Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593754#Comment_121593754

They have completely failed to do any that were of any real benefit; and the one they want isn't happening - ever (US).

Those that they have agreed on are either damaging (Australia), worthless (NZ) or pointless faff to get the right wing tabloids salivating (Florida, who can't actually make trade deals).

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593627#Comment_121593627

How's that been working out for them so far?

breezy1985

Oh FFS are there actually people out there that still believe that "take back control" bollix.

If Labour do a new deal with the EU that is the Labour government doing a trade deal of its own free will.

If the benefits of an EU deal outweigh the benefits of deals with other countries then only ideological fools like the Tories would turn it down.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593754#Comment_121593754

Nobody cares about trade deals. It's Brexiter gack that's been thoroughly debunked by reality.

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593754#Comment_121593754

He's be finally able to close out the tricky Ceylon and Rhodesia deals.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593102#Comment_121593102

Without the DUP, I don't think the ERG would have been able to control the narrative so much. It absolved them of all scrutiny, all the they had to do was say that they were standing up for their loyal brethren in NI. They never had to present an alternative vision or outline what adjustments could be made to satisfy them. Nobody even knew who exactly was in the ERG.

They were able to pass off their belligerence as some sort of noble objection in defence of the Union. It's easy to say they would have found another way but I think anything else would have been seen for the crap that it was. Nothing would have come close to the DUP, it was like all the ERG's Christmases came at once.

With the DUP, they had the best people on the planet to say "NO" and do lots of interviews and media without ever actually giving a coherent reason why they are saying no and outright refusing to budge. The ERG hardly had to answer any questions or justify their stance, I remember Francois doing some media where he made a complete tit of himself (including one very funny interaction with Will Self!). Most of them kept their heads below the parapet until Boris opened the gates of the looney bin.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594072#Comment_121594072

When did they control the narrative?

The simple fact is that nobody here cares about NI. It was a convenient excuse for the ERG to pretend to care and nothing more. As I said above, the DUP were a convenient scapegoat and nothing more.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593627#Comment_121593627

That is just a fairy tail as we have already seen. The reality is that between the WTO rules and the treaties being offered by the EU to countries such as Canada, Japan and so on, the only type of deals the UK can land are ones that are at best the same as the ones they had prior to BREXIT and more likely worse than what they had.

The trade deals being negotiated by the major trade block all include clauses that prevent the parties to the treaty negotiating deals with any other state on better terms than the terms in the deal they have just signed. This is done to prevent third countries gaining access to their markets through the back door.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594086#Comment_121594086

Of course the DUP were a convenient scapegoat, that's exactly my point. For the ERG (and their friends in the right wing media), it was the proof that the EU wouldn't give up control or allow the UK to exercise it's own sovereignty. The EU was using NI to trap the UK or at least create leverage in a negotiation where the UK otherwise held all the cards. They even had some very angry people from NI to prove it.

What I was saying to you was that nothing else could have fulfilled the role the DUP played in getting us to where we are now.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594223#Comment_121594223

The DUP were nothing but a sideshow though. Had they actually stuck to their word, things would be different but this isn't the case.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594243#Comment_121594243

Well they were centre stage for a few minutes and look where it has gotten us. They outrage and righteous indignation down to a tee. The ERG were a sideshow for a long time, until they leveraged the DUP to deliver a Brexit which nobody wanted.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594348#Comment_121594348

How did the DUP help get a hard Brexit. The ERG pretending to "stand up for NI" achieved nothing.

It was the willingness of the likes of Johnson to ignore the DUP and put up the sea border that got the deal done.

You make it sound like the DUP actually achieved something.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594086#Comment_121594086

The DUP was also used as a handy means for the Leave campaign to get around political funding/advertising rules - remember the pro-Brexit wrapper placed around the Metro freesheet in London, supposedly by the DUP? Nobody knew who the DUP was. But it would have been illegal for any non-NI political party to do that.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594488#Comment_121594488

The DUP all voted against May's deal, the rejection of which opened the door for Johnson and his NIP-based deal.

Mind you, May's deal was rejected by a fairly substantial margin. If the DUP had all voted for it, but other MPs votes were unchanged, it would still have been rejected. To argue that the DUP's position was decisive, you'd have to argue that other MPs voted against it because the DUP did. And, honestly, that's not a very compelling argument to me.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121594348#Comment_121594348

Again, you've just repeated your point without elaboration or evidence. Let's just leave it there.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595090#Comment_121595090

It wasn't just the vote on the deal itself, there was a whole series of "meaningful votes" and "indicative votes". In the first two "meaningful votes", you had huge numbers of Tory PMs emboldened to vote against their own government, many because the DUP, also part of government at the time, were opposed. Of the "indicative votes", the closest to passing on both occasions was the Customs Union option, Noes having a majority of 6 first time and 3 second time. The DUP certainly could have swung those votes and in doing so would have avoided all their current problems.

The reason they didn't was because they feared Ireland and NI growing ever closer in that situation. Going back to the ironies in all this, a Customs Union solution likely would have brought stability which would likely have seen the status quo remain in NI. The DUP thought that the EU would shaft Ireland in order to get a Brexit deal done, as usual it was them who got shafted by the Tories instead.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595318#Comment_121595318

Honestly, I think you massively over-estimate the influence of the DUP in British politics. Several British politicians did mention the DUP's position when justifying their own opposition to various forms of Brexit, but they are pretty much all people who would have opposed those forms of Brexit anyway, as insufficiently hard. And when push came to shove — when they were offered hard Brexit for GB at the cost of shafting the DUP — with the solitary exception of Owen Paterson (who abstained) they all voted for Johnson's deal, which they certainly would not have done if their votes were genuinely influenced by DUP preferences.

Tl;dr: The Tory right will pay lip-service to the DUP when DUP positions align with theirs but they will do what they want to do, and they will not sacrifice any objective of their own in order to demonstrate support for the DUP.

(And the DUP are fully aware of this. You'll have noticed that the one thing the DUP do not demand should be done to alleviate the Protocol is that GB should mote towards a softer form of Brexit, even though this is obviously what needs to be done. They don't demand this because they know the answer will be "no", and they don't want to hear the Tories say out loud that hard Brexit is a greater priority than the health of the union.)

peter kern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585295#Comment_121585295

good stuff

but lets be real, that issue did not just come up end of 2023 this was clear likely by mid 2021 as all the issues you mention where clear by then,and 100 percent clear at least by mid 2022 as you dont built facilites like this in 2 month , and in a way it seems the eu wants to gaslight us with the covid etc issue, as it seems , that france even by the end of 2023 did not want to change the brexit contract , and if i remember correctly there was people that said we could not change it . so the points of the eu, which you kind of copy , do not make too much sense in the timeframe .

at the end this is not about the uk being a rule taker or not, it is about what is best for the eu as a whole. and i would suggest for the eu car industry it would have been better off to solve that much earlier.

as for switzerland would i be wrong in saying checking less paperwork will need less boder control staff and will also speed up the entry of lorries into switzerland

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595791#Comment_121595791

as for switzerland would i be wrong in saying checking less paperwork will need less boder control staff and will also speed up the entry of lorries into switzerland

No, it won't have a material effect on the customs process in and of itself. The same level of staffing will be needed and any time saving would be marginal.

They will also still have the issue of essentially running a Mon-Fri customs border which means imports come to a standstill at the weekend. All things hilariously glossed over by Brexiteers while talking about skiing seamlessly across the border 🙄

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595791#Comment_121595791

as for switzerland would i be wrong in saying checking less paperwork will need less boder control staff and will also speed up the entry of lorries into switzerland

Yes, you would be wrong.

The Switzerland-EU/SingleMarket border is mature and efficient in a way that the post-Brexit UK-EU/Single Market border isn't. That means that there's relatively little delay for trucks entering the country (as long as they don't turn up on Friday evening, when the customs staff knock off for the weekend), so striking one requirement off the check-this list won't speed things up significantly - the consignment(s) still need to be checked to ensure that they don't contain non-exempt goods, for example. Besides, trucks are only part of how these "industrial" goods enter the country - a considerable quantity arrive by train and by river.

During the active Brexit years, much reference was made to "Switzerland" by the pro-Brexit crowd; it felt at the time - and still - does, that few, if any, of them ever stood on the Switzerland-EU border and actually watched the import process in real life. It still feels like there are an awful lot of pro-Brexity types who don't really understand how borders work.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595372#Comment_121595372

Look at the number of Tories who voted against the government in the meaningful votes - 118 in the first and 75 in the second. I don't think you can assume that those numbers were pretty much all people who would have opposed those forms of Brexit anyway, as insufficiently hard. Bear in mind that these were the pre Boris purge days so many weren't as far right as is the case today. 32 Tory MPs didn't stand in the 2019 GE plus the party gained a net of 48 seats in it so the party was quite different back then.

The DUP may not have influenced them directly but the dispute regarding NI was spun as an example of the EU trapping the UK, limiting them exercising their sovereignty, etc. Like I said, nobody ever had to present an alternative vision or suggest adjustments, the EU is using NI and here is my patsy friend from the DUP to back this up.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596582#Comment_121596582

So then why did the same MPs vote for the NIP ?

The way I remember it was NI and the protocol were a non story until after Johnson signed it and then came out against his own plan.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121595791#Comment_121595791

Oh, the issue was spotted, and was under consideration, well before December. There was a difference of opinion between France and Germany as to how to address it, and neither felt the need to compromise until late in the piece. I'm not saying the process was perfect, but the crucial point is that the views and interests of the UK didn't enter into the process as a consideration at all.

Will the Swiss abolition of tariffs reduce border friction? Yes, but 99% percent of the reduction lies in the abolition of the tariffs themselves. If you abolish (say) a 7.5% tariff on widgets, then importing widgets immediately becomes 7.5% cheaper. If in addition you have less paperwork or inspections, there's a further saving, but the value of this is usually trivial compared to the value of the tariff. The reduction in paperwork/inspections is usually modest anyway; paperwork is still required e.g. to prove that the widgets come from the UK and are not in fact Chinese widgets imported via the UK, and/or to prove that the widgets meet Swiss standards of widget safety and cleanliness and Swiss technical standards, and so on. And inspections are still required to prove that the container said to contain widgets does in fact contain widgets. All you really avoid is the paperwork associated with the actual payment of whatever tariff is due, and that's usually not a lot of paperwork.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596582#Comment_121596582

Once again, they'd have used any and every excuse to vote down May's deal. The DUP were never more than an irrelevance. I'm not sure why you keep trying to amplify any influence they had.

The problem with May's deal was simple. A lot of people liked the idea of Brexit but they couldn't agree on a definition. May's deal, or any deal, defined Brexit which shattered the coalition in the House that supported the initial idea.

ancapailldorcha

One would think they'd have the cop on to stop blathering about the so-called "Brexit benefits".

https://twitter.com/jude5456/status/1745064283761779109

Someone found shellfish in the Thames. I love razor clams but this isn't really a benefit and it's not a great look with an election looming.

wexfordman2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593754#Comment_121593754

I could bake myself a Battenberg, but it would be a poor attempt and probably taste like stale bread. I know I would be better off buying a Battenberg someone else made!

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596801#Comment_121596801

Not sure which vote you are referring to but the first bit of Brexiting legislation which was voted through in Westminster happened after Johnson's Dec 2019 election. The composition of Tory MPs was quite different than to when the various votes took place during 2019. 32 didn't stand in the 2019 GE, 10 lost their seat and the party gained 58 additional seats. Those who left were mainly on the reasonable end of the spectrum, these incoming were mostly hardliners. It wasn't exclusively the same MPs voting.

NI was always an issue, we went through the Back Stop and the Front Stop before getting to the NIP. They have been trying to square that circle from the beginning. It wasn't even squared in the end, just enough Tories had decided the DUP had outlived their usefulness (which they had, DUP support was keeping them in government until they gained a majority in the Dec 2019 GE) and shafted them.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597065#Comment_121597065

Once again, I'm not saying that the DUP influenced people directly (i.e. no Tories listened to the DUP and suddenly changed their mind) but the DUP gave them the cover they needed. With the DUP voting against the government they were part of, Tory MPs also had free reign to do so. The worst elements of the Tory party could act with impunity. The DUP even kept Johnson in power as he went about shafting them, even after he first failed to get a GE so he could ditch them entirely.

And the DUP were actually extremely influential from the June 17 GE to the Dec 19 GE. The Tories didn't have a majority and need support to govern. Had the DUP not supported them, who knows where we would have ended up. They literally kept the Tories in power for two and a half years, May remained PM even when she couldn't get her own legislation passed.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121598765#Comment_121598765

And as I've said a few times now, the cover doesn't matter when it comes to Brexit. There will always be some petty excuse. One does not tout imperial measurements as a benefit if one is acting in good faith.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121598948#Comment_121598948

You are simply applying the situation of today to the past which isn't accurate. Things were very different back in 2017. Back then, Brexit could have meant anything, cover for pushing for a hard Brexit was needed. For example, in the "indicative votes", the closest to passing on both occasions was the Customs Union option, losing only by 6 first time and 3 second time. The Tories as a whole were much more open to softer forms of Brexit back then, even Farage was too.

May aggressively pursued Brexit, she triggered Art.50 early, set out her Red Lines and then called a snap election looking to strengthen her position to deliver Brexit. For that, she got a good kicking from the electorate. Just two years later, Johnson was able to prologue parliament, shat all over convention, did what he said was unacceptable (Irish Sea Border) and yet won a 80 seat majority. Clearly there was a hardening in thinking in that time.

You can keep repeating the same things but have nothing to back it up. I reference things that happened to support my opinions. Anyway, it's not important enough to go any further with this.