Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Bit cynical · 29-01-2019 11:20PM

View wrote: »

Nope, this kind of shyte is why we need to clearly state we will roll out the barbed wire after Brexit day, join Schengen and start making legal provisions for doing this.

It is precisely because we have given the impression that a hard border is completely unthinkable to us that Brexiters believe they can get away with this shyte. So long as they think we will do anything to avoid a hard border, they believe that we will eventually capitulate if they just prove awkward enough. To their mind, they don’t need to compromise if we are going to cave sooner or later to avoid a hard border.

But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour whilst maintaining the appearance of being tough on the border at home.

briany · 29-01-2019 11:24PM

So, to sum up - Parliament can find a majority on a condition that's already been rejected by the EU. What alternative arrangements regarding the border can May propose, with two months to go to get them ready, that the EU would agree to? Are there any? There can't be. The UK would have proposed them by now as the backstop wasn't even something they wanted in the first place (or at least not since the 2017 GE).

The delicious kicker is that the other passing amendment - that the UK must not leave without a deal - is only advisory. And when the UKgovernment reminds us of this on no-deal Brexit day, everyone would do well to remind them it was an advisory referendum that started this whole mess.

Imreoir2 · 29-01-2019 11:25PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour whilst maintaining the appearance of being tough on the border at home.

The Irish government has started to pivot to arguing that the GFA means that in a no-deal situation the UK government will still have to maintain customs and regulatory alignment with the EU in NI. That is the basis of statements claiming that even in a no-deal scenario a hard border will not be erected.

The government will want the EU to show flexibility during the period of chaos when these arangements, should the UK abide by its obligations under the GFA, are not underpined in law by any trade agreement with the EU.

Water John · 29-01-2019 11:26PM

Sky News getting it right in saying both sides pulled back.
The next round will be the 14th Feb. That could be a St Valentine Day massacre.
The Spellman Dromey Motion getting approved shows everybody incl the ERG that when push comes to shove No Deal will not get the HOC support.
TM knows full well thatthe EU will give her nothing, but she'll take the humiliation again.
They'll end up voting for TM's Deal as it now stands.

UsedToWait · 29-01-2019 11:32PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ian Dunt is getting pretty blunt https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090365295150141442

He pulls no punches, as usual

May had promised something she could not specify and which had already been ruled out. And not only that: she had shot her own deal in the heart. It was No.10 which said the border in Ireland had to be kept open. It was No.10 which asked for it to cover the whole of the UK. Now, after all that negotiation, she is going to go back to the EU and demand that they destroy the accomplishments she herself secured.
It is insane. It is a degree of contortion which would be remarkable if it weren't so ghastly.
But in a way, it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer.
But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.
That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.
On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking.
This is as bleak a day as we have had in the entire Brexit process. All roads now seem blocked. MPs won't back an extension to Article 50. They won't back May's deal. And they won't back no-deal. They've opted for fairy tales over action. Things are looking very bad indeed.

Edit: for light relief, you could watch this 40 second compilation (Definitely Not Safe For Work!) of presenters making the obvious pitfall when meaning to say 'The Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt '

https://twitter.com/PaulCarmichaelV/status/1089984175963361282

View · 29-01-2019 11:32PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour.

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

Bit cynical · 29-01-2019 11:38PM

View wrote: »

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

That's why I said "seeming to" in parenthesis. The way it is normally phrased is that Ireland "has no plans" to erect the border but, of course, this is not the same as saying that we won't erect it.

In the end, if there's no deal, Ireland will build the border. We will be ordered to.

Paranoid Bob · 29-01-2019 11:39PM

briany wrote: »

So, to sum up - Parliament can find a majority on a condition that's already been rejected by the EU. What alternative arrangements regarding the border can May propose, with two months to go to get them ready, that the EU would agree to? Are there any? There can't be. The UK would have proposed them by now as the backstop wasn't even something they wanted in the first place (or at least not since the 2017 GE).

Why do you say the condition has been rejected by the EU? The EU and Ireland have always said that the backstop is only required until there is an agreed alternative that does not require a hard border. The Brady amendment is about replacing the backstop with an alternative arrangement that does not require a hard border.
... all the UK govt has to do now is explain the alternative that does not require a hard border and everyone is happy!

Plus, of course, the brexiteers have promised that it would be easy to use 'technology' to avoid a hard border.

downcow · 29-01-2019 11:43PM

briany wrote: »

The delicious kicker is that the other passing amendment - that the UK must not leave without a deal - is only advisory. And when the UKgovernment reminds us of this on no-deal Brexit day, everyone would do well to remind them it was an advisory referendum that started this whole mess.

There’s no comparison. Both parties said they would abide by what the people said in advisory referendum. No one has said that about the advisory vote tonight. They can’t commit to both as they are opposed to each other.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-01-2019 11:43PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not a numerically significant group, but European Greens press release:

In the 2015 GE they got SIX times as many votes as the DUP. But single seat constituencies so they can be safely ignored.

1,111,603 votes vs 184,260

charlie14 · 29-01-2019 11:43PM

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Why do you say the condition has been rejected by the EU? The EU and Ireland have always said that the backstop is only required until there is an agreed alternative that does not require a hard border. The Brady amendment is about replacing the backstop with an alternative arrangement that does not require a hard border.
... all the UK govt has to do now is explain the alternative that does not require a hard border and everyone is happy!

Plus, of course, the brexiteers have promised that it would be easy to use 'technology' to avoid a hard border.

Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?

downcow · 29-01-2019 11:46PM

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

Scott Tenorman · 29-01-2019 11:46PM

This section from the Ian Dunt piece quoted above sum up May perfectly

it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer.

All she cares about is clinging on. Leadership? Don't make me laugh!

bob mcbob · 29-01-2019 11:46PM

The Guardian sums up tonight perfectly.

A pyrrhic success built on fantasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-victory-a-pyrrhic-success-built-on-fantasy

BorneTobyWilde · 29-01-2019 11:48PM

Irish Government,
'' no room to move on '' back stop'' it's in deal and deal is not getting reopened, its there to avoid a hard border''

EU
'' Not reopening Brexit deal, it was agreed and signed by all parties, back stop remains to avoid hard border''

But how on earth can they both say this when a No Deal leads to a hard border.
Seems they have no choice, reopen Brexit deal, or it's no deal and a hard border !
Answer is obvious,, reopen deal and work back stop out so that everyone is happy, no one wants a hard border so it can't be difficult to agree something when all parties are on same page and want the same thing.

hotmail.com · 29-01-2019 11:49PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Which British MP would you take instead of her?

The mess of Brexit doesn't stop us from criticising our own lot every now and then. Obviously Helen has a lot of fans here.

blackcard · 29-01-2019 11:49PM

downcow wrote: »

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

It is already back to the UK, Tusk has rejected any change to the agreement

briany · 29-01-2019 11:49PM

View wrote: »

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

If Ireland is going to get the same result whether pushing for a backstop or accepting border controls, then we may as well go with the option that is at least being seen to lean towards Irish interests, tries to safeguard the Peace Process and doesn't constitute a major U-turn. The GFA and Brexit aren't compatible, and there's no really great outcome for Ireland, save Britain cancelling the thing altogether, and that's something which is looking more and more and more unlikely.

Larbre34 · 29-01-2019 11:49PM

Let them bedamned. Once they've had their civil war and the UK has ceased to exist in its current form, those nations that wish to can come back and join the Union with a clean sheet.

VinLieger · 29-01-2019 11:49PM

downcow wrote: »

There’s no comparison. Both parties said they would abide by what the people said in advisory referendum. No one has said that about the advisory vote tonight. They can’t commit to both as they are opposed to each other.

The same politicians also said before the referendum that no deal was not a possibility and that a second referendum on the deal thats negotiated would make sense.

Its funny the cognitive dissonace you employ to be able to ignore the things politicians have said that you disagree with or dont want to remember

downcow · 29-01-2019 11:50PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Irish Government,
'' no room to move on '' back stop'' it's in deal and deal is not getting reopened, its there to avoid a hard border''

EU
'' Not reopening Brexit deal, it was agreed and signed by all parties, back stop remains to avoid hard border''

But how on earth can they both say this when a No Deal leads to a hard border.
Seems they have no choice, reopen Brexit deal, or it's no deal and a hard border !
Answer is obvious,, reopen deal and work back stop out so that everyone is happy, no one wants a hard border so it can't be difficult to agree something when all parties are on same page and want the same thing.

Excellently put. Common sense

Paranoid Bob · 29-01-2019 11:51PM

charlie14 wrote: »

Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

ARNOLD J RIMMER · 29-01-2019 11:51PM

downcow wrote: »

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

It was over to the EU for 10min . Now back to the UK for 59 days

Professor Moriarty · 29-01-2019 11:54PM

Today Juncker, Coveney, Macron and Tusk have said the agreement won't be renegotiated and I'm listening to a Tory minister talking about renegotiating the deal. Hmmm who to believe? So hard...

FrancieBrady · 29-01-2019 11:55PM

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

It was over to the EU for 10min . Now back to the UK for 59 days

I counted 4 official statements from the EU today that today in parliament was a massive waste of everyone's time. Tusk answered the vote within 2 minutes - not 10.

charlie14 · 30-01-2019 12:00AM

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

For that to occur then will NI not have to remain in the CU until such alternative arrangements are in place and are acceptable to the EU would it not ?

hotmail.com · 30-01-2019 12:03AM

The Daily Mail is telling it's readers that the vote was a Triumph!

Eh ok. I think I'm right in saying that the Mail supported the withdrawal agreement.

prawnsambo · 30-01-2019 12:03AM

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

That's already in the agreement. What do you think "Unless and until" was all about?

Paranoid Bob · 30-01-2019 12:07AM

charlie14 wrote: »

For that to occur then will NI not have to remain in the CU until such alternative arrangements are in place and are acceptable to the EU would it not ?

Yes. If, as the Brady amendment proposes, they want to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements then they will need to get those alternatives agreed.

brooke 2 · 30-01-2019 12:08AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Medieval practices within the so called debates is completely ridiculous. Referring to each as the Right honourable etc. Is this democracy?

The whole thing looks bizarre. Positively primitive. :mad:

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments