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

J Mysterio

listermint wrote: »

Well the polish government has started turning alot more to the right and they are trying to snap back at the EU in relation to their changes to the judical system that the EU wasnt happy with.

Poland is going through a bit of a period of trouble right now

You get political support from the EU by taking your medicine, as we did.

An Claidheamh

seamus wrote: »

Katya Adler has been pushing a strongy one-sided narrative of late. Same person who last week that got pulled up on claiming that Varadkar was on shaky ground at home - i.e. that his brexit hardline was weakening his support. Her defence was that she worded it badly and she meant the opposite - that he was holding onto the backstop in order to maintain home support.

Clearly based on her recent tweets though, the original meaning was the implied meaning. She's pushing the narrative that the reason a deal can't be reached is EU failures and intransigence, and it's the EU in trouble if a deal can't be reached.

The level of British journalism is that they just throw out comments looking for a response from the foreigners and real Irish and European journalists then have to explain to them as if they're serious.

Adler is indicative of Brexit, too arrogant to engage with European sources unless they suit her agenda.

She clearly has an agenda. The BBC are biased.

To be fair, the comments below are calling her out. But she refuses to acknowledge.

J Mysterio

"A senior Labour MP leading a backbench effort to rule out a no-deal Brexit has argued that much of the government, including Theresa May, privately want this to happen, and are relying on parliament to take action."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/21/may-wants-parliament-to-rule-out-no-deal-brexit-yvette-cooper-article-50-extension

The senior labour MP being Yvette Cooper. If this is true, just makes May look ever weaker than she obviously is. Also a poor, cowardly leader.

Call me Al

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would it be that bad of an idea? The amount of goods that might seek to enter mainland EU via Ireland from the UK must be very small. It would be easy enough to implement, would bring customs jobs to Wexford and Cork, and carrying out an adminstrative check "in the celtic sea" is far less politically sensitive as an administrative check "in the Irish sea".

If France and Benelux play ball and it wont be too onerous, why not look into it? It may mean sacrificing national pride, but I think we are above such petty squabbling, especially if it means extra EU money to pay our civil servants.

Yes it would be.
We have asked for none of this. This is not our issue to resolve. We have been told repeatedly by some of those in parliament that there is a solution involving technology right there, and yet the UK have done nothing to source or investigate it. They haven't even feigned any respect towards us by putting their plans and system to tender.

Instead we would end up having to be the nanny for a UK export market the integrity of which is beyond our control, not to mention jeopardising the quality of our own domestic market, and thus the integrity of any and all of our exports.

Hurrache

J Mysterio wrote: »

What are the Polish at? Seems some of the UK lobbying is finally making inroads. I'm sure the UK made the Poles some promises for this.

I saw this this morning, strangely coincidental.

https://twitter.com/AgataGostynska/status/1087326392260411392

FreudianSlippers

Call me Al wrote: »

Yes it would be.
We have asked for none of this. This is not our issue to resolve. We have been told repeatedly by some of those in parliament that there is a solution involving technology right there, and yet the UK have done nothing to source or investigate it. They haven't even feigned any respect towards us by putting their plans and system to tender.

Instead we would end up having to be the nanny for a UK export market the integrity of which is beyond our control, not to mention jeopardising the quality of our own domestic market, and thus the integrity of any and all of our exports.

I'm not sure they haven't looked into it and found, quite correctly, that the proposed "technological solution" works quite well on goods originating in the UK and being exported to the EU, but does not solve the serious problem of EU goods (and perhaps more importantly third-country goods correctly imported into the EU on bi-lateral treaties) entering into the UK through Northern Ireland.

In order to comply with WTO rules, the UK will need to ensure that these goods are correctly taxed and it's not as easy with that many goods from the EU and abroad.

ARNOLD J RIMMER

When do they vote on " Plan B "

Hurrache

He seems to have dropped his Battle of Britain theme in subsequent posts
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087351430518845440

Call me Al

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure they haven't looked into it and found, quite correctly, that the proposed "technological solution" works quite well on goods originating in the UK and being exported to the EU, but does not solve the serious problem of EU goods (and perhaps more importantly third-country goods correctly imported into the EU on bi-lateral treaties) entering into the UK through Northern Ireland.

In order to comply with WTO rules, the UK will need to ensure that these goods are correctly taxed and it's not as easy with that many goods from the EU and abroad.

This may be the case Freudian, I haven't read any coverage of this being the case, but it isn't stopping the ERG still throwing it on the table as an apparent example of just how unreasonable and uncooperative us Irish are being.

Larbre34

Poland's angle (policy or off-the-cuff by talking head) is irrelevant. They have no recent credibility and no traction with the big players.

The UK tabloids' take on it is even less relevant. They could characterise Varadkar as the divil incarnate here to eat their children and it would make no difference to anything. What matters is that the senior officials in Iveagh House, Whitehall and on Barnier's task group know that the Irish position is as simple as it is consistent: we did not create this problem; we will protect the society of two jurisdictions on one island that has been fostered under the GFA; when UK decides what it wants, we will consider any proposals which facilitate both objectives, but none that threaten to destabilise ours.

I expect nothing less than absolute support for this from the big dogs among the 27, and frankly from them all if it gets a bit fraught.

LeinsterDub

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

When do they vote on " Plan B "

We don't know yet . Today is just her telling us what Plan B is .

FreudianSlippers

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

When do they vote on " Plan B "

I think TM is appearing in HoC at 15:30, not sure exactly what the procedure there is after she addresses HoC, but presumably people will be waiting to table motions (etc.) if they're not happy?

branie2

I wonder what Plan B is

FreudianSlippers

branie2 wrote: »

I wonder what Plan B is

Honestly, from the reporting this morning, it doesn't sound like she actually has one... which is odd.

BorneTobyWilde

The Remainers voice is only loud because of the the absolute lies told in the first referendum. If there was another vote now on her deal, and it was 60% leave the Remainers would have no voice, and it solves this problem very fast. Let them vote again, let them vote 70% leave. I really don't get why the people can't vote on her deal.

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Honestly, from the reporting this morning, it doesn't sound like she actually has one... which is odd.

Ho so?
She hasn't had anything new to offer Westminster since the EU gave her the WA so how can she have an alternative plan?

FreudianSlippers

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Ho so?
She hasn't had anything new to offer Westminster since the EU gave her the WA so how can she have an alternative plan?

It would be odd if she genuinely shows up and goes "I have no plan B" - I'm not sure what the reaction to that would be. She must have some movement from her position last week or else what's the point in all of this?

I know there has been no reported movement on the EU side, but surely TM has used the last week to come up with something... anything!

branie2

Bit of a long shot, but she might be planning to cancel Brexit

Christy42

She has 4 choices.

1. No deal
2. No Brexit
3. Current deal
4. Pass a new deal and see if the EU likes it after. Someone Hong like current deal with a time limited backstop.

4 seems like the only option she can face Parliament with and so is my bet. It seems likely that any change will be unpalatable for the EU but she needs to survive the day so who cares about that.

FreudianSlippers

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

When do they vote on " Plan B "

Guardian reporting not until February.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/21/no-second-vote-on-brexit-deal-likely-before-february-says-no-10

May’s spokesman said the vote due to be held on 29 January was not “a second meaningful vote” and the government’s motion would not spell out in detail the next stage of the prime minister’s plan to get a Brexit agreement through parliament.

Also sounds like today is going to be a total waste of time.

robinph

I can't see her saying anything other than her plan is now to go back to the EU and ask for some reassurances of the reassurances of the reassurances over the backstop. That of course being a totally different plan to the previous one where there wasn't the extra reassurances.

MrMusician18

murphaph wrote: »

Let's be careful not to conflate one alleged Polish minister's comment with the position of the Polish government/state. We have seen how comments are easily taken out of context in the UK press and ran with. Sure don't the readership of the Daily Express still think Varadkar "threatened" to close Irish airspace to UK carriers.

In fairness, this is not some polish nobody, but their foreign minister.

With our exposure to British press, it's easy to forget that this is not an all consuming issue on the continent, and something that could become a bit of a political football. It's somewhat surprising that it hasn't already.

In any case, fracturing the EU position won't help the UK. The issues are entirely domestic and it's not the backstop that is the problem with the right of the Tory party, but the idea of a compromise with the EU.

Panrich

robinph wrote: »

I can't see her saying anything other than her plan is now to go back to the EU and ask for some reassurances of the reassurances of the reassurances over the backstop. That of course being a totally different plan to the previous one where there wasn't the extra reassurances.

It does sound like she's tacking up her dead horse for another spin to Brussels. I'm not sure how many times she needs to be told there will be no new deal before she admits defeat.

Dyr

Christy42 wrote: »

She has 4 choices.

1. No deal
2. No Brexit
3. Current deal
4. Pass a new deal and see if the EU likes it after. Someone Hong like current deal with a time limited backstop.

4 seems like the only option she can face Parliament with and so is my bet. It seems likely that any change will be unpalatable for the EU but she needs to survive the day so who cares about that.

MPs have a bigger problems with her deal than just backstop though. She might be hoping that she get a comprimise on backstop and its enough to put it up to the HOC as a choice between her deal or a hard brexit

Personally I think she's goosed.

FreudianSlippers

robinph wrote: »

I can't see her saying anything other than her plan is now to go back to the EU and ask for some reassurances of the reassurances of the reassurances over the backstop. That of course being a totally different plan to the previous one where there wasn't the extra reassurances.

She's had a week to get those reassurances; if she was going to get them and/or those reassurances were going to be sufficient, it would have been done by now.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In fairness, this is not some polish nobody, but their foreign minister.

His boss is singing from a different hymn sheet though and, given his boss is President of the European Council (Donald Tusk), I'll take the Polish views from the horse's mouth.

demfad

My take is that the chances of No-deal now are very narrow indeed.

Look at it this way.

These are the possible options that might come out of the UK or in other words that have MPs support in Westminster:

Ratify Withdrawal Agreement, Change the WA, Referendum, Revoke, no-Deal crashout (Default).

The WA got only 202 (against 432) in the Commons. It was described as an historic defeat, and technically it is.

In reality this was the popularity of one option against sum of the popularity of 4 others. In truth on a first past the post vote the WA would win easily.
In a PR system if MPs could rate 1-5, the WA again wins easily.

The PR analogy is not bad: As each option is eliminated MPs favouring that would transfer to another option. But there is another rule: If the full time is used up TWO options will always last the distance. The first is the default the "no-deal" catastrophe, the approaching Mincer, the laser closing in on Bond's manhood, the grim reaper. If nothing else happens the UK is kicked out with little preparation. A catastrophe.
The 2nd option is the Negotiated withdrawal agreement. This is ready, it is signed, and will only be extinguished at grim reaper time. Even when Remainers and Brexiteers were toasting it's demise it was rising Terminator like in the background.
Unless something can be done to stop it the Terminator will out survive all opposition. And when the Grim Reapers icy breath is felt on frightened MP's shivering cheeks, they will back the Terminator 500 V 100 (ish).

No matter which way you looked at it the final battle was going to be down to these two, as long as May could delay and sabotage and scupper alternatives. A battle she was bound to win.

But the first chink of danger occurred when her time wasting on her plan B was cut down to 3 days. And worse, Grieve looks likely to set it up so that revoke will kick in before the UK gets minced on March 29th.
The effect of this if successful would be that Revoking A 50 would be the new default, the grim reaper would disappear. And everything would change.

The ERG would immediately row in behind her deal.
The DUP would be left with the unholy choice of the Deal versus no Brexit.
Would May finally have to soften Brexit, (declare a commitment to a CU?) to get a deal through?
Could we see a Brexiteer putting an amendment to such a vote asking for a Referendum should her Deal not pass?

What we are seeing now: the bilateral deal and rewrite GFA nonsense/deflection; the vicious attacks on Grieve; on Commons Clerks; this is May wasting time and sabotaging.

Who will win? May's deal is still a slight favourite overall.

snailsong

Reading this thread it would seem rather unlikely that Article 50 will be extended beyond March 29. However, a leading online bookmaker has an extension of A50 priced at 1/4. In other words they give an extension as being 80% likely. A little less allowing for their margin. Are we missing something?

steddyeddy

The long and short of it is that there's too many nut jobs in the Tory party right now to go for the sensible option.

Hurrache

So it's not the first time the Polish foreign minister made such a suggestion. Last time it was after he was in London, mmm
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1087366982566100992