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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I agree here. They have been pushing stories all weekend, there is something afoot. I go option B
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.)
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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.
Hurrache wrote: » That struck me too actually when I heard him and was expecting his usual bluster. Reality may be dawning. He did talk about how good the GFA is, but weren't the DUP not in favour?
Peregrinus wrote: 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.
First Up wrote: » Almost certainly it is aimed at the UK audience but to hear Raab spout such nonsense with a straight face doesn't inspire confidence. But it seems that there is still a consituency in the UK that still doesn't get the whole point of the EU and the single market. The real worry is that some of them are in Westminster - and in cabinet.
Leroy42 wrote: » It is quite extraordinary that everytime Raab comes on spouting some other idea that he isn't immediately simply asked why he didn't do that when he was Brexit minister and how he allowed it to get to this mess. He will of course try to shift the blame to TM, at which point ask him how he backed her in the NC motion when she stabbed him in the back. Instead he is allowed talk about what should/could happen as if he has never been involved. He is now a hurler on the ditch, complaining about how terrible the manager is, when he has just been sent off after giving away the winning penalty!
Peregrinus wrote: » Coveney and Helen McEntee have already knocked them back. No point in wasting time at this stage of the game.
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.
Peregrinus wrote: » 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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Donaldson's appeal for talks?
Leroy42 wrote: Lets try to follow this 'bi-lateral talks' idea. So UK and Ireland have talks, aimed at coming to a specific arrangement which removes the need for a backstop. But even if the EU, through the prize of continued peace in NI, allowed this to happen, they are no going to allow it to be the agreement for the entire EU.
Peregrinus wrote: » (b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am going to guess something like "In light of the continuing negotiations, and the new strand involving UK and Ireland directly discussing the border on the island of Ireland, and to allow space for creative solutions to the very difficult issues which have dogged these negotiations, I will travel to Brussels today to ask the EU 27 to extend the A50 period until July."
FrancieBrady wrote: » What time is she in the HOC?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I will travel to Brussels today to ask the EU 27 to extend the A50 period until July."
Hurrache wrote: » EU apparently don't want her over . . . Although Katya Adler seems to be coming from an odd angle, maybe one of her sources it trying to dictate her narrative as this is an odd thing to say, for which she has been pulled up on . . .
