Brexit discussion thread II

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

What if the Irish people are asked in a referendum to choose between staying in the EU with a hard border or leave the EU to keep the border open?

Ireland would vote to keep border open and leave the EU.

Really? I can't see that myself. Especially for regions well away from the border. Why would the big populations in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. vote to leave the EU? A hard border won't affect them all that much directly and leaving the EU would be a disaster for them.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I firmly believe that if Corbyn had stood up to the plate for Remain then Leave would have lost. His 'support' was lukewarm at best.

I've yet to be convinced of that one, tbh. The fact that much of the Leave vote was in historical Lab constituencies and comprised of disenfranchised historical Lab voters-turned-UKIP is well documented.

Corbyn did exactly what I expected him to do during the referendum campaign, and has continued doing exactly the same since, and to date: engage liberally in "constructive ambiguity" (to re-use David Davis' own words, in the most ironical of fashions) to try and husband political favour with both sides of the Brexit divide, across the centre and all the way across to the hard left of the spectrum.

Corbyn has only been given a free pass about it, and been afforded the political luxury of riding the Tories' own infighting for free, because he's not in No.10. And whilst he has been able to opportunistically exploit that state of affairs to get the results which Lab did at the last GE 2017, I don't believe he and Lab would have as much of a free run at a next soonish GE. Because this time, it is definitely Brexit that would precipitate the GE, and which would need to be campaigned about (unlike the 2017 one, wherein Corbyn/Lab were essentially silent about it).

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ambro - Very good analysis. However, while I do understand that Corbyn was adhering to his ideology and being mindful of the Leave vote in Lab constituencies, I still believe that a strong pro-remain stance by Corbyn (as leader of Labour) would have made the difference. It would have galvanised the party's position as being Remain. Instead, he abdicated responsibility and Labour basically had no position on Brexit.

I accept your premise of party galvanisation and, perhaps indeed, referendum result upending (all hypothetical that it is )...but then (and by your own admission ) adopting that strong pro-remain stance would have run counter to his ideology, and it's some (metaphorical) desert he'd already had to cross to stay in position -before the referendum campaign started-, all in the name of, and only sustained as he was by, that same ideology.

He was never going to renege his ideology for the sake of the party, its electorate and/or the country: his trajectory since acceding the leadership had already long showed as much.

Which is why I (in turn) strongly believe that, if he does accede to No.10 before March 2019 and installs McDonnell in No.11, then manages to stay there until after that date, he'll still be going for a 'harder' variant of Brexit (not necessarily of the 'no deal' or 'rock-hard' variety at all, and which indeed may transit via a 'soft' EFTA-like transition phase): he needs to be fully free of EU anti-competition law to roll out that statist ideology of his.

Vronsky wrote: »

The Norway model would be seen as a major defeat for the UK though, and almost the ideal result for the EU.

Both UKIP and the Telegraph were trumpeting the Norway model as an ideal before the referendum.

It would be a defeat for the nuttier Brexiteers in the Tory party, not for the UK.

Vronsky wrote: »

It would be a defeat for the British State as well. Effectively, environmental and economic policy would be heavily constrained by an external organisation with no British input. It would be a new experience for Britain, to put it mildly.

I think that no matter how this pans out from here, the part in bold is a given unless by some miracle, the UK cancels Brexit in the next month. Of all the possible new experiences in store, the Norway model (even with added humility as you point out) would be one of the less painful.

I have had personal contact with keir starmer.
He is pro business, very pro Europe, and an interesting choice by Corbyn.

Vronsky wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say Labour are hoping that the Brexiteer wing of the Tories provoke a complete shambles in negotiations triggering an election, and Labour can swoop in with a Norway model.

It's Brexit, but it is practical.

They can address immigration using measures which are legal now.

The Norway model would be seen as a major defeat for the UK though, and almost the ideal result for the EU. The UK would continue to pay on almost the same as it does into the budget, it's markets would remain open but would have no say in the settings of the rules.

The question is how long would a country the size and strength of the UK allow it's neighbours to undermine it's economy through the setting of rules which are advantageous to them - the UK would either be back in or wholly out after a few years of the EEA.

No harm in that though. It would leave the door slightly ajar for the next wave of politicians and influencers.
Just enough pain to feel the squeeze for a while.
I think Corbyn actually would be much more constructive around the border and the gfa, would sideline the dup, and hopefully would not throttle entirely the economy with politics too far to the left.
Manchester city Council is a very good example of a long term, progressive, pro business labour led body. I actually think it's the natural fit for the UK. New Labour without the rampant narcissism and war mongering.
I think Corbyn would win a landslide if he changed his business secretary, made a few soothing noises, and became outspokenly pro European. The youth will vote in big numbers if encouraged, the Labour core vote will hold up, and, with a pro European stance, and some less hardline talk, he will decimate the tory middle class vote. He could, if clever, decimate the tories for a generation or more.

Even Dopey Dave understood that. There were just two weeks to try to save Brexit. He looked around for help, before it dawned on him that he was the person on whom the country was counting. He mumbled something about being willing and able, while sounding anything but. His expression was of a man who had only just realised he was completely out of his depth. Defeat oozed out of every pore. The Brexiter for whom hubris beckoned unless the Maybot was suddenly willing to hand over €60bn.

This whole article is worth a quote but certainly the above snippet says it all the wheels have all but come off , it's finally dawning on some in government that they've no idea what they want, how they will get it and how much they are willing to pay in terms of money and sovereignty.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/babble-brexit-progress-dave-ooze-defeat-barnier

Inquitus wrote: »

I think any hope of a deal is done and dusted unless the Government in the UK collapses in the next 505 days. The issue of the North alone is a circle the UK seem absolutely unwilling to square, only a sea border for the Island is feasible here, and that's ignoring the exit bill and all the rest.

A sea border for the Island means the break-up of the UK, a step too far for the Tories, let alone the DUP. Labour might agree a deal like that.

The North would demand a referendum and it might well be defeated as a proposal.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP would find themselves in a tricky situation if this proposal gets into the deal.
They will have to oppose it and ship the blame for any negatives.

The supported brexit the blame is already their's in terms of NI.