Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Trade deals take years to negotiate while the WA gives one

No it does NOT.

The WA is an entirely separate agreement.

What is so hard to understand about that?

It does not matter one iota if the trade talks fail for GB after that agreement is ratified.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I would argue if a bomb goes off in Limerick or Dublin (as loyalist thugs recently threatened) what do you think that would do for economic stability here?

Security correspondents say these groups are mobilising and we can't have any more delay. You will have noticed the uptick in public meetings and opposition to the border arrangements.

Delay will only unsettle things more.

We need to get the WA done and move on. That must be our immediate priority, ensuring stability in the north.

Utterly disgraceful. Now you're employing the Troubles for this. We should try to appease extremists? When has that ever worked out?

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No it does NOT.

The WA is an entirely separate agreement.

What is so hard to understand about that?

It does not matter one iota if the trade talks fail for GB after that agreement is ratified.

Yes, it does. Caps do not change that.

What happens while we're negotiating and the timer runs out? Do we get another extension before that?

It matters to people in Ireland whose jobs depend on trade with the UK and to people in the UK who face losing their jobs because a government which embodies ineptitude and venality proves unable to manage a frightening compelx task when pitted against some of the world's best negotiators.

GM228

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No it does NOT.

The WA is an entirely separate agreement.

What is so hard to understand about that?

It does not matter one iota if the trade talks fail for GB after that agreement is ratified.

I think you miss the point that it isn't just about trade, it's an 11 month transition period, there are other issues to discuss and talk other than trade, if they fail then the transition period also fails meaning back to no deal.

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I would argue if a bomb goes off in Limerick or Dublin (as loyalist thugs recently threatened) what do you think that would do for economic stability here?

Security correspondents say these groups are mobilising and we can't have any more delay. You will have noticed the uptick in public meetings and opposition to the border arrangements.

Delay will only unsettle things more.

We need to get the WA done and move on. That must be our immediate priority, ensuring stability in the north.

So your suggestion to alleviate all the Brexit nonsense from an Irish perspective is to trust the Tories and accept the threat of loyalist violence?

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Utterly disgraceful. Now you're employing the Troubles for this. We should try to appease extremists? When has that ever worked out?

I am not "employing" the troubles. I am stating what could happen. That is "toys out of pram" argument you try to make.

I know this does not suit the pro EU remain agenda but it is simple fact that as things stand it is overwhelmingly in our interests that the withdrawal agreement is passed without delay.

That is why the Irish Government wants it passed.

Kermit.de.frog

GM228 wrote: »

I think you miss the point that it isn't just about trade, it's an 11 month transition period, there are other issues to discuss and talk other than trade, if they fail then the transition period also fails meaning back to no deal.

Again you guys don't understand the process.

The WA allows for a transition period. It does not matter whether anything breaks down in that period. The WA still applies.

This is really not complicated.

What do you all think the backstop was for for goodness sake and why it formed part of the WA?

Because it applies in ALL circumstances. It gives certainty.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I am not "employing" the troubles. I am stating what could happen. That is "toys out of pram" argument you try to make.

I know this does not suit the pro EU remain agenda but it is simple fact that as things stand it is overwhelmingly in our interests that the withdrawal agreement is passed without delay.

That is why the Irish Government wants it passed.

Appealing fanatics is no way to run a country. That's a lesson we should have learned in 2016. By the way, Unionists hate the WA.

Overwhelminigly in our interests? Can you substantiate this please?

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Appealing fanatics is no way to run a country. That's a lesson we should have learned in 2016. By the way, Unionists hate the WA.

Overwhelminigly in our interests? Can you substantiate this please?

The UK is going to leave one way or another.

You need to face this reality and accept it. There will be consequences for us no matter what.

But we will be better off not having to man a border on top of everything else.

That is why it is in our interest.

Anything less than a tory win will only strengthen unionist arguments and cause instability if they think they have a genuine prospect of overturning the arrangements.

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The UK is going to leave one way or another.

You need to face this reality and accept it. There will be consequences for us no matter what.

But we will be better off not having to man a border on top of everything else.

That is why it is in our interest.

Anything less than a tory win will only strengthen unionist arguments and cause instability if they think they have a genuine prospect of overturning the arrangements.

No matter what? Really? That's a very definite statement which is at odds with reality really.

There is only one party (now that the BP have walked away) contesting this election on a leave basis!

Pretty much everyone else is offering a path to remain.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The UK is going to leave one way or another.

You need to face this reality and accept it. There will be consequences for us no matter what.

But we will be better off not having to man a border on top of everything else.

That is why it is in our interest.

Anything less than a tory win will only strengthen unionist arguments and cause instability if they think they have a genuine prospect of overturning the arrangements.

Overwhelmingly in our interests but all the WA does for Ireland is give a poorer version of the status quo. This is your argument and it's a poor one.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No interest in Britain breaking the agreement - why would they?

Because it weakens the Union by erecting trade barriers between NI and Britain and they are members of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I would argue if a bomb goes off in Limerick or Dublin (as loyalist thugs recently threatened) what do you think that would do for economic stability here?

Security correspondents say these groups are mobilising and we can't have any more delay. You will have noticed the uptick in public meetings and opposition to the border arrangements.

Delay will only unsettle things more.

We need to get the WA done and move on. That must be our immediate priority, ensuring stability in the north.

I don't think repuitable ratings agencies take the unsubstantiated threats of violence from criminal organisations into account in their forecasts, and neither should we. Loyalist thugs oppose the arangements as set out in the WA, ratifying those arangements is not likely to placate them or lessen their desire to plant bombs.

black forest

Still trying to convince a believer of the new found “Order against all honesty and logical arguments in politics”? May be my standard respons will help you. It’s a bit like a child’s game of trivial pursuit and has long or short answers with facts and sources.

https://peoplesvoteswy.org/brexit-myths


In other news the EPP (European People’s Party) as the biggest block of EU parliament parties voted yesterday and today at Zagreb for a new presidency and ten vice presidents. It will be no big surprise that the only candidate for presidency Donald Tusk was elected. What went mostly unnoticed is that Helen Mcentee was nominated as one of the ten vice presidents from a pool of twelve candidates a few days ago.

https://fgicork.org/minister-mcentee-appointed-as-co-chair-of-european-peoples-party-europe-ministers-group/


She will replace Dara Murphy in this position.

https://twitter.com/epp/status/1197504502238199808?s=21

https://twitter.com/finegael/status/1197516245870039040?s=21

Add to that “Big Phil” Hogan as the coming Comissioner of Trade, the political head of all trade negations of the EU not least with the UK. There he will be supported by Sabine Weyand as Director of Trade and probably not the most liked high ranking EU official if it comes to their UK counterparts.

Mairead McGuinness as 1st Vice President of the EU parliament is quite well known and got already aproved for another term by her EU colleagues. So looking at these three positions alone shows what even a small country can achieve. Of course there are more irish MEP‘s as well. Whereas the UK is just leaving a political black hole...and a few helpless lunatics with their free EU sponsored ipads.

They can keep them when they are promising not to come back.;)

GM228

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Again you guys don't understand the process.

The WA allows for a transition period. It does not matter whether anything breaks down in that period. The WA still applies.

This is really not complicated.

What do you all think the backstop was for for goodness sake and why it formed part of the WA?

Because it applies in ALL circumstances. It gives certainty.

Yes but the Northern Ireland protocol is required to be changed to a some other agreement before the end of 2020, the NIP only kicks after that time and for a limited time, it does not last forever and would default back to no deal.

The NIP can not continue indefinitely.

Imreoir2

GM228 wrote: »

Yes but the Northern Ireland protocol is required to be changed to a some other agreement before the end of 2020, the NIP only kicks after that time and for a limited time, it does not last forever and would default back to no deal.

The NIP can not continue indefinitely.

As I understand it, this is no longer the case. The backstop could not last forever but the new frontstop can.

Zubeneschamali

GM228 wrote: »

Yes but the Northern Ireland protocol is required to be changed to a some other agreement before the end of 2020, the NIP only kicks after that time and for a limited time, it does not last forever and would default back to no deal.

The NIP can not continue indefinitely.

The NI protocol in Johnson's deal starts immediately the transition period ends and lasts until a majority in Stormont votes it down, meaning in practice that it lasts forever.

Or until Westminster decides to tear it up.

ancapailldorcha

On the subject of a trade deal, here's a thread from Katya Adler:

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1197484860547444736

It's an excellent thread which does much to dispel the cosmetically logical argument that a trade deal between the EU and the UK could be done quicker and easier than normal.

It's in the threadreader app here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1197484860547444736.html

GM228

Imreoir2 wrote: »

As I understand it, this is no longer the case. The backstop could not last forever but the new frontstop can.

Sorry you are correct.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The NI protocol in Johnson's deal starts immediately the transition period ends and lasts until a majority in Stormont votes it down, meaning in practice that it lasts forever.

Or until Westminster decides to tear it up.

No the majority of the revised NIP kicks in after transition.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The ratings agency Moody's saying that if Johnson fails to get a majority Ireland faces a credit rating downgrade.

Backs up exactly what I have been saying - anything less than a Con majority is bad for Ireland and will reopen the border issue straight away.

Most important for us is the deal is passed swiftly in January.

Looks like, thankfully, conservatives going to win big.

The reason there is a threat of a downgrade for Ireland is because of no-deal. This is due to the recession that will follow in the UK and the pressure the closest UK partners will face.

If Johnson wins a majority he will have the votes to undo any previous amendments from parliament that rules out no-deal and the UK will leave the EU automatically on the 31st January 2020 without a deal if Johnson decides to forget about passing his deal in parliament. He will also have the votes to stop any attempts by parliament to enact a Benn bill again. So in actual fact a Tory majority doesn't rule out no-deal but makes it more possible with a threat of a border.

Now if he wins and passes his deal, the only difference for us would be that no border will appear between us and NI. But the next cliff edge will be June 2020 if there is no FTA agreed and the UK could end the transition on WTO terms, no-deal, but with the backstop in force. That is the 2nd worse option for us and most likely means a downgrade for Ireland if the UK falls into recession.

So please try to explain how a Johnson majority lessens the risk for us when it the the only option that still means the UK could leave without a deal, either a Brexit deal or a FTA?

Labour will negotiate a deal and lay down the path to a FTA and will either revoke or implement this. There is no risk of no-deal with any other party and the threat to Ireland being downgraded is no-deal, but the biggest risk for us is the best deal for us?

johnnyskeleton

Joe_ Public wrote: »

it still remains the case that a labour led government is the only reality path to remaining in the eu. The notion floating around today that the lib dems could somehow trade johnson into granting a second referendum seems fanciful to me.

quokula wrote: »

With that said Labour still have the only mature, workable policy of any major party on Brexit. They can’t pursue a damaging Brexit that would harm the country, and they can’t revoke out of hand and disenfranchise more than half the electorate. They’re doing the only responsible thing they can, even if it is potentially a harder sell.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Voting Lib Dem and in the process gifting them an extra maybe 10 - 15 seats but also confirming a whopping Conservative majority will be the last silly act of the completely hapless and defeated remain cause in the UK. If you want to stop Brexit you need a Labour government and the second referendum they will provide. That’s it. The Lib Dem’s cannot win this election which means they cannot enact their revoke policy which means a vote for them is a vote to leave on Johnson’s deal.

For sure, it highlights the major issues with using a general election to try and solve the issue but here we are. Voting for the Lib Dems as a remainer because you don’t like Corbyn is the voting equivalent of a selfish teenage tantrum. Useless and self defeating.

The idea that Labour have a responsible Brexit policy or that they are the path to remaining is not a sustainable proposition, no matter how many times Labour try to assert that it is.

Let's say that Labour get 322 seats, an effective working majority when SF seats are excluded, what then? Corbyn says that within 3 months they will have renegotiated a new leave deal. The EU have said no more negotiations which means they only have a month and a half, but even if we assume they will allow the full 3 months Corbyn claims to need, there is no way that they will come to any meaningfully different Brexit deal in the meantime.

In fact, under Labour's stated policy, they cannot get any Brexit deal because no deal can possibly be better than what they have as members. Well, to clarify, it is possible, but the EU would never, ever agree to it, as it would lead to the end of the EU as the British get all the benefits but none of the downsides of membership.

So Corbyn is deluded at best, and guilty of the same hubris that he accuses the Tories of.

But lets take it a step further. Let's say that he gets deal X, he won't get a majority of his 322 MPs to agree to put it to a vote. Because the vote must either be his deal or remain (which will not be acceptable to Labour Brexiteers who don't agree with his deal) or his deal or no deal (which the remainers will not agree to).

In short, a Labour government trying to get a new deal or have a second referendum will have the exact same problems that the Tories have had at best, or will suffer even more than the Tories because Labour tolerate their remain members more than the Tories do.

If the majority of constituencies want to remain, they HAVE to vote SNP, Lib Dem, Green etc. There is no other way to get remain.

That is assuming of course that the majority of constituencies do want to remain. The reality would seem to be that the majority of constituencies either want to leave, are falling for Labour's insanity or don't care enough about Brexit to vote for a Remain candidate.

johnnyskeleton

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Lib Dem’s have 0 chance of a majority. Their revoke stance on Brexit will not be implemented. Juvenile or not, if you’re a remainer in a constituency where Labour are the closest challenger to the Conservatives hold your nose and vote Labour. That’s it. Otherwise you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.

If you're:
a. a remainer
b. in a consistuency where Labour is the closest challenger; and
c. that particular candidate has stated clearly that they want to remain;

then yes, tactically voting for Labour in that situation is the best chance for remain. But, if the local Labour candidate is telling leavers he wants to leave, remainers that he wants to remain, and inbetweeners that he doesn't care about Brexit, then the remain voter should not vote for this candidate.

robinph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The idea that Labour have a responsible Brexit policy or that they are the path to remaining is not a sustainable proposition, no matter how many times Labour try to assert that it is.

Let's say that Labour get 322 seats, an effective working majority when SF seats are excluded, what then? Corbyn says that within 3 months they will have renegotiated a new leave deal. The EU have said no more negotiations which means they only have a month and a half, but even if we assume they will allow the full 3 months Corbyn claims to need, there is no way that they will come to any meaningfully different Brexit deal in the meantime.

In fact, under Labour's stated policy, they cannot get any Brexit deal because no deal can possibly be better than what they have as members. Well, to clarify, it is possible, but the EU would never, ever agree to it, as it would lead to the end of the EU as the British get all the benefits but none of the downsides of membership.

So Corbyn is deluded at best, and guilty of the same hubris that he accuses the Tories of.

I don't think Labour has been claiming that any variation of leaving would be better than remaining, just that they will try to get a better version of leaving than the May/ Johnson version of leaving.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But lets take it a step further. Let's say that he gets deal X, he won't get a majority of his 322 MPs to agree to put it to a vote. Because the vote must either be his deal or remain (which will not be acceptable to Labour Brexiteers who don't agree with his deal) or his deal or no deal (which the remainers will not agree to).

The MP's don't need to vote on any deal, just that they will put the option of Corbyns deal v remain to a referendum and and then carry out the option the people decide on.

If the people vote remain then Corbyn revokes Article 50 and moves along, no MP's need to approve anything for him to revoke.

Admittedly, there could be a stumbling block where the public vote for Corbyns deal but then there are not enough MP's to vote it through at that point because they would then still need to change the laws to make it happen, but is it really likely that after a 2nd referendum with an actual deal document being presented to the people, who then approve it that there would be a majority of MP's to not approve because it's not Brexity enough?

Unless there are some other shenanigans going on with that referendum I don't see why it wouldn't be carried out.

robinph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But, if the local Labour candidate is telling leavers he wants to leave, remainers that he wants to remain, and inbetweeners that he doesn't care about Brexit, then the remain voter should not vote for this candidate.

Not seeing the problem there, as long as Labour carry out the 2nd referendum on an actual choice between two real options then I couldn't care less what way the MP would vote. It might help if they are campaigning for the option that I want to win in that referendum, but that is just secondary to having the referendum.

johnnyskeleton

robinph wrote: »

I don't think Labour has been claiming that any variation of leaving would be better than remaining, just that they will try to get a better version of leaving than the May/ Johnson version of leaving.

Corbyn hasn't in so many words, but Labour party have as part of their six tests stated that any deal must have the exact same benefits as they currently have as members of the single market and customs union. Getting those benefits, while not being bound by SM and CU rules is, by definition, a better deal than remaining as part of the SM and CU. As recently as yesterday, Labour sources have said that Corbyn sticks to the Labour's six tests.

The MP's don't need to vote on any deal, just that they will put the option of Corbyns deal v remain to a referendum and and then carry out the option the people decide on.

They will need to vote to put the deal to the people, and I don't see how they will agree to this. Some will not be happy with the deal and so will vote against the second referendum, some will not be happy that no deal isn't on the table and so will vote against it. The point being that an utterly divided party will not be able to reach agreement as to what it will do, when the time comes. They aren't even fully behind the idea of a second referendum:

https://www.thejournal.ie/labour-conference-brexit-4821684-Sep2019/

Then there is the whole issue as to which way each Labour candidate will campaign in the second referendum.

If the people vote remain then Corbyn revokes Article 50 and moves along, no MP's need to approve anything for him to revoke.

Admittedly, there could be a stumbling block where the public vote for Corbyns deal but then there are not enough MP's to vote it through at that point because they would then still need to change the laws to make it happen, but is it really likely that after a 2nd referendum with an actual deal document being presented to the people, who then approve it that there would be a majority of MP's to not approve because it's not Brexity enough?

MPs would need to vote on the legislation that allows for the second referendum. That legislation will have to set out the terms of the referendum. The Labour Parliamentary Party will not agree such terms, unless they got may be 100 MP majority and so could afford 80+ dissenters.

johnnyskeleton

robinph wrote: »

Not seeing the problem there, as long as Labour carry out the 2nd referendum on an actual choice between two real options then I couldn't care less what way the MP would vote. It might help if they are campaigning for the option that I want to win in that referendum, but that is just secondary to having the referendum.

Is there any reason to believe that pro Brexit Labour politicians, if elected, would support a referendum where the only options are a soft Brexit or revoke article 50? IMO they would have a similar situation to what theyve had over the last 3 years. Everyone is united about which parties are in government and that something should be done about brexit, but whenever a real vote of substance comes along, parliament is hung.

PeadarCo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

They will need to vote to put the deal to the people, and I don't see how they will agree to this. Some will not be happy with the deal and so will vote against the second referendum, some will not be happy that no deal isn't on the table and so will vote against it. The point being that an utterly divided party will not be able to reach agreement as to what it will do, when the time comes. They aren't even fully behind the idea of a second referendum:

This is a very important point. There is no evidence that Labour is any less divided than the Tories or would have done any better. Corbyn silence and lack of opposition to the Tories tells you all you need to know about how divided Labour are. Their party leader and the party in general have been bystanders.

Labour have had the benefit of not being in charge while negotiating which has limited the splits. Arguably the biggest lesson for any UK party is that they need a clear plan which achievable goals. Labour's current policies are just a rehash of the first plan set out by the UK at the initial negotiation phase.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's an excellent thread which does much to dispel the cosmetically logical argument that a trade deal between the EU and the UK could be done quicker and easier than normal.

I think the noises from Phil Hogan and the EU side about how a fast deal is possible are completely true - unspoken is that a fast deal is possible if the UK caves to the EUs terms. As Adler says in that thread:

Infact my EU contacts say the PM already told them he can’t accept being tied to EU rules like that after #Brexit

Mind you, that's pretty much what Johnson did in October, the EU (via Varadkar) offered a different WA with a rebadged NI-only backstop and Johnson simply accepted what he was offered because he was under time pressure (which he had put on himself with his Oct 31st deadline).

So maybe he will cave again next year.

farmchoice

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the noises from Phil Hogan and the EU side about how a fast deal is possible are completely true - unspoken is that a fast deal is possible if the UK caves to the EUs terms. As Adler says in that thread:

Infact my EU contacts say the PM already told them he can’t accept being tied to EU rules like that after #Brexit

Mind you, that's pretty much what Johnson did in October, the EU (via Varadkar) offered a different WA with a rebadged NI-only backstop and Johnson simply accepted what he was offered because he was under time pressure (which he had put on himself with his Oct 31st deadline).

So maybe he will cave again next year.

Johnson needs a big majority for the same reason May needed it.. so he can Fcuk over the right wing of his own party. most of the tories have serious brexit fatigue and will accept anything that Johnson can deliver.. most but not all, the headers in the ERG will want what they want and Boris needs to be able to get the vote through even when its BRINO on steroids. and it will have to be because anything else will result in economic Armageddon and Johnson knows that quite well and he will not want to be the PM who presides over it.
we know this is true by the manner in which he completely and totally capitulated to the Eu in october.

ancapailldorcha

Does anyone have any thoughts on what a Labour deal might mean? I can easily see the EU coming back to the table if they think they can secure a People's Vote or at the very least, regulatory alignment on things like workers' rights, standards, environmental protections, etc and it does seem like Labour would be open to that as a whole.

Then there is the point that Johnnyskeleton raises. If Labour wins only a slight majority, they need to get as many things through Parliament as the Tories do now and we see where that leads though there are of course other parties who may entertain suggestions of supply and confidence deals. It's something that hasn't really been commented on, surprisingly in hindsight.