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

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, remember, the EU has its own interests here, quite apart from solidarity with member states and protection of the GFA. The EU is also concerned about the integrity of the single market. They are not going to let Ireland make arrangements that could threaten that, still less encourage us to do so.

(And, make no mistake; we would do that in a heartbeat, if we were let.)

There's a precedent; when Poland acceded to the EU, they wanted to negotiate their own border arrangements with the Ukraine (to preserve an existing visa-free access arrangement the two countries had). That request got short shrift.

Ireland will not attempt to persuade the EU to let us make a bilateral deal with the UK that would keep the border open and, if we did ask, the EU would not agree. And HMG knows all this. The most likely explanation for HMG's stance here is that it's an attempt to play to the gallery.

(But, if so, for reasons already given it's a very ill-judged attempt.)

It is a kick to touch excercise. Stall the whole end date. Everyone knows it will achieve and can't achieve anything but that.

It is the only sense I can see from the weekend developments. It will be interesting to see if Dublin will strongly rebuff the efforts.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see the EU (Dublin will find it hard to rebuff this approach) allowing talks between Dub-London and DUP-Dublin in their own effort to be seen as being 'positive'. I think they will find it very hard to finally shut the door.
I sense they are looking for good reasons to allow more time.

I agree it is all pointless unless red lines disappear, but May is more interested in survival and the survival of her party.

But, remember, the EU has its own interests here, quite apart from solidarity with member states and protection of the GFA. The EU is also concerned about the integrity of the single market. They are not going to let Ireland make arrangements that could threaten that, still less encourage us to do so.

(And, make no mistake; we would do that in a heartbeat, if we were let.)

There's a precedent; when Poland acceded to the EU, they wanted to negotiate their own border arrangements with the Ukraine (to preserve an existing visa-free access arrangement the two countries had). That request got short shrift.

Ireland will not attempt to persuade the EU to let us make a bilateral deal with the UK that would keep the border open and, if we did ask, the EU would not agree. And HMG knows all this. The most likely explanation for HMG's stance here is that it's an attempt to play to the gallery.

(But, if so, for reasons already given it's a very ill-judged attempt.)

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's pointless. Trade, market regulation, etc are EU competences. Dublin lacks the legal competence to make a treaty with the EU which could contain the kinds of measures needed to keep the border open. HMG knows this. The Irish government knows this. HMG knows that the Irish government knows this. They might as well try to make a "lets keep the border open" agreement with Monaghan County Council for all the good it could do.

At a guess, Donaldson is being positive about the "talks" because he knows the Irish government will decline opportunity to engage in such talks, and he wants to be in a position to say "Look! It's Irish government intransigence and inflexibility that is causing a hard border!"

I can see the EU (Dublin will find it hard to rebuff this approach) allowing talks between Dub-London and DUP-Dublin in their own effort to be seen as being 'positive'. I think they will find it very hard to finally shut the door.
I sense they are looking for good reasons to allow more time.

I agree it is all pointless unless red lines disappear, but May is more interested in survival and the survival of her party.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

I think option B may be a kick to touch strategy. 'Ongoing talks' etc etc. An attempt to isolate and pressure Dublin maybe. Divide and conquer.

But it's pointless. Trade, market regulation, etc are EU competences. Dublin lacks the legal competence to make a treaty with the EU which could contain the kinds of measures needed to keep the border open. HMG knows this. The Irish government knows this. HMG knows that the Irish government knows this. They might as well try to make a "lets keep the border open" agreement with Monaghan County Council for all the good it could do.

At a guess, Donaldson is being positive about the "talks" because he knows the Irish government will decline opportunity to engage in such talks, and he wants to be in a position to say "Look! It's Irish government intransigence and inflexibility that is causing a hard border!"

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm struggling to think, though, what the "quite different move" could be.

The problem facing May - or one of the problems, anyway - is that her government is widely perceived to be losing authority, control, relevance. Since the bizarre sequenc of events that started with the voting down by the Commons of the Withdrawal Agreement, there's a growing sense that she and her government do not have the capacity to lead the way to any resolution of the questions facing the UK - that it matters less and less what she does, because some grown-ups (or some relatively grown-up people, anyway) are going to have to step in to fix that. Some alliance of Tory remainers and the Labour party will intervent to take no-deal off the table, for example.

May desparately needs to counteract that narrative, or she could be toast within days. But floating these bat****-insane detached-from-elementary-reality proposals, far from counteracting the losing-control narrative, can only reinforce it. Of those offering ways forward, you'd bracket people offering this kind of stuff along with Raab, currently telling anyone who will listen that a no-deal Brexit will bring the EU whingeing back to the negotiating table to give the UK the Brexit it deserves.

In short, May does such colossal reputational damage to herself and what remains of her government with this sh!te that (a) she must be about to unveil some really super absolutely brilliant game-changing plan that will totally make people forgive and forget this kind of stupidity, or (b) she really has lost the plot. And I can't think of what that plan might be; nor can I think of her government as the kind of government that can produce such a plan.

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

I think option B may be a kick to touch strategy. 'Ongoing talks' etc etc. An attempt to isolate and pressure Dublin maybe. Divide and conquer.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree here. They have been pushing stories all weekend, there is something afoot. I go option B

I'm struggling to think, though, what the "quite different move" could be.

The problem facing May - or one of the problems, anyway - is that her government is widely perceived to be losing authority, control, relevance. Since the bizarre sequence of events that started with the voting down by the Commons of the Withdrawal Agreement, there's a growing sense that she and her government do not have the capacity to lead the way to any resolution of the questions facing the UK - that it matters less and less what she does, because some grown-ups (or some relatively grown-up people, anyway) are going to have to step in to fix that. Some alliance of Tory remainers and the Labour party will intervent to take no-deal off the table, for example.

May desparately needs to counteract that narrative, or she could be toast within days. But floating these batsh1t-insane detached-from-elementary-reality proposals, far from counteracting the losing-control narrative, can only reinforce it. Of those offering ways forward, you'd bracket people offering this kind of stuff along with Raab, currently telling anyone who will listen that a no-deal Brexit will bring the EU whingeing back to the negotiating table to give the UK the Brexit it deserves.

In short, May does such colossal reputational damage to herself and what remains of her government with this sh!te that either (a) she must be about to unveil some really super absolutely brilliant game-changing plan that will totally make people forgive and forget this kind of stupidity, or (b) she really has lost the plot. And I can't think of what that plan might be; nor can I think of her government as the kind of government that can produce such a plan.

Gerinspain

I was just reading Gove’s views about the GFA after a discussion in another forum. It wouldn’t be good for peace in NI if he was PM.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/the-price-of-peace/amp/

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Amendments to the GFA don't necessarily require referendums in Ireland (or NI). After all, the St. Andrew's agreement amended the GFA; no referendums were involved.

To say whether a particular amendment to the GFA would or would not require a referendum it is necessary to know exactly what amendment is being proposed. And the honours students will have noticed that the briefing to the newspapers has beein distinctly light on such details.

Similarly with the (absurd) suggestion that the backstop in the WA would be replaced with a bilateral UK/IRL treaty which would reassure the Irish government to such an extent that they would agree to the backstop being dropped. What would, or even conceivably could, be included in a UK/IRL treaty that could possibly provide this degree of reassurance? Again, there is no hint of an answer to this pretty obvious question in the stories given to the newspapers.

All of which leads me to the unworthy suspicion that these stories are designed to give the appearance of movement, of action, of flexiblity, without their being any actual reality. Which means:

(a) the UK government still has no clue what it is going to do; or

(b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.

Option (a), if I'm honest, is much more likely, but option (b) is at least a possibility.

I agree here. They have been pushing stories all weekend, there is something afoot. I go option B

murphaph

EdgeCase wrote: »

Also I suspect that the lack of a sane US president isn't helping either as the Americans have actually played a very major role in ensuring the GFA had the diplomatic backing make the British pay attention to it.

That's an excellent point. I can't imagine Clinton or Obama sitting idly by during this. The Irish government would make approaches and ensure a quiet word was had in London's ear about this. With Trump that would appear unwise as he's likely to just blurt it out if anything and he's no particular friend of either Ireland or the UK.

Peregrinus

Hurrache wrote: »

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

Amendments to the GFA don't necessarily require referendums in Ireland (or NI). After all, the St. Andrew's agreement amended the GFA; no referendums were involved.

To say whether a particular amendment to the GFA would or would not require a referendum it is necessary to know exactly what amendment is being proposed. And the honours students will have noticed that the briefing to the newspapers has been distinctly light on such details.

Similarly with the (absurd) suggestion that the backstop in the WA would be replaced with a bilateral UK/IRL treaty which would reassure the Irish government to such an extent that they would agree to the backstop being dropped. What would, or even conceivably could, be included in a UK/IRL treaty that could possibly provide this degree of reassurance? Again, there is no hint of an answer to this pretty obvious question in the stories given to the newspapers.

All of which leads me to the unworthy suspicion that these stories are designed to give the appearance of movement, of action, of flexiblity, without there being any corresponding reality. Which means:

(a) the UK government still has no clue what it is going to do; or

(b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.

Option (a), if I'm honest, is much more likely, but option (b) is at least a possibility.

EdgeCase

Hurrache wrote: »

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

Quite simply : nobody else matters. Never has. Never will. That's what the problem with supremacists. They'll always think they're better than everyone else.

Ireland's simply either a problem or a possession to them. In their minds it's not a real country and certainly not an equal partner in anyway. The same goes for how they interact with the EU. They can't operate in a group where they have to be an equal member. It's always exceptionalism and notions of superiority. They don't do team sports. They take the ball and run away with it.

How is anyone going to be able to sign agreements with them on anything? They seem to not even understand what an agreement is.

I would give May some leeway as a big chunk of British press basically reports whatever it wants to happen as opposed to what's actually happening and this could a be utter waffle and speculation.

However, it shows how little this particular cohort (and it's not all of English politics) cares about anything other than themselves.

The idea that anyone would dismantle the GFA doesn't even bear thinking about. It's utter lunacy.

I suspect Anglo-Irish relations could become a lot less warm in the coming years if this is the route they really intend to take.

Also I suspect that the lack of a sane US president isn't helping either as the Americans have actually played a very major role in ensuring the GFA had the diplomatic backing make the British pay attention to it.

With Trump, who knows? I doubt he'll be that bothered although his cabinet is full of Irish American right wingers.

It'll be very unlikely that they'll back it like it would have been stood up for under Obama, Clinton or even GW Bush.

Hurrache

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

Leroy42

You have to wonder why TM stays on? After that massive loss she really shpuld have stood aside.

Junkyard Tom

Johnson and Davis and Raab should be the ones who lead Britain if there must be a crash-out Brexit so that, in the future, their utter incompetence can be exposed and the Conservative party can be torn asunder.

Hurrache

SDLP react to the Telegraph story
https://twitter.com/SDLPlive/status/1087122024844181504?s=19

Folkstonian

Water John wrote: »

The only 2 you mention who have shown ability to mange their Minesterial briefs are Gove and Rudd. Rudd gets a bonus point for taking one that should have been the fatal shot at her PM.

Amber Rudd was a disaster as Home Secretary long before she took the hit for May on Windrush

Enzokk

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sweet FA

For info, the Tory party in Scotland is exactly the same as the Tory party in the rest of Britain. There is no such party as the Scottish Tories - that is just branding to try and not be linked with the farce that goes on in the Tory party. Davidson would hide from questions anyway so her on maternity leave is no different

It is one of the interesting votes I will be looking at at the next election. What will be the support for the Scottish Tories after they have allowed Brexit to happen in a country that overwhelmingly voted to remain. There has been no effort at all from Scottish Conservatives to even get a soft Brexit through. If the Scottish people are serious about staying in the EU they will punish them.

Water John

The only 2 you mention who have shown ability to mange their Minesterial briefs are Gove and Rudd. Rudd gets a bonus point for taking one that should have been the fatal shot at her PM.

Folkstonian

Tell me how wrote: »

In conversations about the next leader of the Conservatives (and therefore potential PM) 4 names are still in the short list (7 total on the list*). Raab, Johnson, Davis and Gove.

I would be concerned if any of them were GM of a 100-500 person company.

*(The others are Javid, Hunt and Rudd)

Personally, I think Gove and Raab would both make good leaders of the Conservative party.

Ultimately however I would be extremely content to see Johnny Mercer, Helen Whately or Penny Mordaunt, although they are all very unlikely in the next contest.

Johnson, Davis and Amber Rudd would all be disasters in my opinion, but worryingly they are probably the front runners!

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

I think we are seeing the UK strategy playing out in desperation now. Firstly Theresa May talked about compromises and the parties getting together to ensure a deal gets made that parliament can vote for, then she still has her red lines and it rules out any compromise deal.

We have also seen stories talking about how there is division among EU countries and even between Varadkar and Coveney. Now we have the UK wanting to change the GFA to get a deal through? It is getting desperate now and I fear it will only get worse from here on in.

It’s almost as if we’re listening in to a No. 10 brainstorming session. “C’mon people”, says Theresa May, “let’s put on our thinking caps and say our ideas out loud. Now remember, no suggestion is too outrageous, and it doesn’t go beyond this room”.

Only to have every daft idea regurgitated in the media.

A Dub in Glasgo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have the Scottish Conservatives delivered anything for Scotland since the election apart from Ruth's baby ?

May needs them. And has practically ignored them while fawning to the DUP and "ERG". The DUP have extracted money and concessions but the Scottish Tory Party have done what exactly ?

If there is a GE or Indyref2 they could be toast.

Sweet FA

For info, the Tory party in Scotland is exactly the same as the Tory party in the rest of Britain. There is no such party as the Scottish Tories - that is just branding to try and not be linked with the farce that goes on in the Tory party. Davidson would hide from questions anyway so her on maternity leave is no different

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

We'll see her deliver another nonentity of a speech tomorrow, I wouldn't doubt.
Just looking to bring ERG and DUP on board.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/20/theresa-may-cross-party-consensus-brexit-backstop-tory-split

She has not reached out cross party, keeping the Tories from splitting is her overriding concern. For her that means not alienating the ERG, seems to think the rest will always fall in line.

Seems about right. This quote from the article just about sells it for where the UK government is right now.

Cabinet sources said the consensus on the 90-minute call was to renew efforts to find acceptable changes to the backstop arrangement but that the conversation was light on specifics. One said there were “no actual solutions” proposed during the call.

So they know the only way to get the deal through without splitting the Conservative Party is to change the backstop. But they don't know how to do this so we have nothing happening. I foresee that Theresa May will not be willing to compromise with the other parties and will thus go back to the EU to ask for a change to the backstop. This will be met with incredulity by EU leaders as May will not be able to tell them what they specifically need other than no backstop.

So we are where we always have been. May needs the DUP and the ERG votes, but if she follows their Brexit plans there are enough rebels to block this. But she cannot get a soft Brexit through due to the DUP and ERG blocking it and if she reaches across the aisle she will face a split in the Tory party. I think the Hail Mary from May will be to challenge the rebels by tying a vote in the HoC to a no confidence in government. This would mean if they vote against it they are going against their party. The only way to get this through is by following the ERG and DUP because if she goes the other way the 10 DUP votes swings it against her.

Just to make me chuckle a bit I will remember Cameron stating that a Labour government would lead to chaos and May was touting how strong and stable she is. What a farce.

Tell me how

blackcard wrote: »

It is frankly mind boggling to hear Raab being mentioned as a possible Prime Minister. Surely the populace can see him for what he is, a rather dim politician

In conversations about the next leader of the Conservatives (and therefore potential PM) 4 names are still in the short list (7 total on the list*). Raab, Johnson, Davis and Gove.

I would be concerned if any of them were GM of a 100-500 person company.

*(The others are Javid, Hunt and Rudd)

Enzokk

Synode wrote: »

RTE News saying they're considering staying in the Customs Union to remove the need for a backstop (I think, was only half listening). Does this sound realistic and if so would the EU find it acceptable?

Well as others have pointed out the Withdrawal Agreement already includes that instead of just NI the whole of the UK will be in the customs union in case the backstop is needed.

I think we are seeing the UK strategy playing out in desperation now. Firstly Theresa May talked about compromises and the parties getting together to ensure a deal gets made that parliament can vote for, then she still has her red lines and it rules out any compromise deal.

We have also seen stories talking about how there is division among EU countries and even between Varadkar and Coveney. Now we have the UK wanting to change the GFA to get a deal through? It is getting desperate now and I fear it will only get worse from here on in.

Water John

We'll see her deliver another nonentity of a speech tomorrow, I wouldn't doubt.
Just looking to bring ERG and DUP on board.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/20/theresa-may-cross-party-consensus-brexit-backstop-tory-split

She has not reached out cross party, keeping the Tories from splitting is her overriding concern. For her that means not alienating the ERG, seems to think the rest will always fall in line.

blackcard

J Mysterio wrote: »

Lemming wrote: »

So, the UK to not budge (i.e. give nothing) and for the EU to do all the moving (again), in the hope that something exposes itself to be exploited by the UK government.

Why, or how, did anyone consider Raab to be a political titan? Unless the Tory party is that incestuous that he is considered the cream of the crop, I fail to see how anyone could put him on a pedestal and not question their own intelligence.

The man who - while Brexit secretary - didnt realise how important trade with the EU was.

It is frankly mind boggling to hear Raab being mentioned as a possible Prime Minister. Surely the populace can see him for what he is, a rather dim politician

johnnyskeleton

tuxy wrote: »

So Eu would no give her any legal guarantee on the time frame of the backstop so she can't honestly believe they would remove it altogether.

Just more time wasting.

Perhaps the idea is not to change the EUs mind, but to change Westminsters. If on the 28th March there is no deal and she has tried to keep getting the EU to change, she might see if her domestic opposition will back down

EdgeCase

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That the hell is wrong with these people? The GFA can't be changed.

Not to mention that it cannot be amended unilaterally by one party. That's not how agreements work, something that seems to be beyond the current British Government's comprehension abilities.

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1087100144888307712

That the hell is wrong with these people? The GFA can't be changed.

An Ciarraioch

Strazdas wrote: »

No, I saw the RTE 9pm bulletin. Sean Whelan was suggesting no breakthrough, just that May is concentrating on keeping the ERG and DUP onside and there mightn't even be a 'Plan B'......just this strategy of appeasing the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1087100144888307712