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

10000maniacs

MPFGLB wrote: »

I am not misrepresenting anything ...I am talking about the conversation between Neil and O Rourke where Neil specifically said what do the Irish want and they will get what they dont want and why are they insisting on the backstop

This implies to all that the Irish have the problem and are the problem with insisting on the backstop with no indication that its no one country's problem and the EU support the backstop

It was a conversation and O Rourke was happy to let those view lie and also comment derogatory on LV personality as if that was the issue
If you were a bystander listening to that you would certainly come away with the view the Irish are the problem

You must have been listening to a different interview.

Neal:
In the event of no deal, will we have a hard border between NI and the ROI?
O'Rourke:
Yes that's my view. It might take weeks or months for that to happen. The government hasn't been planning for this as far as we know and I'm sure they will try to string it out and there will be public procurements and procedures to get the contractors in to delay it, but the Taoiseach needs to come clean on this.
Neal:
But if we leave with no deal because we couldn't change the backstop resulting in a hard border, why not change the backstop?
O'Rourke:
Because if you change the backstop you have a hard border also, because Lancaster house as applied to the UK as a whole necessitates a hard border also and if they concede on the backstop principle, any border that emerges will be permanent whereas if they don't concede, any border that emerges may only turn out to be temporary because if they go into a no deal situation, is that the end of the story? If that is not the end of the story, the backstop is waiting for you.

prawnsambo

Macy0161 wrote: »

But that was the original backstop - it was originally NI only.

Yes, I know. I'm talking about after a crash out where there is no transition period and no relationship. I'm not sure that legally there are grounds to continue something that has ended.

There would be no treaties in effect and NI is not a separate country. The process could take years.

Leroy42

So since the Brexit vote nearly every leading Brexiteer has distanced themselves from the current mess.

Farage, Davis, Raab, Johnson have come out and claimed that Brexit would have been a great idea if only for the Remainers messing it all up. TM is a remainer, Robbins, the EU have been trying to twart the will of the people.

Yet nobody is asking what exactly was the plan that would have worked and why they continue to back TM given how terrible it all is.

nearly 3 years since the vote and still none of them have an actual plan.

Even here, all we get people blaming the EU, Leo etc and asking why the EU can't simply give the UK what it wants.

Havockk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I know some dfa ppl and asked them same about RB.

The gist of it is he apparently was a contrarian for years.

There’s bad blood between dfa and him. Something about getting blamed for a cock up years ago. I could go into further detail but I won’t on a public forum.

I also would be curious to know if he is getting any payment for his extremely pro Brexit stance?

Something for ppl to look into maybe.

My guess would be that the money is flowing through think tanks. Policy Exchange has lots of ties to people of like mind to Bassett. Its also been listed as one of teh least transparent think tanks out there in relation to where their funding comes from.

jmayo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I love the way the rest of it is phrased.

Whilst it may be true, we'd be cutting ourselves off from every EU country under this plan, not just the one we export the most to and import the most from, so it's not a terrible comparison.

Actually some of these online discussion around some of these hair brained ideas, floated by some Brexiter, about how to solve issue of the Irish actually give me some hope that there are still some smart intelligent reflective people in the UK.

Everytime one of these cockamamy suggestions come up, usually by some politico or advisor, you find ordinary people lambasting them and actually apologising and being embarrassed for being British.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Agreed.

However, the problems come in at the end of your post. It will cost them both in terms of capital and in lives. This was never discussed or even registered as a concern by most people before the referendum.

Because they had forgotten about the deaths and most especially the bombs in their cities that cost billions in damage when all added up.

Besides the Irish question had been put to bed, now the threat was from islamists.

The British actually have wanted to be rid of Northern Ireland for quite some time. It is a black hole for state funding with little or no return bar some sentimental value for people who hark back to a forgotten time when Britain ruled a chunk of the world.

The light shone on it's biggest political party when it ended up backing May probably only copper fastened in people's minds why they would be better off with it.

snailsong

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

snailsong wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

If every Unionist politician in the North had the same political views as Hermon then there would be a lot more harmony.

Agreed. I think it's a great shame that the voice most missed from the whole discussion is that of moderate unionism. The views expressed by the DUP are being weighted ad though there were no other opinions in NI, let alone in unionism. This is not the case. As illustrated by Lady Hermon's questioning of Raab.

Sam Russell

Bambi wrote: »

I think it was a British PM that summed up these cartoons well ...it's better to be laughed at than ignored

Except when it is racist.

ancapailldorcha

Macy0161 wrote: »

The ability to do their own trade deals is a May red line! It's unviable to a portion of the Tory party and their supporters. But it's viable enough to have majority support in the HoC, would solve the backstop issue, and reopen negotiations with the EU.

It's unviable based off one interpretation of the result, not of every interpretation of the result.

It is a May red line but she is Prime Minister and will remain so until she either resigns or the end of her grace period from the attempted leadership challenger in her party.

She's not going to let this go ahead for that reason. Reopening negotiations won't happen unless the EU will gain an advantage. They have a deal that they can ratify. Why would they change it otherwise? Except of course for the whole thing to be binned.

Macy0161

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem there is that a customs union means being out of the single market and prevents the UK for signing its own trade deals. While the latter might be just as well, it makes the option unviable.

The ability to do their own trade deals is a May red line! It's unviable to a portion of the Tory party and their supporters. But it's viable enough to have majority support in the HoC, would solve the backstop issue, and reopen negotiations with the EU.

It's unviable based off one interpretation of the result, not of every interpretation of the result.

ancapailldorcha

jmayo wrote: »

The thing is for some Brits, who would coincidentally be Brexiters, NI and Ireland don't rank highly on their concern list.
They couldn't care less if those in NI were slaughtering themselves so long as it wasn't costing them anything.

Agreed.

However, the problems come in at the end of your post. It will cost them both in terms of capital and in lives. This was never discussed or even registered as a concern by most people before the referendum.

Professor Moriarty

snailsong wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

Surely central to the GFA is the principle that those in NI can identify as British, Irish, both or neither. Lady Hermon has probably read it in full. I'd be very surprised if she objected to a nationalist MP referring to themself as Irish. She's well within her right to make the correction.

If every Unionist politician in the North had the same political views as Hermon then there would be a lot more harmony.

jmayo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think this is a bit ridiculous. I don't think anyone is anti-UK. It's perfectly understandable that Irish people would be incensed at the UK's leaving with such feckless disregard for the peace process in NI. Maintaining this takes priority whatever the consequences for the British.

The thing is for some Brits, who would coincidentally be Brexiters, NI and Ireland don't rank highly on their concern list.
They couldn't care less if those in NI were slaughtering themselves so long as it wasn't costing them anything.

eagle eye wrote: »

The first thing they have to do is internal as in find another supporter of government so they can get rid of the DUP.

The DUP is the disaster in all of this.

The other issue for May is that if she forces through a deal with backstop, customs link in, then a chunk of her party will split off.

She is a dyed in the wool tory all her life and will not want to break her party apart.
I beleive she thinks a hard Brexit is preferable.

Either that or she is playing the greatest game of brinkmanship seen in many a day, hopinig at the last minute someone somewhere backs down.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How could the EU look at improving itself when it's spent the last 2 and a half years dealing with a toddler that still won't tell us what they want?

I don't know why people keep saying they (as in the Brexiter) don't know what they want.

They want all the advantages of being in the single market with free movement for them and free trade, but they also want to be able to stop the free movement of people into Britain, want to be able to make their own rules and regulations, want to be able to make their own trade deals with rest of world, and want to make no monetary contributions to EU.

The hard liners want the completely impossible.

And in this sense yes they are toddlers who want to both keep and eat their cake.

The others in UK want everything from staying in as is, a Norway type affiliation, a Swiss type affiliation to absolutely nothing to do with Europe but instead relying on their empire. :rolleyes:

And all May wants above all else is to keep her party together somehow and get another few months in office.

ancapailldorcha

Macy0161 wrote: »

A Customs Union is Labours main sticking point at the moment. A deal with a Customs Union would get over the line in the HoC tomorrow, with cross party support.

The problem there is that a customs union means being out of the single market and prevents the UK for signing its own trade deals. While the latter might be just as well, it makes the option unviable.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure that would be possible imo. Once the UK have left, the possibility for NI to be treated differently ends as far as I can see. I'm not sure how, legally, it can be brought back into the single market and the customs union. It's not a separate country.

Oh, I think the EU lawyers will be able to find a way around that!

From a regulatory point of view, it's not going to diverge very much from the EU in the space of a few months. If it takes longer than a few months (as per the argument in my post above) we'd be heading for a reunification of the island of Ireland.

Macy0161

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It has in the sense that Labour has had an actual stance that the whole party is happy with which of course it hasn't really had. The stuff about the six tests was just a stalling tactic and now that that hasn't happened they now find themselves in a position where there is much less room for their equivocating.

A Customs Union is Labours main sticking point at the moment. A deal with a Customs Union would get over the line in the HoC tomorrow, with cross party support.

Macy0161

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure that would be possible imo. Once the UK have left, the possibility for NI to be treated differently ends as far as I can see. I'm not sure how, legally, it can be brought back into the single market and the customs union. It's not a separate country.

But that was the original backstop - it was originally NI only.

AlmightyCushion

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Daily Telegraph continues its descent towards Express-level quality standards:

http://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1090946448303239168

I love the way the rest of it is phrased.

the Republic imports more from the UK than from any other EU country, and the UK is its second biggest European export market

Whilst it may be true, we'd be cutting ourselves off from every EU country under this plan, not just the one we export the most to and import the most from, so it's not a terrible comparison.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

10000maniacs wrote: »

if Varadkar concedes on the backstop principle, any border between ROI and NI becomes permanent, whereas if we don't concede the backstop and there is a hard Brexit, this may turn out to be temporary as surely a hard Brexit is not the end of the story.

Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me at all. Could you elaborate please?

Concede on the principle of a backstop = agree that a hard border is a price worth paying = "Paddy's come to his senses and stopped messing us about; not let's start signing trade deals without having to think anymore about those peasants."

Refuse to concede = backstop or No Deal = Toddler Tories storm off in a tantrum; hard border by default on Day 1 but Leo&Simon say "we never wanted this, we still don't want this, but trade rules require it." Fast forward a bit - no food in Tesco, weddings without flowers, Joe Public getting antsy, Britain's new PM asks if pretty-please-Sir-may-we-have-a-trade-deal? Leo&Simon say "of course, just as soon as you've agreed measures that permanently re-open the border."

The longer it takes to the UK to come back to the negotiating table, the more likely it is that any such deal will put that border in the Irish Sea - especially if that turns out to be one of the many temporary mini-deals that has to be put in place after a chaotic Brexit. And if they really drag their feet, then popular opinion might even put the NI Sec in a position where he has to offer a vote on reunification.

snailsong

trellheim wrote: »

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Sylvia Hermon does herself zero favours

In the HoC on Tuesday

Lady Hermon
Share
I am very grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me to intervene. I just want to say ever so gently that in his very nice tribute to the hon. Member for North Down, I think he might have accidentally referred to the lady as an Irish Member of this House. No, I am very much a British Member of this House.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-29/debates/BB8A5769-12B4-4D0E-9B4E-158F89F9FCDE/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Act2018

Surely central to the GFA is the principle that those in NI can identify as British, Irish, both or neither. Lady Hermon has probably read it in full. I'd be very surprised if she objected to a nationalist MP referring to themself as Irish. She's well within her right to make the correction.

ancapailldorcha

Macy0161 wrote: »

Labours stance has actually been pretty consistent, and the only thing May has conceded on (albeit none directly to the Labour Party) is a Customs Union. She conceded workers rights already. A Customs Union is another of May's own Red Lines.

Her own red lines are the consistent issue preventing agreement in both the HoC and with the EU

It has in the sense that Labour has had an actual stance that the whole party is happy with which of course it hasn't really had. The stuff about the six tests was just a stalling tactic and now that that hasn't happened they now find themselves in a position where there is much less room for their equivocating.

What is a general election meant to solve? Article 50 expires in less than 2 months. What we need is a commitment to a people's vote. The working classes will hate them for it but they're no worse off than if they aid and abet a Brexit which decimates what remains of British industry.

VinLieger

Russman wrote: »

If this is, in fact, true, then maybe the DUP are about to go under the proverbial bus. It can't be too hard to find 10 Lab MPs willing to put country before party (whilst possibly also looking good for their constituents).

They need more than 10, the ERG will scupper any chance of a deal too

Russman

CelticRambler wrote: »

SkyNews were reporting at lunchtime that moves are afoot to "allocate funding for the regeneration of northern cities" (= bribe Labour Leave MPs) so I think there's is some chance it might happen. Will it be enough to get May's deal through on the third/fourth vote? Who knows ... :rolleyes:

If this is, in fact, true, then maybe the DUP are about to go under the proverbial bus. It can't be too hard to find 10 Lab MPs willing to put country before party (whilst possibly also looking good for their constituents).

prawnsambo

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think the point is that removal of the border/ reinstatement of the backstop would/ could/ should be a condition of an UK-EU FTA.

I'm not sure that would be possible imo. Once the UK have left, the possibility for NI to be treated differently ends as far as I can see. I'm not sure how, legally, it can be brought back into the single market and the customs union. It's not a separate country.

prawnsambo

El Weirdo wrote: »

She's an Independent unionist. How else would you expect her to refer to herself (the whole Britain ≠ UK thing notwithstanding)?

She's a very interesting person. Her maiden name is Paisley and she was brought up in a fairly republican area. Her husband was Chief Constable for NI.

Macy0161

prawnsambo wrote: »

Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me at all. Could you elaborate please?

I think the point is that removal of the border/ reinstatement of the backstop would/ could/ should be a condition of an UK-EU FTA.

CelticRambler

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats not going to happen as weve seen both May and Corbyn are entrenched and putting party politics before country so whats the next viable solution?

SkyNews were reporting at lunchtime that moves are afoot to "allocate funding for the regeneration of northern cities" (= bribe Labour Leave MPs) so I think there's is some chance it might happen. Will it be enough to get May's deal through on the third/fourth vote? Who knows ... :rolleyes:

But:

Shelga wrote: »

Does anyone think this will all lead to the rise of anti-NI sentiment in the UK- and they could be effectively forced out by people (people who had no clue about the north a couple of years ago) who think that NI is stopping their perfect Brexit?

Yes. If there is either a crash-out Brexit that hammers the UK's purse, or a BRINO that enrages the ERG & Co, at least some of the blame will be directed at the Irish, including the DUP. While NI cannot be simply booted out of the Kingdom, it would be very easy (and fiscally responsible) for Westminster to decide that £350m-a-day would be better spent on ... ooh, I dunno, the NHS maybe? Or ploughed into the northern English constituencies of Labour MPs who got Mrs. May off the hook back in 2019.

Discussing "the North" with friends way back in the 90s, even before the GFA appeared on the horizon, I argued that reunification would come about because of cash not kalashnikovs. All the recent polls show that we're not far off that point, and the British government could certainly give NI a not very subtle nudge when England needed to be rid of it.

Macy0161

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

[*]Labour is still deciding its own stance and is arguably pushing for disaster socialism

Labours stance has actually been pretty consistent, and the only thing May has conceded on (albeit none directly to the Labour Party) is a Customs Union. She conceded workers rights already. A Customs Union is another of May's own Red Lines.

Her own red lines are the consistent issue preventing agreement in both the HoC and with the EU

prawnsambo

10000maniacs wrote: »

He wasn't saying that.
What he said was failing to prevent a hard border is not the same thing as causing it. And that in a hard Brexit situation, Ireland would have to implement it.
He also said that if Varadkar concedes on the backstop principle, any border between ROI and NI becomes permanent, whereas if we don't concede the backstop and there is a hard Brexit, this may turn out to be temporary as surely a hard Brexit is not the end of the story. And if its not the end of the story, they backstop is waiting there to be put in place.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this logic. Firstly Ireland and the UK would have to implement a hard border in the case of a hard brexit. If the UK don't, they'll be running down a very hard road indeed vis a vis the WTO. And with knock-on effects on any FTAs they try and negotiate. In fact it would put paid to any such FTAs in the first place.

Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me at all. Could you elaborate please?

Chips Lovell

Gentle reminder. Please don't just dump links.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Mod Note

Hi folks,
Please do heed the charter and don't just copy/paste links. It's a discussion forum, not a news feed. If you're not prepared to discuss what you post, don't post.

tuxy

So that vote was only to announce that they like Graham Brady and think he is a right honorable gentleman?