backstop and two years later they are now willing to do so.
The only thing is I don't remember any occasion where the EU refused to discuss alternatives to the backstop.

lawred2

Valhallapt wrote: »

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

No FTA can succeed the backstop without adequate consideration for NI. Whatever is agreed during the Withdrawal period must deliver over and above what is the default worse case maintained by the backstop. Can't see how that 'pauses' negotiations until after a FTA. A FTA might not come remotely close to maintaining what is intended to be preserved by the backstop.

The current UK government giving adequate consideration for NI seems a long shot.

First Up

fash wrote: »

I think the EU's position is in part being driven by an interest of:
1.not being seen to have caused a no deal Brexiter through intransigence;
2. being seen to being open to alternative arrangements; and
3. at least pretending that it believes such alternative arrangements exist just around the next corner.

Completely wrong. The EU is not remotely interested in how anything is "seen". The EU is a rules based organisation and all of its relations - internal and external - are enshrined in law. The EU is being entirely consistent in demanding that anything agreed between the EU and UK be clear, unambiguous and legally robust.

Waffle, either for public or domestic political consumption is tolerated as part of the political game but when ink goes on paper, the messing stops. The UK is learning this the hard way.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

The thing is, however, that the insurance policy will pay out. It is not a case of "in the unlikely event that nothing else is agreed" the CU will come in to effect. If the UK enters into a transition period on the basis of the WA, the result is that NI will end up being in a customs union. It is really only a pretence that some alternative can be agreed. I think we can all agree that nothing beats a customs union from our point of view here in Ireland and therefore we will not agree to anything less.

Better therefore from the UK's point of view (continuing the insurance policy analogy) to "pay out" now. Then the issue is out of the way politically. If the DUP have to be thrown under a bus eventually, better to throw them under the bus now and put this to the UK parliament. If rejected then no deal and the UK negotiates free of any obligation. If accepted, then the DUP are already thrown under the bus and Johnson is still in a better position.

I don't think there would be a problem from the EU's point of view given it is merely, as pointed out, the insurance policy paying up.

The worst thing from the UK's perspective would be to enter in to the transition period under the WA as is, pretending to find a solution that would nullify the backstop where one does not exist.

I should add that I don't expect Johnson to go this far with his proposal. The point is that even if he did, he would be in a better position afterwards given his intention to leave on the 31st of next month.

The real issue is that the UK don't want to pay out now. They don't want to face the consequences of the Brexit decision which forces them to choose GFA or Brexit.

What they want it that the EU simply ignore NI and the border and essentially pretend that NI is still a part of the EU whilst telling everyone in NI (well the DUP at least) that they are not part of the EU anymore.

Back in June 16 the UK could have let within a day if they could work out which option they wanted. TM decided in Dec 17 to keep in the GFA and Brexit and the way to do that was to remove NI from the UK in terms of trade and regulations. DUP had a fit and they rowed back. Since then nobody in the UK has been able to deal with the conundrum, and at this point they are reduced to telling the EU to simply trust them.

Shelga

Simon Coveney was on BBC radio this morning, he sounded more fed up than I've ever heard him before. He must be so tired of saying the same logical stuff over and over again, to people who couldn't care less about their closest neighbours that they oppressed for centuries. I'm sure he didn't enter politics to spend years of his life dealing with the Brexit fiasco. Anyway, I thought he came across extremely well, as always.

ilovesmybrick

Shelga wrote: »

Simon Coveney was on BBC radio this morning, he sounded more fed up than I've ever heard him before. He must be so tired of saying the same logical stuff over and over again, to people who couldn't care less about their closest neighbours that they oppressed for centuries. I'm sure he didn't enter politics to spend years of his life dealing with the Brexit fiasco. Anyway, I thought he came across extremely well, as always.

In fairness it's amazing how he's managed to remain cool and collected over the years, especially in interviews with the UK media.

For anyone who's interested it starts at 2:10 here

Enzokk

Just a reminder that even if Johnson gets a deal through somehow and the EU compromises on the backstop, the tough part it still to start. And once the FTA is agreed it has to pass through all of the EU member parliaments and more before it can be ratified.

https://twitter.com/CharlieBEU/status/1174704726975422464?s=20

This is also ignoring that even if Johnson gets his new magical deal that solves the Irish border and allows them to have their own trade deal with the US, he doesn't have time to get the deal agreed, the legislation passed through both houses in parliament before the 31st October, which we should remember that he will not ask for a extension for any reason.

If the Supreme Court rules for the government we have to start preparations for no-deal. There will be nothing stopping Johnson from proroguing parliament again on the 19th October for no reason as the courts will not get involved and parliament will not be sitting and he will not open it so they cannot do anything to stop it. The stakes are extremely high it seems to me.

Winters

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

In fairness it's amazing how he's managed to remain cool and collected over the years, especially in interviews with the UK media.

For anyone who's interested it starts at 2:10 here

That was a very frustrating interview for him.

FrancieBrady

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

In fairness it's amazing how he's managed to remain cool and collected over the years, especially in interviews with the UK media.

For anyone who's interested it starts at 2:10 here

That really was his best performance yet. Reasonable, calm, concise and clear. The interviewer really didn't know where to go.

newport2

First Up wrote: »

Completely wrong. The EU is not remotely interested in how anything is "seen". The EU is a rules based organisation and all of its relations - internal and external - are enshrined in law. The EU is being entirely consistent in demanding that anything agreed between the EU and UK be clear, unambiguous and legally robust.

Waffle, either for public or domestic political consumption is tolerated as part of the political game but when ink goes on paper, the messing stops. The UK is learning this the hard way.

I agree with the fact that the EU is rules based, enshrined in law, etc and in your description of their consistent approach and that anything agreed will be rock solid.

But I think it's critical to the EU how they are perceived. To appear to be intransigent or unreasonable just provides fodder to anti-EU nationalists in all EU nations.
Also, the fact the EU consists of elected representatives from all 27 nations matters to how they are "seen". If/when the economic consequences from a no-deal brexit hit their nations, of course they will want it to appear that the EU was open to solutions until the last moment and the responsibility for a crash-out lies with the UK. They are politicians at the end of the day.

Leroy42

newport2 wrote: »

I agree with the fact that the EU is rules based, enshrined in law, etc and in your description of their consistent approach and that anything agreed will be rock solid.

But I think it's critical to the EU how they are perceived. To appear to be intransigent or unreasonable just provides fodder to anti-EU nationalists in all EU nations.
Also, the fact the EU consists of elected representatives from all 27 nations matters to how they are "seen". If/when the economic consequences from a no-deal brexit hit their nations, of course they will want it to appear that the EU was open to solutions until the last moment and the responsibility for a crash-out lies with the UK. They are politicians at the end of the day.

Anyone paying any attention can see that the EU have been as accommodating as possible. If Anti-EU types want to try to paint that line then they are faced with clear evidence to the contrary. 2 years, 2 extensions, changes in Dec 2017, changes to the original WA, continuing discussion despite the UK not giving any details (non-papers and they will detail proposals "when we are ready").

lawred2

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

In fairness it's amazing how he's managed to remain cool and collected over the years, especially in interviews with the UK media.

For anyone who's interested it starts at 2:10 here

that interviewer was quite rude and shouty - interrupting quite a lot - with a very arrogant tone. You could even hear him huffing at some points while Simon was laying reality out bare before him.

Funny how I very rarely hear similar directed towards spoofing Brexiteers.

Simon did well to not simply hang up.

Zubeneschamali

10000maniacs wrote: »

Kwasi Kwarteng on Radio 4 this morning saying two years ago the EU would never discuss alternatives to the backstop and two years later they are now willing to do so.

I am absolutely fine with them lying their heads off and taking credit for everything if they can get the backstop (by whatever name) through parliament.

But I don't believe they can, because while it is OKish for us, the WA is a really bad deal for the UK. The LibDems will vote against, the ERG types hate it, and Corbyn has Johnson on the ropes and won't want to ring that Brexit bell and let him off the hook.

newport2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Anyone paying any attention can see that the EU have been as accommodating as possible. If Anti-EU types want to try to paint that line then they are faced with clear evidence to the contrary. 2 years, 2 extensions, changes in Dec 2017, changes to the original WA, continuing discussion despite the UK not giving any details (non-papers and they will detail proposals "when we are ready").

Fully agree and I think a lot of that comes down to the EU behaving in a way that they want to be perceived, ie professional, reasonable, etc

FWIW, the anti-EU types will see what they want to see anyway. It's how moderate people see it that matters.

robindch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"? Does anyone know?

The usage appears to depend on the relative economic powers of the two countries concerned.

You go from a poor country to a rich country, you're an "immigrant" or "economic migrant".

You go from a rich country to a poor country, you're an "expat".

First Up

newport2 wrote:

But I think it's critical to the EU how they are perceived. To appear to be intransigent or unreasonable just provides fodder to anti-EU nationalists in all EU nations. Also, the fact the EU consists of elected representatives from all 27 nations matters to how they are "seen". If/when the economic consequences from a no-deal brexit hit their nations, of course they will want it to appear that the EU was open to solutions until the last moment and the responsibility for a crash-out lies with the UK. They are politicians at the end of the day.

It is critical to the EU that it is seen to consistently apply the rules under which countries joined. That's the deal. If anyone doesn't like it they are free to leave - just like the UK.

lawred2

robindch wrote: »

The usage appears to depend on the relative economic powers of the two countries concerned.

You go from a poor country to a rich country, you're an "immigrant" or "economic migrant".

You go from a rich country to a poor country, you're an "expat".

With British people - they don't need to go to a poor country to be an expat.

Winters

Leroy42 wrote: »

Anyone paying any attention can see that the EU have been as accommodating as possible. If Anti-EU types want to try to paint that line then they are faced with clear evidence to the contrary. 2 years, 2 extensions, changes in Dec 2017, changes to the original WA, continuing discussion despite the UK not giving any details (non-papers and they will detail proposals "when we are ready").

it quite depends in which media bubble you live. if you only read the tweets of Stephen Barkley and Mike Pence recently you'd be of the opinion that the EU have been acting unreasonably.

newport2

First Up wrote: »

It is critical to the EU that it is seen to consistently apply the rules under which countries joined. That's the deal. If anyone doesn't like it they are free to leave - just like the UK.

Yes, but that does not mean they do not care how they are seen.

ltd440

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Shelga wrote: »

Simon Coveney was on BBC radio this morning, he sounded more fed up than I've ever heard him before. He must be so tired of saying the same logical stuff over and over again, to people who couldn't care less about their closest neighbours that they oppressed for centuries. I'm sure he didn't enter politics to spend years of his life dealing with the Brexit fiasco. Anyway, I thought he came across extremely well, as always.

In fairness it's amazing how he's managed to remain cool and collected over the years, especially in interviews with the UK media.

For anyone who's interested it starts at 2:10 here

Coveney is clear, calm and concise as usual. even after the interviewer asks him has Barclays speech made us realise that brexit can a negative effect on ireland!!!!!

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am absolutely fine with them lying their heads off and taking credit for everything if they can get the backstop (by whatever name) through parliament.

But I don't believe they can, because while it is OKish for us, the WA is a really bad deal for the UK. The LibDems will vote against, the ERG types hate it, and Corbyn has Johnson on the ropes and won't want to ring that Brexit bell and let him off the hook.

Its only really bad in terms of what they are losing. And it has the constraints mainly because of NI. Without NI GB would already have left and be in the midst of a FTA negotiation.

In the end, the situation the UK finds itself is entirely down to itself. It has led a call for beating the EU, people like Farage and many tories openly call out the failure of the EU, and the UK government have set out to compete directly and openly against the EU as the way to unlock the potential benefits of Brexit.

Is it any surprise, therefore, that the EU has sought to protect itself from this obvious and clear threat? You, me, and everyone in the remaining EU are going to end up paying the price for any benefits given to the UK by the EU. Why should I have to pay for the decision of the UK?

First Up

newport2 wrote:

Yes, but that does not mean they do not care how they are seen.

As I said, they want to be seen as applying the rules. and can be trusted to do so.

Leroy42

ltd440 wrote: »

Coveney is clear, calm and concise as usual. even after the interviewer asks him has Barclays speech made us realise that brexit can a negative effect on ireland!!!!!

That was a great response. The interviewer seemed to be of the view that its lucky the UK finally told everyone what the reality was as poor Ireland didn't seem to understand.

Coveney response was perfect. Welcome to the table!

ltd440

That was a great response. The interviewer seemed to be of the view that its lucky the UK finally told everyone what the reality was as poor Ireland didn't seem to understand.

Coveney response was perfect. Welcome to the table![/quote]
Yes, great response, after 3 years it must be difficult to not answer certain questions with 'FFS are you seriously asking that'

fash

First Up wrote: »

POINT 1: Completely wrong. The EU is not remotely interested in how anything is "seen".


POINT 2: The EU is a rules based organisation and all of its relations - internal and external - are enshrined in law. The EU is being entirely consistent in demanding that anything agreed between the EU and UK be clear, unambiguous and legally robust.

Waffle, either for public or domestic political consumption is tolerated as part of the political game but when ink goes on paper, the messing stops. The UK is learning this the hard way.

I disagree with your first point and your second point is aligned with what I am saying. Reducing the scope for Brexiters to argue that it is the evil intransigent EU causing all the pain reduces the medium term effectiveness of the Brexiters. They want as strong a break with the EU as possible and want to be able to blame the EU for that as much as possible as cover for remaking the UK in their own image.

First Up

fash wrote:

I disagree with your first point and your second point is aligned with what I am saying. Reducing the scope for Brexiters to argue that it is the evil intransigent EU causing all the pain reduces the medium term effectiveness of the Brexiters. They want as strong a break with the EU as possible and want to be able to blame the EU for that as much as possible as cover for remaking the UK in their own image.

That is just local UK politics. Nobody outside the UK gives a sh*t about that stuff.

The EU is getting on with things. The UK is history; bye bye.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its only really bad in terms of what they are losing.

Exactly, which is why Labour don't like it, they would prefer to ditch May's red lines and negotiate a Norway type deal.

3 Labour MPs supported Mays deal at the first and second votes, 5 at the third. Given that voting against this time has the added attraction of beating Johnson yet again before the upcoming election, I think he would be lucky to get 5.