Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Russman · 26-01-2019 07:19AM

fash wrote: »

After crash out the current 3 options (no brexit, May's deal, no deal) become May's deal or no deal.
The supporting numbers in UK parliament shift in that case to May's deal.

Edit to add: obviously the WA would need to be amended to reflect the new reality of the UK being a non EU member.

Obviously we don’t know for sure just how it will play out in a no deal scenario, but if it really goes badly for the UK (as most suspect) surely there’s every chance the EU could say “......no worries lads, our diaries are pretty full just now, we’re available for talks this time next year though, you can tell us all about it then........”
I can’t see the EU just shrugging it’s shoulders and agreeing there’s now one option less and carrying on, there’s bound to be residual anger/ill feeing among at least some of the 27, not least ourselves if NI really gets caned in the aftermath.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:22AM

downcow wrote: »

I am super confident that you don’t need to worry about your fear of a UI it’s not happening. It would be like turkeys voting for Xmas.

The turkeys in England have already voted for Christmas, and they are dragging you with them.

When NI has soaked up a 12% hit and the Republic is still growing at 4%, a United Ireland is going to look to a lot of folks North of the Border as a way out of the turkey shoot.

Russman · 26-01-2019 07:24AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To adopt a Tory tone, perhaps a Short, Sharp Shock is what the British public needs to teach them that the EU is really a thing they need. No point in mollycoddling them with special deals and soft Brexits. Let them swim on their own with the sharks for a few months, and then we might see a more reasonable tone in the next talks.

I think it’s coming to that. How short the shock will be is open to debate. I’m guessing at least until winter. Although when people have to go to Blackpool rather than Benidorm in the summer, it might focus a few minds.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:28AM

downcow wrote: »

Those terrible northerners

This is somewhat off topic, but I'd just like to explain to downcow that folks down South who think "those terrible northerners" are not necessarily being sectarian. Many would include the Catholic Nationalists too.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:34AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

There will be no open border to preserve. New solutions will have to be found. That will require flexibility. The old "we're not budging" will not work from either side.

Yes, it will. It isn't a game of chicken, chicken ends when one side blinks or there is a crash. But the crash is not the end of Brexit, it is only Day One.

Shortly after Hard Brexit and a hard border, PM Corbyn will be back in Brussels looking for something like a Norway deal. And the EU agenda will look like:

1) Give us our 40 billion.
2) Guarantee EU citizens rights.
3) About that hard border.

And he will be in no position to say Not Budging, even if he wanted to.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:40AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No deal is the default. It cannot be removed from the table.

Yes, it can, May explained how in her speech the other day. They simply pass a motion that says if a deal is not agreed on March 21st, the Government shall withdraw the A50 notice.

So the default changes from No Deal to No Brexit.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:45AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

when the UK comes crawling back looking for a deal, there's one ready and waiting.

Of course then the UK will be in a far, far worse negotiating position, and the EU would be well within its rights to say that deal is no longer on the table, jackasses. You are now a third country, and somewhere behind Malaysia in the queue for a deal.

Calina · 26-01-2019 07:47AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

The thing is I think most people realise that the UK don't want a hard border either. They also don't want something that will tie their hands in future negotiations on other issues.

We will see how it pans out.

The UK wants to control their own borders. The English in particular. They don't shut up about immigration, foreigners, freedom of movement. They also don't give a toss about Northern Ireland.

The only reason they 'don't want a border' is they know that if they said otherwise, Ireland would veto any agreement at all. They don't care about Northern Ireland. They actually want a nice hard border around Great Britain. But they also don't want to take the economic hit.

The entire discussion in the UK has been keeping the foreigners out but still taking their money.

So the claiming they don't want a border in Ireland is a lie only because they are stuck with NI - ironic I will agree - and need Ireland to agree to enabling the UK to continue taking the money.

The backstop holds the UK to its lie that they don't want a hard border in Ireland. That is why they don't like and want to defang it.

It isn't the only problem. The WA crystallises the reality that keep foreigners out but still take all their money will not actually happen. But the backstop is handy because they can attack Ireland for it. For tabloid level soundbites it is great.

But the truth is much more complex about Brexit. They seem not to be able to handle it.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 07:51AM

Folkstonian wrote: »

Britain will obviously hurt the most from no deal.

And within the UK, he regions which take the biggest hits are the North East (16%), West Midlands (13%) and...

Northern Ireland, with 12%.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 08:01AM

briany wrote: »

Remain should say to stay in the EU and push for reforms in the institution, and block further treaties of integration unless the EU make some concessions to that end.

This point has been made in Brussels - even Remainers in the UK are sceptical of the EUs mission. The EU is better off without them all, Leave and Remain.

downcow · 26-01-2019 08:36AM

One step at a time. Could I genuinely check this out so as I am not make wrong assumptions

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Can we also agree that it is in everyone’s interests across Eu/UK/ire for a sensible agreement to be reached?

quokula · 26-01-2019 08:39AM

downcow wrote: »

One step at a time. Could I genuinely check this out so as I am not make wrong assumptions

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Can we also agree that it is in everyone’s interests across Eu/UK/ire for a sensible agreement to be reached?

The backstop is what those extremists who shout loudest and get the most tv coverage in parliament are up in arms over, but the vast majority of those who voted against the deal did so because they want a softer / no brexit.

listermint · 26-01-2019 08:41AM

downcow wrote: »

One step at a time. Could I genuinely check this out so as I am not make wrong assumptions

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Can we also agree that it is in everyone’s interests across Eu/UK/ire for a sensible agreement to be reached?

Revoking brexit is the sensible option. It has no mandate. Not even for your country .

Its time to be sensible. It doesn't even have a global mandate it's not economically sound nor morally.

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2019 08:44AM

downcow wrote: »

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

I can't tell - Westminster is a complete sh!tshow, I don't think they know either.

But I also don't care. Deal is on the table: sign it, leave without it, or call the whole thing off.

murphaph · 26-01-2019 08:59AM

downcow wrote: »

One step at a time. Could I genuinely check this out so as I am not make wrong assumptions

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Can we also agree that it is in everyone’s interests across Eu/UK/ire for a sensible agreement to be reached?

A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop. The EU has already given enough ground. If this ends up in no deal, so be it. We will take an economic hit second only to the UK, which will itself be hammered. Then the English will start saying "We send £400m a week to NI. Let's really fund our NHS instead".

Calina · 26-01-2019 09:32AM

downcow wrote: »

One step at a time. Could I genuinely check this out so as I am not make wrong assumptions

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Can we also agree that it is in everyone’s interests across Eu/UK/ire for a sensible agreement to be reached?

No one has an issue here. No one wants this to be permanent. It not being permanent depends on the UK coming up with a solution.

Presumably the UK fears it cannot find a solution and is terrified as a result. The backstop would be permanent because of UK problems.

A sensible agreement is not to Brexit at all. Everything else is bad to some mitigation of bad for the UK.

First Up · 26-01-2019 09:46AM

downcow wrote:

Can most of us agree that it is the potential permanency of the backstop that is currently the main blockage?

Better ask that question to the HoC. They are the only ones blocking anything and they seem to have a variety of different problems.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that there is something more to be "'negotiated". There isn't.

The EU is waiting for the UK to decide if it will ratify the arrangements it agreed. If it doesn't, the EU will make its own arrangements, including Ireland's continued full participation in the Single Market.

This will probably include some arrangements for local cross-border stuff, as occurs on all the EU's external borders. However there will be no access to mainland Europe for NI exports and Ireland will not be a backdoor for the UK to the EU.

Most of the plans for these contingencies are in place. The EU has been planning for reality for the last two years so I suggest you should start planning yours soon.

judeboy101 · 26-01-2019 10:06AM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Interesting article from Tony Connolly

http://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0126/1025621-tony-blog/

Seems TC is putting his money on Graham Brady's amendment getting backing from brexiteers and DUP.

An Ciarraioch · 26-01-2019 10:15AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Seems TC is putting his money on Graham Brady's amendment getting backing from brexiteers and DUP.

As per Tom Newton Dunn - quite why the Tories are persisting with a position that they know full well has no prospect of being entertained in Brussels is a mystery, unless they're deliberately aiming for No Deal.

An Ciarraioch · 26-01-2019 10:21AM

To whit, the story is fully fleshed out by Slugger O'Toole (sparing me from having to link to the Sun):

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/01/25/the-dup-seem-poised-to-bail-out-theresa-may-will-the-eu-be-impressed/

judeboy101 · 26-01-2019 10:22AM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

As per Tom Newton Dunn - quite why the Tories are persisting with a position that they know full well has no prospect of being entertained in Brussels is a mystery, unless they're deliberately aiming for No Deal.

Either they know something we don't or they are chancers.

Akrasia · 26-01-2019 10:26AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Seems TC is putting his money on Graham Brady's amendment getting backing from brexiteers and DUP.

Which would make a crash out even more likely. How many times do the UK need to be told that the backstop is already agreed and will not be removed?

road_high · 26-01-2019 10:39AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Which would make a crash out even more likely. How many times do the UK need to be told that the backstop is already agreed and will not be removed?

Saw one of them on tv a few days speaking as if the backstop will be removed and all May had to do is amend the Agreement accordingly!
A good crash out on WTO terms with widespread economic damage and disruption is perhaps what these donkeys need?

judeboy101 · 26-01-2019 10:40AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Which would make a crash out even more likely. How many times do the UK need to be told that the backstop is already agreed and will not be removed?

Agreed by cabinet, parliament is God etc..... At this stage they need to leave and when they come to their senses, reapply. Only real issue for us is the phytosanitary border, non phytosanitary stuff can be dealt with away from border but considering how F&M got into Ireland I wouldn't trust British farmers with a one legged half blind chicken.

road_high · 26-01-2019 10:42AM

More helpful Indo headlines this morning- “Varadkar in panic as Brexit border plan exposed”. We all know in the event of a crash out there’ll be a hard border- this is why the EU have been so keen and allowed so many concession to the UK. But a line has to be drawn so where. If they don’t agree then so be it

rusty the athlete · 26-01-2019 10:42AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Which would make a crash out even more likely. How many times do the UK need to be told that the backstop is already agreed and will not be removed?

But this has been a 'feature' of the approach all along such as May going around Europe trying to solicit individual member countries when it was repeated time and time that the EU27 are united and not willing to be approached unilaterally. And then the whole cherry picking/having cake and eating it exercise, again being told time and time again that the favorable bits of the EU can't be picked off and the less 'desirable' elements of being a full member ignored. And now everything will be rosy when the backstop is pulled despite being told repeatedly by all and sundry that its a non starter. Its the most peculiar negotiating stance that I have ever come across, like saying I'm agree to move into your house tomorrow after being told over and over that its already occupied and simply not for sale.

downcow · 26-01-2019 10:47AM

listermint wrote: »

Revoking brexit is the sensible option. It has no mandate. Not even for your country .

Its time to be sensible. It doesn't even have a global mandate it's not economically sound nor morally.

Folks this is really interesting for me. Lots of you responded and to a person didn’t even attempt to answer the question. Simply stated that we should not have voted to leave and should go against the referendum.
It’s maybe why we can teach little agreement here. It’s not really about negotiations,agreement, backstop etc which I thought it was. It’s just people are pi**ed off that we are leaving

First Up · 26-01-2019 10:47AM

judeboy101 wrote:

Agreed by cabinet, parliament is God etc..... At this stage they need to leave and when they come to their senses, reapply. Only real issue for us is the phytosanitary border, non phytosanitary stuff can be dealt with away from border but considering how F&M got into Ireland I wouldn't trust British farmers with a one legged half blind chicken.

Yes, that has to be checked but not necessarily at the border.

Silent Running · 26-01-2019 10:50AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Agreed by cabinet, parliament is God etc..... At this stage they need to leave and when they come to their senses, reapply. Only real issue for us is the phytosanitary border, non phytosanitary stuff can be dealt with away from border but considering how F&M got into Ireland I wouldn't trust British farmers with a one legged half blind chicken.

The thought that they would leave and then apply to join at a later date is not really a runner. Once they're gone, they're gone. As the advertising blurb goes.

The idea that they would just swan back into the European family as if they never left is never going to happen. They would have to take up the Euro and lose all their rebates and opt outs. The Euro would be required to join by any new applicant, which the UK would then be. The special deals they now have will die with Brexit.

If you think that there's nationalist fervour now, wait until you tell them they have to drop sterling. :eek:

judeboy101 · 26-01-2019 10:51AM

First Up wrote: »

Yes, that has to be checked but not necessarily at the border.

TC brings up scenario of a UK f&m outbreak where phytosanitary has been moved away from border, let's say meath factory. Infected animal imported and checked in Meath. Headlines read f&m confirmed in Ireland. No one will read the byline (infection imported from UK).

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments