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

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just out of interest, I know a couple of other countries have expressed support for an extension but have any countries said they would actually object or is it mainly the Brussels establishment that opposes an extension?

The view across the board has always been an extension in the context of near certainty of an agreed outcome. An extension for the UK to continue infighting, less so.

trellheim

something like leaving the customs union can't really be regarded as a red line

There is no definition of Brexit per se. All the referendum asked was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

So if you stay in Customs Union and leave the EU that will be Brexit just as much as any other definition.

downcow

This is an excellent calm discussion this morning on NI politics show. The first item well worth a listen. Domes up the circular argument here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcone?area=northern_ireland

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

220 mps not in the dup voted against deal. Stop trying to imply it’s only the dup took a strop

The question is what way those 200+ MPs would vote when no-deal chaos hits Britain. Are you confident that no East-West customs border is a hill they want to die on?

downcow

Anthracite wrote: »

The question is what way those 200+ MPs would vote when no-deal chaos hits Britain. Are you confident that no East-West customs border is a hill they want to die on?

Well you should then have the confidence to go with no backstop.

Anthracite

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Neale Richmond playing a blinder on BBC now.

Which programme is that on?

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

220 mps not in the dup voted against deal. Stop trying to imply it’s only the dup took a strop

It was the DUP's strop that turned the NI-only backstop into a whole-of-UK backstop, and that is what really got the ERG wound up. Take NI out of the equation and Theresa May's red lines are much easier to work with (or around) - to the extent that she had a WA in the bag more than a year ago.

The DUP gave the English nationalist xenophobes both moral support and valuable extra time to get their propaganda machine into gear. When UK politicians and others moan about "Ireland" holding the UK hostage, they are referring to a situation created wholly by the DUP.

And that's why, when the dust settles, NI is going to find itself more remote from Westminster than it's ever been before, regardless of what kind of deal/no-deal/chaotic/revoked Brexit we see in the coming months.

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

Well you should then have the confidence to go with no backstop.

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. There would be no 'no-deal' chaos without the backstop, and the UK could do whatever it likes with the UK-EU border.

Sounds like a pretty poor plan.

downcow

Is it reasonable to state that?
Eu is basically saying to UK you cannot leave our union as one nation with any deal and we won’t talk about any deal if you dare to leave as one nation.

This is why I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.
Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

FrancieBrady

CelticRambler wrote: »

It was the DUP's strop that turned the NI-only backstop into a whole-of-UK backstop, and that is what really got the ERG wound up. Take NI out of the equation and Theresa May's red lines are much easier to work with (or around) - to the extent that she had a WA in the bag more than a year ago.

The DUP gave the English nationalist xenophobes both moral support and valuable extra time to get their propaganda machine into gear. When UK politicians and others moan about "Ireland" holding the UK hostage, they are referring to a situation created wholly by the DUP.

And that's why, when the dust settles, NI is going to find itself more remote from Westminster than it's ever been before, regardless of what kind of deal/no-deal/chaotic/revoked Brexit we see in the coming months.

In a nutshell that is where we are.
The DUP successfully burning more bridges to the motherland.
They paid a price for their shennanigans over the AIA and the GFA, and the Tories will make them pay again for screwing up what should have been a much smoother road to a deal.

There will be very little excuses taken for doing it on abstract ideological grounds too. The DUP have been asked to get real here, back off on the 'do you love us' testing and they have come up massively and stubbornly short.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Is it reasonable to state that?
Eu is basically saying to UK you cannot leave our union as one nation with any deal and we won’t talk about any deal if you dare to leave as one nation.

This is why I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.
Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

Because that thing that you 'don't care' (the GFA) about is cared about a great deal by Ireland and the rest of it's partners in the EU. They are responsible players in this and they will resist those who want to throw it under the bus.
Don't sign up to internationally binding agreements if you don't understand this principle.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

Which is exactly what the EU has proposed. Are you finally coming over to our side?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Is it reasonable to state that?
Eu is basically saying to UK you cannot leave our union as one nation with any deal and we won’t talk about any deal if you dare to leave as one nation.

This is why I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.
Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

The EU is only saying that the UK needs to adhere to its obligation that is the GFA.
The EU is not forcing the UK to do anything. The backstop is a lifeline option offered to the UK.
But you already know all of this because you've been told loads of times.

Itssoeasy

downcow wrote: »

Is it reasonable to state that?
Eu is basically saying to UK you cannot leave our union as one nation with any deal and we won’t talk about any deal if you dare to leave as one nation.

This is why I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.
Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

Where have the EU said the United Kingdom won't leave as one nation ? The EU have no say in the composition on the UK. And you bloody well know what you are saying is wrong. You realise the withdrawal agreement isn't the end of the process ? The WA is a way to have the UK leave the EU in an orderly way and the two year transition period is to allow for the future relationship between the two parties to be agreed upon. The backstop which you seem to be obsessed with hopefully will never even be used but it's a protection against any border on the island of Ireland should the U.K. and the EU not reach a deal.

Leroy42

So Downcow, since you didn't respond and your latest post seems to suggest that you view the backstop as a weapon to stop the UK from leaving the EU, can we take it that your alternative to the backstop is for the EU to simply ignore the NI/ROI border?

2.5 years and the only thing the UK have is close your eyes and forget the issue is there?

LuckyLloyd

Why downcow, and the DUP, are intent on pursuing a policy that hastens a UI is beyond me. It’s a baffling strategy they are pursuing.

fash

downcow wrote: »

Is it reasonable to state that?
Eu is basically saying to UK you cannot leave our union as one nation with any deal and we won’t talk about any deal if you dare to leave as one nation.

Sure it can: having minor customs checks etc does not prevent NI from being part of the UK. Let's not forget that parts of Germany and Italy are in the Swiss customs Union.
Lots of other countries -especially historically - had parts of their countries in different customs areas.
That if aside from the fact that this "one nation" has entirely different legal systems (e.g. Scottish law) and rights (abortion/ gay marriage) in different parts as well as loads of possessions and dominions with all sorts of in between legal statutes.

downcow wrote: »

This is why I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.
Other option of course is to find an innovative way around the permanency of the backstop.

there is no innovative way around the backstop - all other solutions are to install a hard border.
I reckon that the UK cares less about a border between NI and Ireland than Ireland does- so my money remains on the UK folding- whether now or after a no deal

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In a nutshell that is where we are.
The DUP successfully burning more bridges to the motherland.
They paid a price for their shennanigans over the AIA and the GFA, and the Tories will make them pay again for screwing up what should have been a much smoother road to a deal.

There will be very little excuses taken for doing it on abstract ideological grounds too. The DUP have been asked to get real here, back off on the 'do you love us' testing and they have come up massively and stubbornly short.

What's sad as well is that a large wing of the Conservative party has come out as being completely biased in the Peace Process - the Peace Process being one of the political achievements in the last few decades that the UK government could be most proud of. And all for the sake of holding on to power just a little bit longer. A telling reminder of where the priorities of Johnson, May, Gove et al really lay.

Irishmale0399

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Downcow, since you didn't respond and your latest post seems to suggest that you view the backstop as a weapon to stop the UK from leaving the EU, can we take it that your alternative to the backstop is for the EU to simply ignore the NI/ROI border?

2.5 years and the only thing the UK have is close your eyes and forget the issue is there?

The UK wont ignore the Irish/Northern Irish border if we start ferrying those young lads from French ports to Ireland and transporting them to border crossings with the message you have reached the promised land. Solve a few problems on Calais etc.

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

I reckon that the UK cares less about a border between NI and Ireland than Ireland does- so my money remains on the UK folding- whether now or after a no deal

My money is on the UK continuing to bicker amongst themselves until Brexit-day and going over the cliff; and then sacrificing the DUP outright with an Irish-Sea border to get back to the negotiating table as quickly as possible.

ilovesmybrick

fash wrote: »

there is no innovative way around the backstop - all other solutions are to install a hard border.
I reckon that the UK cares less about a border between NI and Ireland than Ireland does- so my money remains on the UK folding- whether now or after a no deal

Well there is, and it seems to have been lost in some of the noise and nonsense. The backstop is not intended to be permanent, it's there while the future trading agreement is worked out. The one where brexiteers have insisted that the border can be solved with innovative technology. The backstop is a precaution. So if the suggestion that the border can be solved with technology is to be believed then this can be implemented during the trade negotiations to come during the transition period and the backstop is removed from the equation. If it turns out that these solutions turn out to be poorly thought out BS then the backstop is there to preserve the integrity of the single market.

It's not like anyone, on any side, wants the backstop. It's intended to be an interim measure. However, it needs to have no time limit as who knows how long these future negotiations will go on for. Personally I think that a lot of the issues with the backstop from the UK political establishment are a tacit acknowledgement that they know they were talking fairies and unicorns regarding their technological solutions

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

Throwing Ireland under a bus by insisting on a policy the Irish government pursued within EU as part of the negotiations... Do you realize how silly that line sounds?

Not necessarily. Our concerns about a frictionless border are legitimate and we were right to bring them to the EU. But that does not mean that the EU are using those concerns in a way that protects Ireland's interests.

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not necessarily. Our concerns about a frictionless border are legitimate and we were right to bring them to the EU. But that does not mean that the EU are using those concerns in a way that protects Ireland's interests.

But they are being driven solely by Ireland's intetests here. No amount of your posts actually provide any evidence to the contrary.

jm08

The Brexiteer MPs keep claiming that the EU always caves in at the last minute in negotiations and this is what they are banking on. The thing is that compromise may happen between the EU28, but now, as a third country, everything will be different.

briany

CelticRambler wrote: »

My money is on the UK continuing to bicker amongst themselves until Brexit-day and going over the cliff; and then sacrificing the DUP outright with an Irish-Sea border to get back to the negotiating table as quickly as possible.

I'd like to think that the option could remain open, even after Brexit day, but we have to consider the potential complications. We're talking about bringing a region back into alignment with the EU. As I understand it, the EU would treat a departed country as a 3rd country. The EU has certain entry requirements of 3rd countries looking to join. Would the north have to observe these? Let's say not - does this set a precedent for other countries who might look to leave the EU with the option to rejoining later on their current opt-outs?

"Ah, but they wouldn't be in the EU or CM/CU (EEA), so they wouldn't be rejoining - they would just be in alignment."

If the UK signs a deal to make sure the north observes the rules of any or all of the above institutions, it's as good as. The EU certainly isn't going to accept a gentleman's agreement that the north will be in alignment, it'll be a cast iron legal declaration - i.e. a treaty of some sort.

I just see a lot of headaches with the north being brought back into alignment. Imperative that if anything is to be sorted, it is to be sorted before Brexit day.

fash

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Well there is, and it seems to have been lost in some of the noise and nonsense. The backstop is not intended to be permanent, it's there while the future trading agreement is worked out. The one where brexiteers have insisted that the border can be solved with innovative technology. The backstop is a precaution. So if the suggestion that the border can be solved with technology is to be believed then this can be implemented during the trade negotiations to come during the transition period and the backstop is removed from the equation. If it turns out that these solutions turn out to be poorly thought out BS then the backstop is there to preserve the integrity of the single market.

It's not like anyone, on any side, wants the backstop. It's intended to be an interim measure. However, it needs to have no time limit as who knows how long these future negotiations will go on for. Personally I think that a lot of the issues with the backstop from the UK political establishment are a tacit acknowledgement that they know they were talking fairies and unicorns regarding their technological solutions

In reality, there is no such technology. It can only be achieved by regulatory alignment. The backstop contains the absolute minimum regulatory alignment required - and allows that to come to an end if the UK wants AND has a (magical) solution to resolving it.
Hence talking about "we'll need to see what the future relationship is like" is for me beside the point - either the UK can agree to the minimum necessary - or it cannot. There is no point in talking about a future relationship which does not achieve the bare minimum needed to achieve a soft border.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

We're talking about bringing a region back into alignment with the EU. As I understand it, the EU would treat a departed country as a 3rd country. The EU has certain entry requirements of 3rd countries looking to join. Would the north have to observe these? Let's say not - does this set a precedent for other countries who might look to leave the EU with the option to rejoining later on their current opt-outs?

There's already a precedent - the re-unification of Germany. And that's why I think that the "Irish Question" will turn out to be the easiest problem for a post-Brexit chaotic UK to sort out. Because it is already separated from GB (physically, socio-politically and in respect of some regulations, e.g. the all-important agri-sector), and because there won't have been enough time for it to go down the third-country/rouge-state route, the EU can point to the East-Germany example and say to the UK "how about we treat NI as a special case, and use your willingness to sort that out quickly as a barometer of your good faith?"

Listening to the US news last week, it was said that once pilots started announcing to passengers that their arrival/depature was delayed due to the effects of the government shutdown, Trump had no choice but to cave in to the Democrats. The same thing will happen in England. People in Kent couldn't give a damn about where the DUP buy their daily bread, but they will care about not being able to take their dogs to the continent. As soon as the full impact of a chaotic Brexit is felt by ordinary people, they'll be clamouring for the government to get a deal, and if that means that some Paddy in Belfast has to have his British crisps checked at the port before he can eat them, that'll be a small price to pay.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

I am now of the opinion that UK must leave with no deal and then after 29 March every one can check out is there anything mutually beneficial to talk about going forward. If not then so be it.

Where will the UK buy food after a crash out? Medicines?

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not necessarily. Our concerns about a frictionless border are legitimate and we were right to bring them to the EU. But that does not mean that the EU are using those concerns in a way that protects Ireland's interests.

The border can only be hard or soft - it can't be anything in between.
Your position therefore amounts to Ireland saying "actually ensuring there is no hard border isn't really that important to us - you're grand" - and thinking that this is a better way of achieving a soft border. Clearly the minimum necessary to ensuring there is no hard border (which is what was in the original backstop) will
always be the minimum necessary to ensure there is no hard border. Why are you so certain that even in a no deal situation under labour control - or even Tory without DUP control - no-one would every consider a solution which ensures no hard border - which will be by definition the minimum possible (the backstop) or better?
How is better for Ireland to have said "Actually we are not that pushed on the hard border thing - we're easy going either way" - actually helps Ireland?

eagle eye

How hard is the EU hit by a hard Brexit?
Are we facing higher taxes, higher prices on domestic necessities etc.?