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; } } }

Child Item

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

kunst nugget

I thought it was relief at coming to an agreement that wouldn't lead to a reigniting of the troubles and would keep trade flowing seamlessly along the border rather than triumphalism at getting one over on the British.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is very true, but hardly the EU' fault. This is a direct consequence of the UK not really knowing what it wants, what was available or even what it actually had.

The very fact that this deal is worse than EU membership, yet the response is "just do a hard brexit" tells you all you need to know.

They had a feeling that something wasn't working. Haven looked at the alternatives it seems that the current situation isn't actually all that bad, but hey no turning back now I suppose.

The problem with the Brexiteers and the Leave voters is that they don't know what they want. The only thing they can agree on is that they hate the EU but they haven't the faintest clue how to make the UK work outside the union.

You could never describe them as pragmatists or realists. They are chasing an ideological fantasy.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

There was no mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.

Yes, the formal mechanism, article 50 and such, came in with Lisbon. But the EU was always a voluntary association.

Where is the consensus/legal opinion that the backstop can not be withdrawn from even if the Withdrawal Agreement itself is cancelled coming from anyway? Would seem slightly bizarre to me.

My understanding is that once the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, negotiations start on the future relationship. If these don't conclude in a way that satisfactory to either side that an open border can be sustained, then the backstop icome into force and remains in force until such time that an agreement can be reached that it is not necessary.

The problem is this: how can the UK satisfy the EU that border infrastructure will never be needed? The most they can do is demonstrate is that it is not needed at that particular point in time. The EU, knowing this, can then reasonably argue for the continued need for the backstop.

If the backstop is an insurance policy, then it is one that is needed forever.

I think we on this forum sometimes make the mistake of thinking that because we really really want the backstop (and it is indeed great for us) that it is also reasonable for the UK. But that is not necessarily the case.

When the basis of it was agreed the December before last there was a triumphalist mood in Ireland over what it appeared we had got past the British. We thought we had got one over on them. This is changing now that it looks like the UK parliament may reject the deal and Ireland will be worse off. In fairness, some posters on here did point out the dangers around the time of the December Joint Report.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

Problem with the "deal" is that even if it is ratified by the Parliament, it will lead to years of arguments in the UK. If they were unhappy with EU membership, they are going to be ten times as unhappy with this deal ('they' being the real problem here of course).

This is very true, but hardly the EU' fault. This is a direct consequence of the UK not really knowing what it wants, what was available or even what it actually had.

The very fact that this deal is worse than EU membership, yet the response is "just do a hard brexit" tells you all you need to know.

They had a feeling that something wasn't working. Haven looked at the alternatives it seems that the current situation isn't actually all that bad, but hey no turning back now I suppose.

Leroy42

But the EU didn't have to move. the UK are leaving with the rest of the EU staying as it was. Why would the EU make any changes? That simply makes no sense.

What I haven't heard anywhere is what specifically would people change in the TM deal that would likely meet the requirements of the EU? The EU requirements have been set out from the very start, and they have given in quite a lot during the negotiations (UK wide CU, transition period and extension etc). The problem is that the UK have wanted a totally new agreement on the basis, it would appear, that the UK is special and as such should be treated special.

No problem with that aim of course, but what has TM's deal shown that the UK (through TM) given in on? Each part of the deal is aimed at getting something else. So UK wide CU is aimed at maintaining trade. Should that not have been considered? Backstop is aimed at preserving the GFA and the stability of NI, is that not something that should be there?

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against.

The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it.

The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations.

So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?

Problem with the "deal" is that even if it is ratified by the Parliament, it will lead to years of arguments in the UK. If they were unhappy with EU membership, they are going to be ten times as unhappy with this deal ('they' being the real problem here of course).

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against.

The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it.

The point isn't so much that the deal is worse than EU membership, it is that, from the point of view of UK MPs, the May deal may be worse than no deal. The debate between continued EU membership and some sort of brexit is long over. The only debate now is what sort of brexit: May's deal or no deal.

If there were no requirement that it pass in the HoC, then the EU negotiated brilliantly. But none of it is any good if it does not pass.

The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations.

What the UK appear to have wanted initially was a close trading relationship with the EU somewhere between a Canada style trade deal and a customs union but not either of those exclusivly. This would have allowed external trade deals to be made but also allowed a relatively open border in Ireland.

It is, of course, the right of the EU to refuse this, but not in itself contradictory. I would say that it was a good starting point for negotiations rather than what transpired.

So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?

Well certainly it seems to me that she moved in the directon of the EU. I don't think the EU did much moving.

Again, all this would be great for Ireland but for the fact that it has to be ratified in the UK parliament. Was it anti-Brexit types that pushed for the parlimentary vote?

I don't know. Maybe Corbyn will step in at the last minute and try for a vote of no confidence. I'm not familiar with the rules or the parliamentary arithmetic involved. He's claiming he can stop the deal AND avoid a no deal Brexit.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

That certainly appears to be the game plan. TM and her team seem to be of the view that when push comes to shove people will accept this deal as the alternatives (No deal, no Brexit) are simply unacceptable.

But they have completely failed to sell the deal. It is very much "this is it, take it or leave it". Which of itself is fine, but they are not articulating why "leave it" is such a poor option. Recall that throughout this TM has continued to state that "No deal is better than a bad deal", but seemingly that was all nonsense as No deal is actually terrible and no body could ever vote for it, although if it happens it won't be that bad at all and WTO is great.

It is this constant lack of detail and continual contradictions that has so many in the UK with diverse opinions as to what to do.

I have said it before, TM needs to stand up in the HoC, or address the nation, and explain in clear terms, why No Deal is simply not an option. She needs to explain that No PM could ever countenance the negative effects of such a gamble, that peoples very lives would be at stake.

She must already believe this otherwise she would not be pushing this deal as the only option.

I think she should avoid the 'no PM could ever' line. She's backtracked on that too!

Leroy42

But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against.

The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it.

The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations.

So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the thing they are leaving, the EU, they can leave without permission of the EU or the other member states. Same with the likes of the EEA, WTO etc. Sure there may be economic consequences, but they are not breaking international law.

Were it the case that once agreeing to join the EU a member could never leave then the situation would be more like the US (where succession is illegal), and the EU would be free to take whatever measures necessary to keep the member in the union.

If such a scenario were the case, then few states would agree to join in the first place. You can see why some members of the UK parliament (not limited to mad hard-line brexiteers) are therefore reluctant to sign up to the current May deal which entails a relationship with the EU which, though less involved than full EU membership, can't be exited without EU agreement.

There was no mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.

Where is the consensus/legal opinion that the backstop can not be withdrawn from even if the Withdrawal Agreement itself is cancelled coming from anyway? Would seem slightly bizarre to me.

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

It's insulting to those that need help to be used in such a way. Similar process with Trump and the migrant caravan and now Javid and the migrants in the UK.

They are actually glad these events happened so they can use them to bolster their argument, claim to be concerned for the welfare of 'genuine' refugees while simultaneously not giving a fig what happens to them.

And it's all in plain sight.

How are the migrants getting across Europe and perhaps the people in charge of security in those countries should be scrutinised and not javid-is it acceptable that there are bands of illegal immigrants roaming around mainland Europe.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

How has TM been pushed around by the EU? Rather than the EU, TM has been pushed around by her own party is what lies at the core issue here.
What part(s) of the deal, specifically.
Bear in mind, that simply wishing it was better is not enough. The UK need to have a different solution to meet the demands of the EU.

Well it looks like it is the hard line brexiteer members of her own party she has resisted rather than the EU in order to agree to a deal that seems tailor made for Ireland (a backstop ensuring no hard border in perpetuity, regulatory allignment for the whole of the UK ensuring good trade between Ireland and the UK but making foreign trade deals difficult if not impossible.

The deal agreed by May is far more in line with the EU's goals than the hard-line brexiteers, many of whom resigned from May's cabinet in protest as it became clearer the direction she was going.

Certainly from the point of view of UK Parliamentarians, it looks like she was pushed around. However, the message has to be that the deal she is presenting is the only deal. Take that with all its problems or have the economy suffer.

Also, of course, Ireland wants very bad that the deal is accepted.

fergus1001

MrMusician18 wrote:

Considering that most markets are in bear territory, a global recession is likely much sooner. As the markets lead the real economy by about 6 months, the data will, I bet, show q2 and q3 to both be negative, but we will start feeling the pinch properly in the summer. If I were in a job vulnerable to a fall in economic activity, I'd be seeking a more secure job this January even if that comes at a cost.

currently in line for a department of ag job and I will be gone like the wind as soon as my number comes up

Leroy42

How has TM been pushed around by the EU? Rather than the EU, TM has been pushed around by her own party is what lies at the core issue here.
What part(s) of the deal, specifically.
Bear in mind, that simply wishing it was better is not enough. The UK need to have a different solution to meet the demands of the EU.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is not accurate. No parliament can bind a future one - the UK can tear up the backstop arrangement at any point in time it wants. The same way it can renege on or end any of its international treaties or obligations. It just has consequences and would see the UK going down the road of North Korea-esque "sovereignty".

However the thing they are leaving, the EU, they can leave without permission of the EU or the other member states. Same with the likes of the EEA, WTO etc. Sure there may be economic consequences, but they are not breaking international law.

Were it the case that once agreeing to join the EU a member could never leave then the situation would be more like the US (where succession is illegal), and the EU would be free to take whatever measures necessary to keep the member in the union.

If such a scenario were the case, then few states would agree to join in the first place. You can see why some members of the UK parliament (not limited to mad hard-line brexiteers) are therefore reluctant to sign up to the current May deal which entails a relationship with the EU which, though less involved than full EU membership, can't be exited without EU agreement.

If the deal has any chance of success it is the likes of Corbyn that need to be persuaded. The brexiteers that have been pushing brexit all along will never be persuaded regardless of the economic cost, but the vote can be swung by opposition members together with pro-deal Conservatives if they vote in favour of it. If Labour (who were anti-brexit) can't be persuaded then the deal has no chance and we get a hard brexit and Varadkar has to face down the EU's pressure to build the border infrastructure, something he is keen to avoid.

I think the important message for Corbyn is that the only two options are the current deal or no deal exit. Yes, May was pushed around by the EU and it is not a great deal and in normal circumstances one would be mad to accept it, but this is the only deal on offer, the alternative being economic problems.

Also Ireland would like if the deal was accepted as it secures the open border with the North as well as ensures a good trading relationship with the UK.

MrMusician18

fergus1001 wrote: »

a lot of analysts predicting a global recession at the end of 2019 or start of 2020 it's going to be an interesting year for us irish if the 29th of March rolls around with no deal the only game in town

Considering that most markets are in bear territory, a global recession is likely much sooner. As the markets lead the real economy by about 6 months, the data will, I bet, show q2 and q3 to both be negative, but we will start feeling the pinch properly in the summer. If I were in a job vulnerable to a fall in economic activity, I'd be seeking a more secure job this January even if that comes at a cost.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Don't question mod warnings on thread please. Post deleted.

fergus1001

a lot of analysts predicting a global recession at the end of 2019 or start of 2020 it's going to be an interesting year for us irish if the 29th of March rolls around with no deal the only game in town

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

If you think someone is trolling, report their posts and we'll take a look at them. Don't call it out on thread. It's backseat modding.

Thanks.

Leroy42

Cyrptocurrent, what has any of Johnson, Davis or Raab done that has given you confidence?

By any measurement, Davis was a complete failure in his role. Have you forgotten that he lied to Parliament about the existence of reports? And Johnson? The man wrote columns to support both Leave and Remain and seemingly simply picked one hours before publication. He has also done nothing to advance any plan. Lest we forget, he, as Foreign Secretary, played a significant role in getting a UK citizen extra jail time in Iran.

And Raab. Poor old Raab. The man hired, and immediately sidelined by TM, yet stayed in role. The man, that only a few weeks ago, confessed that he had only recently learned that Dover was quite important in terms of import/export to the island he lives on.

And last but certainly not least, JRM. The man is now on plan number 3 I think. He talked for over a year about getting rid of TM, and then failed to have any actual plan when the chance came. Upon losing, he simply ignored the vote and demanded TM go to the Queen to resign. This was before his complete volte face within a week to tell everyone that he stood 100% behind TM, (just not her deal or her plan.)

You can't honestly think that any of the group of charlatans would provide anything other than chaos for the UK?

ambro25

Infini wrote: »

Honestly what is this exactly. I know there are some who might wanna troll to get a bit of a rise out of others but this whole post is so deluded and devoid of any grounding in reality it makes me wonder if ANY Coherent thought even went into this....

Have a heart: it's good for a bit of levity, for safeguarding the echo chamber ratio of the thread, and harmless.

Of course, not all trolls are born equal, and the bottom of the barrel can irritate far faster than a finer vintage. Luckily, we all have this handy e-spitoon that is the ignore list, always to be preferred over posting drunkenly

Tell me how

lawred2 wrote: »

The coverage of the channel crossings is comedic in its sensationalism is what I was referring to as I'm sure you knew well...

It's insulting to those that need help to be used in such a way. Similar process with Trump and the migrant caravan and now Javid and the migrants in the UK.

They are actually glad these events happened so they can use them to bolster their argument, claim to be concerned for the welfare of 'genuine' refugees while simultaneously not giving a fig what happens to them.

And it's all in plain sight.

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Not sure that something which has cost thousands their lives is comedy stuff and I for one am curious as to why they are crossing all those European countries to get to the UK?-The latest suggestion by sajid javid that the migrants could be dropped off at any safe port and mentioned French and other ports is controversial but would spread the load perhaps.

The coverage of the channel crossings is comedic in its sensationalism is what I was referring to as I'm sure you knew well...

It is no joke for those risking their lives in inflatables

Tell me how

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

Raab, Davis and Johnson taking the reigns and delivering this utopian view of Brexit, is as likely as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher still being alive and are going to assume control of everything from a basement flat in Whitehall.

You're arguments are like David Davis, easy enough to ignore, but sometimes they actually merit checking are you being serious. I doubt it personally.

An Ciarraioch

Surely Labour should realise by now that a customs union needs to be reinforced by Single Market membership, otherwise a hard Border and regulatory trade barriers with the EU result?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/corbyn-tells-may-to-strike-new-brexit-deal-labour-can-back

Seth Brundle

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

I think your view on Davis and Rabb may be somewhat inaccurate, to say the least!

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU itself is such an arrangement. Continued membership of the EU is voluntary.

The backstop, once agreed to, however, is no longer voluntary since the UK can't get out of it unilaterally. Even if the UK walk away from the rest of the withdrawal agreement, the agreement concerning the backstop remains.

This is not accurate. No parliament can bind a future one - the UK can tear up the backstop arrangement at any point in time it wants. The same way it can renege on or end any of its international treaties or obligations. It just has consequences and would see the UK going down the road of North Korea-esque "sovereignty".

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Exactly how I saw it

The sky news coverage was hilarious.. cutting from reporter to reporter standing in front of one deserted beach to the next deserted beach to the next deserted port dock to an image of a dinghy... Literally images of nothing happening but delivered by reporters using the gravest of tones...

And of course the obligatory red ticker proclaiming how the UK was in the grips of an unheralded migrant crisis...

Comedy stuff if it wasn't for the fact that so many people will be taken in by it

Not sure that something which has cost thousands their lives is comedy stuff and I for one am curious as to why they are crossing all those European countries to get to the UK?-The latest suggestion by sajid javid that the migrants could be dropped off at any safe port and mentioned French and other ports is controversial but would spread the load perhaps.

cryptocurrency

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

lawred2

EdgeCase wrote: »

Bear in mind they're mostly just whipping up hysteria about a few migrants crossing the channel because it keeps the focus on a jingoistic rhetoric that suits the tories. It's a relatively small problem and in normal times would be resolved without major fuss. Someone is deciding to make a song and dance about it for political reasons.

All of this is about the Tories taking the opportunity to show how hard their like on immigration really is.

Exactly how I saw it

The sky news coverage was hilarious.. cutting from reporter to reporter standing in front of one deserted beach to the next deserted beach to the next deserted port dock to an image of a dinghy... Literally images of nothing happening but delivered by reporters using the gravest of tones...

And of course the obligatory red ticker proclaiming how the UK was in the grips of an unheralded migrant crisis...

Comedy stuff if it wasn't for the fact that so many people will be taken in by it