Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that is the story they are telling the backbenchers.

In fact they will delay and delay until October and then fold and accept what is on offer from the EU when it is too late for the Brexiteers to stop them.

Wouldn't they be relying on cross party votes then? Otherwise all the hard brexiteers have to do is stall things until its gone past the point of no return.

Danzy wrote: »

I think they'll go late and agree custom union.

The majority of Tory MPs are Remain and the big money behind the party is nearly all Remain.

Leave were strongest among the Working class. May will let the cards fall where they will with a warning that collapsing the Govt will handbit to Labour.

Yes, they will cede to a customs union to get the transition deal in October. Then the EU will inform the UK that while customs checks for tariffs will not be needed, there will need to be infrastructure to check that goods are in compliance to standards of the single market. Then the next year and a bit will follow the same lines until the UK is "forced" into staying in the single market as well because they guaranteed there will be no infrastructure on the Irish border and they also said there will be no border in the Irish Sea.

Member states of a customs union can maintain all sorts of regulations – such as health standards, agricultural controls and minimum product standards – and goods entering the market need to be checked for compliance with these. This is exactly what customs officers along the Northern Irish border were doing until the single market emerged in 1993.

Only in a single market are such standards harmonised or mutually recognised on a comprehensive basis – without the need for customs checks. This is why it was possible to abolish systematic customs checks along the border in 1993.

Would staying in a customs union after Brexit avoid a hard border with Ireland?

Edited to add: In the end the UK, to appease the backbenchers, will not be in the customs union but they will be in a customs union with the EU. They will also not be in the single market but in an arrangement where the standards of the single market is recognised and the rules of the SM is obeyed. They will not be in the European Union, but they will have formed a separate union with the EU. They basically will not be in the EU, but they will be in the EU.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Let's have less of the one-liners and Twitter dumps please.

<snip - please dont argue moderation on thread>

I'm having a harder and harder time understanding the UK's mentality re: Northern Ireland's position. They've already exhausted, and/or have seen ruled-out, proposals for a solution on the border question, yet they're continuing to negotiate other parts of the withdrawal treaty, knowing that these cannot come to fruition without a solution on the former.

That's like someone shopping for a Lamborghini with no money in their bank account, and bad credit, hoping that they'll somehow win the lotto before they go down to the dealership.

What exactly are the political pundits suggesting the UK is going to say to the EU/Ireland/Northern Ireland, come the deadline date?

briany wrote: »

I'm having a harder and harder time understanding the UK's mentality re: Northern Ireland's position. They've already exhausted, and/or have seen ruled-out, proposals for a solution on the border question, yet they're continuing to negotiate other parts of the withdrawal treaty, knowing that these cannot come to fruition without a solution on the former.

That's like someone shopping for a Lamborghini with no money in their bank account, and bad credit, hoping that they'll somehow win the lotto before they go down to the dealership.

What exactly are the political pundits suggesting the UK is going to say to the EU/Ireland/Northern Ireland, come the deadline date?

which is now incidently only eight weeks away, they are going to have to come up with something fast, something which thanks to red lines and the dup cannot be concived

First Up wrote: »

I doubt NI featured in 99.99% of Brexit voters' thoughts. It isn't in the top 10 issues for the average MP either.

For Brexiteers, if NI is too hard, I'd guess most would cut it loose without a 2nd thought.

Parliament can't be that cavalier of course so it will be interesting to watch.

But I have no doubt there's a "UK mentality" that wouldn't mind cutting it loose and leaving us with the consequences.

When you say, "cutting it loose", I assume you mean agreeing to leave NI within the customs union and putting the border in the Irish sea. They cannot legally boot NI out of the union without proper due process (e.g. referenda), AFAIK.

briany wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I doubt NI featured in 99.99% of Brexit voters' thoughts.  It isn't in the top 10 issues for the average MP either.

For Brexiteers, if NI is too hard, I'd guess most would cut it loose without a 2nd thought.

Parliament can't be that cavalier of course so it will be interesting to watch.

But I have no doubt there's a "UK mentality" that wouldn't mind cutting it loose and leaving us with the consequences.

When you say, "cutting it loose", I assume you mean agreeing to leave NI within the customs union and putting the border in the Irish sea. They cannot legally boot NI out of the union without proper due process (e.g. referenda), AFAIK.

I think the typical Brexit voter (older, less educated and, lets face it, a but dim) wouldn't bother with such details.  Their Britain is England and the bits of Scotland and Wales where the Spitfires took off and that that don't talk funny or wear skirts.  They just want rid of all the complicated stuff - "just get aaaht" as one moron put it in a vox pop a while back.  
Put something as complex and important as the EU to a popular vote and that's what you get.  A referendum on NI leaving the UK? I know what the mainland would say and to hell with the consequences.

I have a friend that would have regular contact with civil servants and politicians in Ireland, Britain and Europe and they sent me this today:

At a meeting with staff from the [incredibly important UK Ministry] on [SOMETHING really pressing] post-Brexit and they had this idea for a new Treaty, sounds great etc. When asked how has Brussels reacted on the Treaty plan, they basically said "oh well we haven’t told them yet, will do that next year"

The surprising has stopped being surprising. Given how things have gone this week and how the Express (and their ilk) have responded to the "treacherous" House of Lords, one would think that if you knew anything of how politics works and were a rabid brexiteer you would be panicked at the hamfistedness of this.

---

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Taoiseach gives a speech in Belgium, suggests talks could halt in June unless a Border solution is finalised by then:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/taoiseach-will-put-a-stop-to-the-eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement-unless-progress-on-the-border-by-june-36848617.html

I'm really looking forward to the JRM response to it. Was hoping there would be more online by now.

---

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I believe the GFA protects the constitutional status of the North, however as the Windrush and aspects of brexit have shown the rule of law in the UK is becoming worryingly stretched.

The main thrust of the GFA for Unionists was its protection of the North's status within the Uk by consent. But mere weeks ago the Agreement had outlived its usefulness.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

JRM would be delighted. It would prove that he is right when he says that Britain should tell the EU to foxtrot oscar and crash out via a hard Brexit.

The longer this charade continues the more I want them to Foxtrot Oscar and eat the tonne coming their way.

It was all well and goo but it does feel like the strop has gone one far too long and the adults need to come back and take over.

When you want GW Bush and Gordon Brown back you know you're in dangerous times.

--

The morning should be better for further outrage I bet.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Brexit has its origins in internal Tory politics. The outrage will continue as they use Ireland and the EU as sticks to beat each other with. JRM doesn't give a fiddlers about Norn Iron or pesky borders, he's a Little Englander to his marrow. Norn Iron is just something he can use against Tory Remainers and to keep May in line. Preserving England as it was between the wars is what he is about. The fact that his version of England died after WW2 is lost on him. He's informed by his Old Etonian elitist arrogance. Neither a hard, soft or no Brexit will impact on his lifestyle so it's easy to pursue a foolish and impossible fantasy. It's a selfish and myopic indulgence.

Goes a lot further back than current Tory policy tbh. Labour's Tony Ben (friend and mentor of Corbyn) was arguing against entering the then EEC back in the 70s and personally advocated exit from the EU right up to his death a few years ago.

Lemming wrote: »

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white". He couldn't give less of a flying fvck; it's a simple case of "any rock will do" with which to try and bash the other guy with.



Don't forget that he is also informed by his stake in Somerset capital standing to earn a slice of the estimated £5bn+ from the vulture fall-out if Brexit proceeds. How he can be allowed to sit in parliament with such a clear conflict of issues is beyond parody ...

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

I'm shocked to see that this is the case. What a sorry state of affairs. The whole field is a shambles really.

The essential problem is that while the Tory parliamentary party can ditch the leader, they can't choose the new leader; that goes to a ballot of party members.

A majority of the parliamentary party are Remainers and would favour a much softer Brexit than the one May has chosen to pursue, but (it's thought that) a majority of the rank-and-file membership lean towards Leave. Thus remainers are slow to ditch May, despite everything about her, for fear of getting, well, JRM or the like. The result is that May remains in post, despite almost certainly not enjoying the confidence of the parliamentary party, and despite pursuing policies which they believe not to be in the interests of country or party.

Curiously, Labour has a very similar problem, and for similar reasons; Corbyn does not enjoy the support of the parliamentary party and they could cause a leadership spill, but they won't because he does enjoy the confidence of the rank-and-file membership, and would win the ensuing leadership election.

Leaving aside the specific merits and demerits of Brexit, I think it's notable that right now the UK is suffering from a severe dearth of effective political leadership, and I wonder to what extent this is an outcome of the Catch-22 that both parties have walked themselves into. Essentially, they have adopted a presidential model of choosing a leader, but it's a parliamentary leadership role that they are seeking to fill. So the selection mechanism is not well-adapted to choosing a leader who is fitted to the role.