nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jim2007

bilston wrote: »

I'd say in a no deal scenario the border will remain soft initially. It will be pressure from France and Germany etc which will ultimately lead to a hard border being created.

Not at all. Under WTO rules once BREXIT occurs there is an automatic right to a transition period of six months (A24 I think, it has not been on my reading list recently). There after they will be forced to either open up their borders to all 160 WTO members or establish a border in NI. The WTO members can start formal proceedings once the transition period comes to an end. A failure to comply would mean that no WTO member could continue the trade negotiations with the UK. Once again they will do it to themselves, they will not need any help

Jim2007

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Because they used lies to win an election...and it worked...maybe the the remainers should have used the same tactic and we wouldn't be in this mess

But there is no legal basis to make such a claim that is the point. It is just a glorified option poll at the end of the day. Parliament is sovereign in the UK and their Supreme Court cannot force them to either comply or ignore an advisory referendum.

zapitastas

Folkstonian wrote: »

Most conflicts end up being resolved at the negotiating table.

Total annihilation or enemy forces is rare in the history of warfare and has never happened in even the most successful counter insurgency campaigns. It’s wrong to try and judge success or failure by that gauge. Instead it’s far more useful to simply analyse whether or not each side has set out to do what it intended to.

The IRA were rendered combat ineffective by the intelligence agencies without having achieved any of their own stated aims; the British Army are still in Northern Ireland and we aren’t living in a 32 county socialist republic. On balance, they fell well short of achieving victory.

The British pretty much just wanted a quiet life and an end to armed conflict by the mid 90s. They were far more content with the outcome.

Back on Brexit, such pitiful grandstanding by May today to ramp up no deal preparations. If she had been serious, or competent, she would have had comprehensive contingency plans in place 18 months ago and they would have been rehearsed many times over at ports, airports, hospitals and on the transport network. It’s all just a facade to buy her some more time. Her mindset is so deeply odd at this stage. Every further day she remains as PM is a massive win in her eyes. There is no bigger picture than clinging onto power.

Combat ineffective in that they were deploying bombs that were devestating large areas of English cities? Insurance companies were running scared. It was the canary warf bomb that focused minds on the process towards the GFA. The BA may still be in the north in small numbers but the visible evidence of their presence that used to scar the countryside has long since been removed

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's already taken care of with the super ferries on the Dublin Zeebrugge/Rotterdam/Amsterdam routes. The additional time isn't massive. Something like 36 hours total.

The superferries are helpful, certainly, but I don't think they represent sufficient capacity to replace the landbridge wholly.

Nor, in fairness, do they need to. Capacity on the landbridge will likely be reduced, and journey times increased, but that doesn't mean that nothing can come via the landbridge. There will be some displacement to other routes, but not total displacement.

The tricky bit is in working out how much displacement will be needed, which in turm depends on the terms of Brexit. The requirement is maximised in a no-deal Brexit, and I very much doubt that the extra capacity provided on the direct ferry routes will be anything like enough to manage the degree of displacement required, at least in the short term, by a crash-out Brexit. (If for no other reason than because that would imply investment in massively more capacity than will be needed in the medium to long term, or than will be needed at all in the event of an orderly Brexit with a deal, and investing in that much capacity would be expensive and inefficient.)

A crash-out Brexit will be painful for Ireland, let's not delude ourselves. And part of the that pain will be massive congestion in the landbridge which will be only partly ameliorated by diversion of trade to the direct sea route and to airfreight.

J Mysterio

Folkstonian wrote: »

Most conflicts end up being resolved at the negotiating table.

Total annihilation or enemy forces is rare in the history of warfare and has never happened in even the most successful counter insurgency campaigns. It’s wrong to try and judge success or failure by that gauge. Instead it’s far more useful to simply analyse whether or not each side has set out to do what it intended to.

The IRA were rendered combat ineffective by the intelligence agencies without having achieved any of their own stated aims; the British Army are still in Northern Ireland and we aren’t living in a 32 county socialist republic. On balance, they fell well short of achieving victory.

Likewise the British couldn't defeat the IRA.

I think the GFA is a sort of recognition that neither achieved 'victory'. It is a stalemate or a compromise. Which is of course the whole point.

Folkstonian wrote:

The British pretty much just wanted a quiet life and an end to armed conflict by the mid 90s. They were far more content with the outcome.

That's a fairly contemptible statement to be fair.

Enzokk

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'm still amazed at the fact that the Leave side used the red bus(of lies), and nothing has been done about it.

Farage the day after the election admitted the figures were incorrect, the leave side lied to win the election...its baffling that this fact along doesn't justify another referendum.

To be fair to Farage it was not his lie that he confirmed the day after but that was another campaign. He did however never state during the campaign that the pronouncement was not correct so he knowingly let a lie go as it helped achieve his aim.

I agree that something should have been done, their Election Commission should have more power to intervene, but it is a quirk in their system that for a referendum their is no legal recourse for any side to pursue if illegal activity occurred, precisely for the reason that is mention above. Parliament doesn't have to follow the advice of the result! They could easily decide to run the referendum again on the fact that all campaigns were fined for their actions during the campaign and due to that the result was not fair and it is unreasonable for them to act on it. The question is why has Theresa May not done it nor Corbyn. The simple answer, both want Brexit to happen so they will not interfere.

Calina

Can we please stop discussing the end of the conflict in NI at this point?

In the main, I am interested to see the no deal work flows in the UK. I would like to assess their quality compared to the negotiation activities.

Given they were probably drawn up by civil servants they might be better than the negotiations driven by politicians.

listermint

Calina wrote: »

Can we please stop discussing the end of the conflict in NI at this point?

In the main, I am interested to see the no deal work flows in the UK. I would like to assess their quality compared to the negotiation activities.

Given they were probably drawn up by civil servants they might be better than the negotiations driven by politicians.

I agree especially as there are posters rewriting history and it appears some only read up on it recently ...

Peregrinus

Calina wrote: »

Can we please stop discussing the end of the conflict in NI at this point?

In the main, I am interested to see the no deal work flows in the UK. I would like to assess their quality compared to the negotiation activities.

Given they were probably drawn up by civil servants they might be better than the negotiations driven by politicians.

I don't think it matters how good the workflows are. It simply isn't possible, in the 100 days remaning, to avert the grave consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

I think the point of the UK focussing on no-deal preparations now is not to make no-deal more manageable; they can achieve little in that regard. It's to focus attention on what no-deal might be like, and so increase pressure on/create more space for Tory backbenchers to endorse May's deal.

flatty

Jim2007 wrote: »

Oh please! The EU is not going to waver or blink. The European mentality, including Ireland, is to follow the rules, the agreed framework not go careering of into unknown territory and start making it up as they go along.

Also remember as a major trading block, involved in many negotiations, it can not be seen to be a push over.

I really hope you are right, and I say this as an Irish man with my wife and kids settled in the UK, and my business interests there. What worries me is the talk last night that if Leo shifts, and I quote "just 5%" on the backstop, then dup will be back on board, and with them, he thinks, she will get her vote through, making everyone bar herself, considerably worse off.
This is a woman who decries a second referendum as anti democratic, but will happily have a second third or fourth vote if she think she will get her way eventually. The government propaganda wing, the BBC will be 24/7 painting the calamity of no deal vs deal, and will skim over the option of extending or withdrawing a50, or holding another referendum. Leo is being singled out personally by the may clique as the keystone and will come under increasing pressure, which he must ignore. The EU must not give another inch.

FrancieBrady

'The country on a war footing'??? And then the cabinet go off on a two week break???

The contempt for the ordinary citizen in that alone is extraordinary. The Tories are now the most toxic entity in the UK. They don't have the courage to go it alone/hard Brexit and continue to sacrifice the country's credibility and prosperity over political bun fights and spats. Appalling behaviour.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

I really hope you are right, and I say this as an Irish man with my wife and kids settled in the UK, and my business interests there. What worries me is the talk last night that if Leo shifts, and I quote "just 5%" on the backstop, then dup will be back on board, and with them, he thinks, she will get her vote through, making everyone bar herself, considerably worse off.
This is a woman who decries a second referendum as anti democratic, but will happily have a second third or fourth vote if she think she will get her way eventually. The government propaganda wing, the BBC will be 24/7 painting the calamity of no deal vs deal, and will skim over the option of extending or withdrawing a50, or holding another referendum. Leo is being singled out personally by the may clique as the keystone and will come under increasing pressure, which he must ignore. The EU must not give another inch.

Don't worry, it won't. There are many in the UK who find it impossible to believe that the EU is backing its member states against a soon-to-be third country, and who are struggling to come to terms with the fact that, for the first time ever, in an issue arising between Ireland and the UK, Ireland has the stronger negotiating position. But this is just a particular example of a more general truth, that Brexit means Brexit.

Certain politicians in the UK have been waiting pretty much from the get-go for the EU to shaft Ireland because Britain is, well, Britain; they are the same politicians who confidently expected the EU to fall over backwards and grant the UK an immediate FTA on terms suggested by the UK, and when that didn't happen reassured themselves and everyone else that it would happen soon, because the German auto industry would come galloping to the rescue.

None of these things have happened. None of them is going to happen. The EU position has been clear, rational, reasanable and above all consistent since the start of this process, and there is no reason to expect that to change.

Zubeneschamali

bilston wrote: »

I'd say in a no deal scenario the border will remain soft initially. It will be pressure from France and Germany etc which will ultimately lead to a hard border being created.

Under a no-deal scenario, the NI border will not be the story - the story will be the collapse of the UKs major ports, the lack of food and medicine, the empty supermarket shelves.

By the time anyone gets around to putting pressure on Ireland to erect a hard border, the UK will have signed a deal including a backstop just to feed their population.

downcow

flatty wrote: »

I really hope you are right, and I say this as an Irish man with my wife and kids settled in the UK, and my business interests there. What worries me is the talk last night that if Leo shifts, and I quote "just 5%" on the backstop, then dup will be back on board, and with them, he thinks, she will get her vote through, making everyone bar herself, considerably worse off.
.

Did they give any sense of what this ‘5%’ would look like. I can’t understand how it can be percentage. I think it is all or nothing. ie while it requires both Eu and UK to end it then any of the 28 countries can ensure it continues for ever. That’s the issue as I see it ie it will be permanent

Christy42

Businesses kicking up a fuss. Largely pointing out it is too late for them to do a lot of their planning for a no deal (which seems to largely consist of fleeing a sinking ship). They need to know what they can keep in the UK in the event of a deal (and so need the vote to happen).

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46610792

The government announced a focus on no deal yesterday, I don't think it was a power play. Ireland and the rest of the EU have been looking into it for ages as it is prudent. The EU are publishling guidelines into it having already done the work. I know consultancy firms plans ready to go to advise companies and yet the UK government has waited to the 11th hour.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

I know consultancy firms plans ready to go to advise companies and yet the UK government has waited to the 11th hour.

Which means it is too late. May is trying to scare MPs into voting for her deal.

When this fails, she will threaten the Brexiteers with a 2nd referendum, a Remain/No Deal referendum. She will hope enough Remainer MPs will be scared No Deal might win, Brexiteers will be scared Remain might win, and the only option will be her deal.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Did they give any sense of what this ‘5%’ would look like. I can’t understand how it can be percentage. I think it is all or nothing. ie while it requires both Eu and UK to end it then any of the 28 countries can ensure it continues for ever. That’s the issue as I see it ie it will be permanent

It is a recurring Brexiter nightmare that the backstop will be permanent; that the EU will simply refuse to agree any trade deal, etc, that might supplant it. But in fact I think this is projection. The Attorney-General's advice, which Parliament succeeded in dragging out of HMG with a "contempt of Parliament" resolution, confirms that the UK can't end the backstop unilaterally (well, duh) but also contains a less-commented-on section pointing to strong reasons why the EU definitely would not want the backstop to continue permanently, and would greatly prefer to transition from the backstop to one of the other modes of keeping the Irish border open that are envisaged in the Joint Report, such as a trade deal. Yes, a trade deal can be vetoed by any one of the EU-27, but that's generally true of EU trade deals and it hasn't prevented the EU concluding the largest network of trade deals the world has ever seen. So the risk of veto is clearly one they are adept at managing.

The real fear of Brexiters is not that the EU will reject a trade deal that would work to keep the Irish border open; it's that the UK will be unable to propose one. The truth is that any trade deal which would be effective in this regard is likely to have to compromise signficantly on the red lines set by May. What this means is that the trade deal that supersedes the backstop may well be one proposed by the next UK government, not by the May government.

Getting back to the withdrawal agreement and the backstop, I agree with you that "5%" is hard to make sense of. I think it's probably just a figure of speech meaning "a modest adjustment". If the DUP and/or the ERG are going to climb down and accept May's deal as the least of three evils, it will be necessary to make space for them to do that with minimal loss of face. The most likely way of doing this is to make some small adjustment to the backstop which they can hail as a gamechanging victory. The trick will be in framing an adjustment which they can colourably claim is signficant, but which doesn't open up any possibility of the backstop not effectively preventing a hard border "unless and until" it is superseded by some equally effective trade deal or other arrangement.

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is a recurring Brexiter nightmare that the backstop will be permanent; that the EU will simply refuse to agree any trade deal, etc, that might supplant it. But in fact I think this is projection. The Attorney-General's advice, which Parliament succeeded in dragging out of HMG with a "contempt of Parliament" resolution, confirms that the UK can't end the backstop unilaterally (well, duh) but also contains a less-commented-on section pointing to strong reasons why the EU definitely would not want the backstop to continue permanently, and would greatly prefer to transition from the backstop to one of the other modes of keeping the Irish border open that are envisaged in the Joint Report, such as a trade deal. Yes, a trade deal can be vetoed by any one of the EU-27, but that's generally true of EU trade deals and it hasn't prevented the EU concluding the largest network of trade deals the world has ever seen. So the risk of veto is clearly one they are adept at managing.

The real fear of Brexiters is not that the EU will reject a trade deal that would work to keep the Irish border open; it's that the UK will be unable to propose one. The truth is that any trade deal which would be effective in this regard is likely to have to compromise signficantly on the red lines set by May. What this means is that the trade deal that supersedes the backstop may well be one proposed by the next UK government, not by the May government.

Getting back to the withdrawal agreement and the backstop, I agree with you that "5%" is hard to make sense of. I think it's probably just a figure of speech meaning "a modest adjustment". If the DUP and/or the ERG are going to climb down and accept May's deal as the least of three evils, it will be necessary to make space for them to do that with minimal loss of face. The most likely way of doing this is to make some small adjustment to the backstop which they can hail as a gamechanging victory. The trick will be in framing an adjustment which they can colourably claim is signficant, but which doesn't open up any possibility of the backstop not effectively preventing a hard border "unless and until" it is superseded by some equally effective trade deal or other arrangement.

Thanks very clear. My problem is this continual double talk from Eu etc ie NI should not worry about the backstop being permanent but in the next breath saying we insist we keep you over s barrel just in case and insist ireland have a veto in keeping backstop for ever.

Russman

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is a recurring Brexiter nightmare that the backstop will be permanent; that the EU will simply refuse to agree any trade deal, etc, that might supplant it. But in fact I think this is projection. The Attorney-General's advice, which Parliament succeeded in dragging out of HMG with a "contempt of Parliament" resolution, confirms that the UK can't end the backstop unilaterally (well, duh) but also contains a less-commented-on section pointing to strong reasons why the EU definitely would not want the backstop to continue permanently, and would greatly prefer to transition from the backstop to one of the other modes of keeping the Irish border open that are envisaged in the Joint Report, such as a trade deal. Yes, a trade deal can be vetoed by any one of the EU-27, but that's generally true of EU trade deals and it hasn't prevented the EU concluding the largest network of trade deals the world has ever seen. So the risk of veto is clearly one they are adept at managing.

The real fear of Brexiters is not that the EU will reject a trade deal that would work to keep the Irish border open; it's that the UK will be unable to propose one. The truth is that any trade deal which would be effective in this regard is likely to have to compromise signficantly on the red lines set by May. What this means is that the trade deal that supersedes the backstop may well be one proposed by the next UK government, not by the May government.

Getting back to the withdrawal agreement and the backstop, I agree with you that "5%" is hard to make sense of. I think it's probably just a figure of speech meaning "a modest adjustment". If the DUP and/or the ERG are going to climb down and accept May's deal as the least of three evils, it will be necessary to make space for them to do that with minimal loss of face. The most likely way of doing this is to make some small adjustment to the backstop which they can hail as a gamechanging victory. The trick will be in framing an adjustment which they can colourably claim is signficant, but which doesn't open up any possibility of the backstop not effectively preventing a hard border "unless and until" it is superseded by some equally effective trade deal or other arrangement.

I'd agree with a lot of that. I do think however that, down the line, both sides will struggle to come up with an eventual trade deal - I can easily see the UK's position as being "we want the exact same terms as we had whilst a member, but we won't budge on our red lines now that we're out". Probably answered with a Gallic shrug and a pffft and "call us in a few years so".

Akrasia

downcow wrote: »

Thanks very clear. My problem is this continual double talk from Eu etc ie NI should not worry about the backstop being permanent but in the next breath saying we insist we keep you over s barrel just in case and insist ireland have a veto in keeping backstop for ever.

The backstop isn't supposed to be permanent, but it is only the UK who can end it by bringing in border arrangements that are compatible with the GFA

The advise is that the EU won't be intransigent if the UK bring forward acceptable border arrangements.

The problem is that the UK's proposals are pure fantasy and unless they step into reality and come up with a proper solution, then no arrangements can be made to end the backstop.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Thanks very clear. My problem is this continual double talk from Eu etc ie NI should not worry about the backstop being permanent but in the next breath saying we insist we keep you over s barrel just in case and insist ireland have a veto in keeping backstop for ever.

An insurance policy is an 'insurance policy' as a backstop is a 'backstop'.

It is very simple really. You hope you don't need it but it is there if you do.

It is the whinging about the fundamental obviousness of that, that is the problem here.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Thanks very clear. My problem is this continual double talk from Eu etc ie NI should not worry about the backstop being permanent but in the next breath saying we insist we keep you over s barrel just in case and insist ireland have a veto in keeping backstop for ever.

There's no double talk here. The backstop must last unless and until it is superseded by something yet to be agreed, however long that may take; we are highly motivated to agree something that will supersede it. There is nothing contradictory or inconsistent there.

Neither Ireland in particular nor the EU as a whole has any reason to want to keep the backstop permanent; quite the reverse. As far as I can see, Brexiter concerns about this are actually a mask for their real concern, which is that the UK won't agree (or they wouldn't want the UK to agree) a trade deal, etc, that includes the kind of terms that would have to be included to keep the border open.

Russman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Under a no-deal scenario, the NI border will not be the story - the story will be the collapse of the UKs major ports, the lack of food and medicine, the empty supermarket shelves.

By the time anyone gets around to putting pressure on Ireland to erect a hard border, the UK will have signed a deal including a backstop just to feed their population.

How realistic is that though ? (genuinely wondering as I can't get my head around supposedly educated people willing to take their country down that path)
There seems to be a view across the water that "it'll be alright on the night" kind of thing. Now, maybe its head in the sand stuff on their part and there's no excuse for wilful ignorance, but I fear they're in for a seriously rude awakening on 30th March.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

My problem is this continual double talk from Eu etc ie NI should not worry about the backstop being permanent

This is a little joke by the EU - Brexiteers should not worry about the backstop being permanent because it is specifically stated to only be in force unless and until a deal which makes it unnecessary is in place.

And Brexiteers have continually said how easy it will be to get a comprehensive Free Trade deal with the EU, and how new technology makes a hard border unnecessary anyhow.

So if the Brexiteers have any idea what they are talking about, the backstop will never be needed at all, it is no big deal, hurrah!

The joke is that nobody, including the Brexiteers themselves, believes what the Brexiteers are saying, as proven by the fact that they think the backstop is a really big deal.

Russman

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither Ireland in particular nor the EU as a whole has any reason to want to keep the backstop permanent; quite the reverse. As far as I can see, Brexiter concerns about this are actually mask for their real concern, which is that the UK won't agree (or they wouldn't want the UK to agree) a trade deal, etc, that includes the kind of terms that would have to be included to keep the border open.

This exactly.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Under a no-deal scenario, the NI border will not be the story - the story will be the collapse of the UKs major ports, the lack of food and medicine, the empty supermarket shelves.

By the time anyone gets around to putting pressure on Ireland to erect a hard border, the UK will have signed a deal including a backstop just to feed their population.

This is true, And this is why anyone who says crashing out will be less divisive than a 2nd referendum are completely wrong

If the above happens, the brexiteers will be up in arms and blame every single negative consequence on the EU and them punishing the UK for leaving. When the UK goes back begging to a deal from the EU, the brexiteers won't be chastened, they'll be even more entrenched and the shouting won't just be the verbal abuse of minorities that we are already seeing, it will be riots on the streets, racially motivated attacks, far right rallies and demagogues like Johnson and Farage and Mogg using the chaos as a ladder to further divide and undermine civil society

Nothing will make the hardcore brexiteers more angry than giving them exactly what they want.

A 2nd referendum will be a divisive one but it will be democratic. A crash out will be divisive, but it will be violent, destructive, and more akin to a civil war than a democratic process

Peregrinus

Russman wrote: »

I'd agree with a lot of that. I do think however that, down the line, both sides will struggle to come up with an eventual trade deal - I can easily see the UK's position as being "we want the exact same terms as we had whilst a member, but we won't budge on our red lines now that we're out". Probably answered with a Gallic shrug and a pffft and "call us in a few years so".

It's because of fear of that kind of stand-off that we need the backstop.

But that kind of stand-off won't continue indefinitely. The problem arises because of the red lines on which May has, foolishly, nailed her own head to the mast. But that was a decision made after the referendum; it doesn't have the political or moral force of something mandated by the referendum, and there are plenty of people in the UK who want, or would accept, a Brexit, but not the Brexit that the red lines would dictate.

May's committed to the red lines becauss they're her red lines, and also because of the current parliamentary arithmetic. But, regardless of who wins the next election, the next government will not be headed by May, and it is very unlikely to face parliamentary arithmetic giving the DUP such extraordinary influence. And since May's Brexit is, um, not going to make an awful lot of wishes come true, its brand will be pretty tarnished fairly soon. So it's going to be, comparatively at least, much easier for a post-May PM, whether Tory or Labour, to move on from the straitjacket of May's red lines and the particular Brexit they would dictate.

LeinsterDub

The latest episode of Brexit republic is great

Brexit Republic Ep 22 18-12-18

12/18/18 by RTÉ:Ireland

Episode: https://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2018-12-18&rte_mt_prg_name=test-brexitrepublic&title=Brexit%20Republic%20Ep%2022%2018-12-18&c7=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2018%2F1218%2F20181218_webexclusi-brexitrepublic-brexitrepu_c21480725_21480730_232_.mp3&r=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2018%2F1218%2F20181218_webexclusi-brexitrepublic-brexitrepu_c21480725_21480730_232_.mp3

On Thursday, December 13 Sir Ivan Rogers delivered a hard-hitting speech to the University of Liverpool's Heseltine Institute. He had a robust analysis of the current Brexit debate most recent speech. The Heseltine Institute has kindly provided us with the audio of the speech for this podcast.

Zubeneschamali

Russman wrote: »

Now, maybe its head in the sand stuff on their part and there's no excuse for wilful ignorance, but I fear they're in for a seriously rude awakening on 30th March.

This is a very real risk. It is what the UK civil service has been telling the politicians for years, and for that reason, I don't think it will happen. May is aware of the risk, and she is bluffing.

But if it does happen, there is a very real further risk of civil unrest much more serious than the miners strike, poll tax riots and the 2011 London riots rolled into one. I would not be surprised to see the face of UK politics completely changed in unpredictable ways. Perhaps a 20 year Labour government? The end of the United Kingdom? Perhaps a new English Gammon Party?

downcow

I appreciate most people’s efforts on here to be honest about how they see it. Unfortunately as someone who certainly is not a dup voter and supported gfa and enjoy many friendships across the border, I see no way out of this.
I don’t believe there is an example anywhere in the world of a nation giving up a permanent veto on how the border should be managed to another state never mind such an undemocratic conglomerate of 27 states. It makes no sense and can’t happen.
And yes I understand why you all desire it.
My guess of chances going forward for what’s it worth, having read all your comments
Renegotiated deal 40%
No deal exit 40%
Mays deal 10%
Remain 5%
Something none of us have thought about 5%