Brexit discussion thread III

Just so people are aware of significance of CA story to Brexit campaign.
Nix said to the actor that CA often work under a different name when circumstances dictate. AggregateIQ is a Canadian sister company of CA with the same address in Toronto that performs some of the tech/backend work for CA. All 5 Leave campaigns paid AggregateIQ monies during the election campaign. Official vote leave, the one headed by Johnson and Gove, pays them £3.8million out of their TOTAL expenditure of £7m.

First of all: In 2016 a google search returns splat for AggregateIQ.
Ergo ALL 5 leave campaigns coordinated (illegal) to use kryptonite Cambridge Analytica hiding behind a company called AggregateIQ. 2 ex CA chiefs were working for the official Leave campaign.

There is more: Kogan who robbed the Ocean system off Kosinski for CA was a professor in St Petersburg (previously unknown). CA were involved with a now sanctioned Russian company.
Parent group SCLs then owner Teschuiz has many connections to Russia. A partner of his is Dmitri Firtash. He was Manaforts Russian oligarch connection on the ground in Ukraine.

Manafort and Kushner sought and hired CA for Trump.

Note also that Nix offered the actor the use of Trolls for political campaigns. What trolls do CA subcontract I wonder? What trolls did they use in the Trump election?

Hopefully people are now starting to grasp the scale of this global operation against democracies.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The latest deal seems to cement the December agreement (which the UK claimed was merely a talking point) into a backstop position. In other words if the other two options (technical solution to allow frictionless border or the UK remains in the CU) are not delivered then NI becomes separate in regulatory terms from Great Britain.

The problem is that none of these options are remotely achievable. NI cannot be seen to be separated, the technology does not exist. So the only realistic solution is to remain in CU, which is never going to float in the UK.

So what is the point of postponing the inevitable? Why are the EU allowing the UK to simply push this further down the track? Are they hoping that at some stage the UK will cave, but they have shown no indication that they will to this point.

My worry is that this will become a last minute "deal breaker" and as such with a deal so close both sides will simply fudge it. The EU, seeing that continued trade with the UK is almost within reach and thus avoiding many of the issues that could arise may see it as a price worth paying.

EU have shown before that no one country is above the long term future of the EU (Ireland & Greece for example) and I fear that will happen again.

So the UK avoid a hard brexit but we are left with a border. Effectively we are left to pay the price

No. The EU's primary objective here is not “continued trade with the UK”; it’s the preservation and protection of the Single Market. Their stance on the border has never been a special favour to Ireland; it has reflected where they think their interests lie. There is no reason to expect this to change.

There was fudge in December. There is still fudge, but less fudge. In both cases the fudge in in the EU’s interests, which is why the EU agreed to it.

The position now is that the UK has agreed that “a legally operative version of the ‘backstop’ solution” will appear in the Withdrawal Agreement. And they have also implicitly accepted that that the WA won’t include the Tories' promise to the DUP of no intra-UK trade barriers.

They haven’t fully accepted the text of the legally operative version but they have agreed that, if they fail to agree the text of that, there will be no WA. So a hard Brexit (and a hard border) is still a possible outcome here.

One way or another, we’ll know by October (and possibly earlier; an intensive series of UK/EU discussions on the border issues is timetabled for April).

If the EU had insisted that the UK accept the draft text on the legally operative version now, one of two things would have happened. The UK might have refused, the negotiations would have crashed, and we would now know that we are heading for a hard Brexit and a hard border. That’s a bad outcome, obviously. Or, the UK might have accepted. That wouldn’t actually lock anything in, since the WA isn’t finalised until October, and isn’t legally binding until some time shortly before March 2019. In the meantime, negotiations might have collapsed over other issues. Or, the government might have fallen because the DUP and/or the ultra-Brexiteers couldn’t stomach acceptance of the “legally operative version” text, and the government falling and being replaced by a more Brexity one would again lead to the collapse of the negotiations.

You say above:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they hoping that at some stage the UK will cave, but they have shown no indication that they will to this point.

On the contrary, everything indicates that the UK government will cave; they have caved consistently on every issue of significance since the these negotiations began. The secret is in the timing; they cave at a point where it is too late for the ultras to do anything about it beyond the nuclear option of bringing down the government.

Of course, a strategy likes this works consistently until it fails to work just once, at which point the show is over. And that could still happen, and if and when it does we are looking at a hard Brexit and a hard border. But there is no advantage to the EU, or to Ireland, in provoking this at a time when it doesn’t have to happen. At this point we’ve got a further concession out of the UK; they have agreed that the Withdrawal Agreement will provide for full regulatory alignment as the default solution. That’s a concession they have been able to make (fingers crossed!) without causing the ultras to bring them down. The next thing they’ll need to cave on is accepting wording for the text on full regulatory alignment but, the closer to October they cave on that, the more likely it is that they will survive the cave, which is the outcome we want.

My prediction; the UK will cave on this, in return for the insertion into the agreement of a clause referring to Option A (super-duper trade deal) and Option B (magic technology) and committing both parties to negotiating in good faith and with best endeavours to agree one of those options to be implemented in place of full regulatory alignment.

The downside risk of this strategy for us is that we may find ourselves looking at a hard border with relatively little notice. But, whatever the notice period, a hard border is going to be, well, hard for us; knowing about it a year in advance isn’t hugely better than knowing about it six months in advance. And certainly it makes more sense to bear that risk than to provoke a hard border now by collapsing the talks when that may not be necessary.

Finally, just to add one point. I think the main reason why somebody would want to bring about the collapse of the negotiations for a withdrawal agreement is the belief, or at any rate the hope, that only the impending prospect of the horrors of a no-deal Brexit will wake their British public out of their sleep-walk into disaster, and set in train a political reaction that might ultimately lead to Brexit being deferred and ultimately called off.

Myself, I don't regard this a realistic. I think UK Remainers cling to it not because it's a realistic hope of Remaining, but because it's the only hope of Remaining.

But it's not only UK Remainers who think of this as a possibility; UK Leavers do as well. It is precisely this possibility which prevents them from collapsing the talks over all the (to them, highly unwelcome) concessions that May has made.

But the closer Brexit day approaches, the less plausible it is that a collapse of the Withdrawal Agreement talks could ultimately lead to the cancellation of Brexit. Therefore, if I'm right, as time goes on the ultra-Brexiters should be more and more willing to contemplate collapsing the negotiations over one of May's concessions. Which is why a series of salami-like concessions, rather than one big chunky concession, is the rational strategy for May.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the closer Brexit day approaches, the less plausible it is that a collapse of the Withdrawal Agreement talks could ultimately lead to the cancellation of Brexit.

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government.

Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

Thanks for this. Couple of thoughts:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government. . . .

Is an election inevitable at this point? Could the fall of May be followed not by a general election (which, I agree, Labour would likely win) but by a new Tory leader, who would pursue a somewhat harder Brexit (and, inevitably, end up with a no-deal Brexit)?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

. . . Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

Timing, here, is everything.

The Art 50 notice period is due to expire in March 2019, if not extended. Once it does expire, the UK is no longer a member and, after that, there is no possiblity of Remain. Remain gets replaced at this point with Rejoin. And Rejoining is a much, much bigger deal than Remaining would have been.

So, it crucially matters when the UK seeks to change course. They need to do so in sufficient time to seek unanimous consent from the EU-27 (because unanimous consent is needed) to exend the Art 50 notice period.

Brexiters in the past have assumed, and asserted, that the EU needs UK trade, that getting a sweet deal would be the easiest thing ever, that the German car manufacturers would have Merket dancing to their "be nice to Britain" tune, etc, etc. It turned out to be all rubbish.

But remainers are at risk of making the same mistake. The EU is not gagging to keep the UK on board. Disappointed as they are at Brexit, it hasn't been followed by a domino-like seqence of Grexit, Spexit, Frexit and Italexit as was threatened or promised. They have looked at the prospect of Brexit and decided they can live with it, and be OK. And they're conscious that it's not all downside. They won't have to listen to the constant whingeing any more, or put up with a spineless UK political establishment that is too gutless to confront lies and misinformation about the EU at home. Above all, once Brexit is complete, they won't ever have to go through Brexit again.

So, I wouldn't assume that if the UK turns around and says "can we extend the Art 50 notice period [with a view to just possibly calling the whole thing off at some future point]?", the EU-28 will necessarily fall on this offer with glad cries. At this point, some of them would have somewhat mixed feelings about the prospect of the UK not leaving after all. And they'd be conscious that in five years time there'll be yet another UK election, with the possibility of yet another volte-face.

So I think the answer might well be along the lines of "Tell you what - how about, instead of extending the Art 50 notice period, we let Art 50 take effect in March 2019 as planned and instead we exend the transitional period, for long enough for you to think about whether you want to reapply for membership, and sign an Accession Agreement?" That would keep the UK in, or get them back into, the single market and the customs union, while they worked out what they really wanted to do, and (if what they really want turns out to be EU membership) satisfied the EU-28 that this was a mature and enduring decision, and that they were going to approach EU membership in a way which sought to ensure that the whole Brexit shemozzle was unlikely to recur.

Essentially, the UK would be asking the EU-27 to extend the Art 50 notice period to give the British more time to think about whether serving Art 50 notice in the first place had been such a good idea. And the course of the negotiations so far has generally created the impression that the UK doesn't face up to any hard question until they are forced to, so extending the Art 50 notice period might not be such a good idea; it wouldn't be taken as an opportunity to think about things so much as an opportunity to put off thinking about things.

So the UK might have to go a bit of work to get everybody to buy into extending the Art 50 period. And, depending on when all this happens, they simply might not have time to complete that work. It only requires one member state to remain dubious about the value of extending the Art 50 period, and Art 50 cannot be extended.

Ellian wrote: »

In this hypothetical scenario, do you see the UK keeping it's rebate and outside the Euro? Keeping sterling (and more importantly the ability to deflate your own currency and avoid the problems Greece face) is a red line for quite a lot of remainers I know in the UK - for pragmatic economic reasons.

If Brexit is called off before March 2109 (or if the Art 50 notice period gets extended and then Brexit is called off before the extended period expires) then the default is that the UK remains a member on its current terms, including opt-out from the Euro, opt-out from Schengen, budget rebate, etc, etc. The only way it wouldn't happen this way is if a deal was done to accept the withdrawal of the Art. 50 notice, in return for the UK accepting some change to its current terms of membership.

But if the Art 50 notice takes effect, and then the UK seeks to rejoin, then the default is that the UK must accept the Euro, join Schengen, etc, etc, since these are standard requirements for any state seeking admission to the Union. The only way this wouldn't happen is if the EU sought to encourage or facilitate the UK rejoining by agreeing to reinstate some of the special terms from which it had benefited during its first period of membership. So far as I know this would require unanimous agreement among the EU-27.

This is one of the reasons why I say above that Rejoin would be much bigger deal than Remain.

(With regard to the Euro in particular, there's a separate discussion going on within the EU about the problems that were manifested as a result of the Global Financial Crisis, and discussions about what changes should be made so that the Euro stands up better in such circumstances. If the UK were seeking to Rejoin and were being asked to accept the Euro, these two discussions would obviously become linked, since the UK would be invited to joint a reformed Euro system, and indeed to have a significant voice in the reform of the system.)

Ellian wrote: »

In this hypothetical scenario, do you see the UK keeping it's rebate and outside the Euro?

I think the UK would only remain on current terms. There is no way the UK would swallow some punishment like giving up the rebate or Sterling as well as renouncing Brexit.

But this is all very unlikely at this stage.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the UK would only remain on current terms. There is no way the UK would swallow some punishment like giving up the rebate or Sterling as well as renouncing Brexit.

I agree. But the net effect is that the UK would be asking the EU to pretend as if the whole of the past three years had not happened.

And I don't see the EU accepting this unless they are given some very good reason to believe that the whole of the past three years cannot happen again. So something would have to change in the UK's commitment to the EU.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is all very unlikely at this stage.

Wildly unlikely. Too many improbable events have to unfold in just the right way in too short a time for this to be a realistic possibility.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They might, if (a) the reason May has fallen is that she's not Brexity enough, and (b) not supporting a Tory government under, e.g., Davis means a general election and a likely Corbyn victory.

The DUP are not really very brexity, though. They supported it (with mysterious cash from nowhere in particular), but Arlene for one stands to lose a lot if there is a hard border, as do many folks who have voted DUP recently.

And the DUP do not really give a monkeys about Tory vs. Labour in Westminster, it's all about votes in NI. A hostile govt in Westminster may make them more popular - they are a party of protest and defiance, not the sorts for the compromise and negotiation needed in government.

Plus, remember, unanimous agreement of the EU-27 is needed to extend the Art. 50 period. Even if it is in all their interests, it may take some time to get them all to see that.

Agreed - even one member state with a grudge could force a hard Brexit. But I don't see how that would be in any member states interests, unless the smaller states want to start shaking down the EU for favours: "Give us the money or the UK gets it!!".

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is an election inevitable at this point? Could the fall of May be followed not by a general election (which, I agree, Labour would likely win) but by a new Tory leader, who would pursue a somewhat harder Brexit (and, inevitably, end up with a no-deal Brexit)?

I don't think there could simply be another leader instated as it would not solve the fundamental problem for the Tory party, that there is no commons majority for any defined course. There are enough Tory rebels in the Anna Soubry / Ken Clarke camp to block any legislation to would facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Even without a withdrawal agreement, parliament will be required to pass legislation to enact control over areas where the EU no longer has a role, e.g. food safety, aerospace etc. The rebels can continue to tack on amendments to any future legislation demanding the government go back and negotiate a withdrawal agreement and customs union membership. If the government can't pass it's own policy agenda it has to call an election.

Leroy42 wrote: »

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

I have seen some articles that calculate they would have had around 60 seats after the 2010 GE if PR had been in place. I can't help but wonder if we would have had a Brexit vote if they had actually had this kind of representation in parliament.

Dragging their (and the other Euro-sceptic) views out into the open and having discussions about the EU and immigration in parliament, in public might have taken some of the heat out of it.

MrP

Enzokk wrote: »

Are these the same polling companies that had the Conservatives with a majority
before the last election? Only Yougov had the result as a hung parliament at any
stage and all of the rest underestimated the Labour result by 40-60 seats.
Seeing as we are talking about one result that could be an anomaly, but I would
not be surprised if Labour comfortably wins if there is a new election this
year. This would be due to austerity and concerns about the NHS in the main and
not too much about Brexit.

The one I quoted was the latest poll and is actually a Yougov poll. To paraphrase, there are lies, damn lies and polls. But they are as best an indicator as you'll get.

Skedaddle wrote: »

The best case scenario from an Irish point of view now would be for the DUP to go absolutely bonkers and pull support for the UK Government, triggering a general election within 14 days.

Can't see them do that as they know Corbyn is lurking in the background.

Water John wrote: »

The DUP, like JRM will grumble, throw a few shapes, similar to JRM throwing, fish into the river, but do nothing.
If the fishermen of the UK think that, JRm gives a flying f**k about them, they are very deluded.

Yeah, it is a special kind of deluded to think JRM give any kind of sh1t about any "normal" people. Personally I can't believe he is actually going to touch fish. Are you sure be isn't going to send one of his boys to do the throwing?

MrP