Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Deleted User wrote: »

There doesn't seem to have been a poll on the topic since early December, but excluding don't knows and refused to answer it's 53% to 47% in favour of no.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line

I would be surprised if the impact of a no-deal Brexit could not produce a 4% swing.

prawnsambo wrote: »

'Tiggers' I like that. There's talk of a couple more including Dominic Grieve who I would have thought should have been in the original bunch. I think there's probably a bit of rope dispensing to TM and then it'll run out and so will they.

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Water John wrote: »

Great to watch Emily Sheffield taking Brendan O'Neill to task on Sky News Press Preview. Calling him out every time he states some thing as fact when it's only his opinion.

Watching Question Time, but I assume Brendan mentioned his mandatory 17.4 million voters...
His arguments are always the same.

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Grieve is a Tory MP

He did say last night that if no deal went through that he would resign from the Conservative Party

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Grieve is a Tory.

But hopefully he may become a Tigger!

Water John wrote: »

Great to watch Emily Sheffield taking Brendan O'Neill to task on Sky News Press Preview. Calling him out every time he states some thing as fact when it's only his opinion.

The guy is a political extremist, probably further out to the edges than Nigel Farage. I haven't the faintest clue why Sky News would invite a person like that to review the papers.

mafc wrote: »

Grieve is a Tory MP

He did say last night that if no deal went through that he would resign from the Conservative Party

I think what he said was that if the government were going to pursue no deal then he would resign the whip to oppose it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seen Grieve on Newsnight (I think) last night and he was non committal on defecting to the Independent Group.

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

downcow wrote: »

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

'Independent group' is hardly an oxymoron, surely...?

downcow wrote: »

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

pauldla wrote: »

'Independent group' is hardly an oxymoron, surely...?

Well, if you can have the United Kingdom Independence Party, I don't see why you can't have an Independent Group.

"Independent of what?" is the question you have to ask in each case. In UKIP's case, the mean independent of the commitments and obligations that go with membership of the European Union. In the case of the Independent Group, it's a groups of MPs who are independent of political parties. This isn't an oxymoron because the group itself is not a political party and does not act as a political party, either in Parliament or outside.

At least one member of the group - Umana - hopes to form a political party in the future. That party may or may not have "Independent" in its name but, if it does, it won't be unprecedented (or necessarily oxymoronic); apart from UKIP, already mentioned, there is precedent in the Independent Labour Party, represented in Parliament from 1931 to 1948, and the Independent Irish Party, represented in Parliament from 1952 to 1859 (with a high of 40 MPs).

fash wrote: »

It's not under the current WA- as in the current WA they could only do that by breaching the WA. Under the current WA, the GFA is elevated to an EU-UK thing - and the border obligation spelled out in black and white - in that way, it is different and further to the GFA.
So for the UK to later cause a border to be erected, it would now be a breach of an express term of the agreement with the EU as well as of an implied term perhaps of the GFA - where at present it would be only the GFA.
It was something I was thinking about a few weeks ago too as an option - effectively have a new Article 50 - the consequences of which are that you go to no deal.
Of course that is worse for Ireland and should only be conceded if at all at the very end.

Well, the point about "no deal" is that it's not something that gets "conceded" by either side. It's just what happens if they fail to make a deal.

But Pappa Dolla does ask an interesting question:

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

In one sense, that's exactly what's on offer now. The UK could accept the deal now on offer, but at the end of the transition period, if there's no agreement on "altenative measures", simply welch on their commitment to maintain full regulatory alignment between NI and RoI. What, we ask ourselves, would happen in that situation?

The UK would be in breach of the Withdrawal Agreeement, and the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement would presumably collapse at that point. But most of the provisions of the WA are temporary. The UK will already have had the benefit of the transition period, and will already have paid over the bulk of the divorce bill. So it's not clear that they would be greatly harmed by the cancellation of the remaining aspects of the WA.

Obviously, there would be serious damage to NI and to the peace process. But those in the UK who call for this largely don't care about that, or are in denial about it.

But there'd be a huge loss of goodwill and trust from the EU. It would put the kibosh, obviously, on any prospect of a free trade agreeement between the EU and the UK and, the bleatings of Brexiters notwithstanding, that's a much bigger problem for the UK than it is for the EU. (Though it would be a big problem for Ireland too.) There'd be a generally very frosty relationshiop between the UK and the EU which would be felt in many ways other than absence of a Free Trade Agreement. And it's a frost that wouldn't thaw until the UK took effective steps to restore trust and reopen the Irish border.

There'd also be a huge loss of international standing and credibility. The UK wouldn't necessarily have a dispute over this with third countries, but third countries would definitely read the message about how much obligation the UK feels to honour its treaty obligations.

So the bottom line is that the UK could do this, in the sense that nobody would send in an army to stop them, but they would pay a huge practical and political price for doing so.

If, as Pappa Dolla suggests, we include a clause in the WA which says that the UK can do this, if they forfeit the benefits of the WA, that changes the picture completely. If the WA says that, then the UK in acting that way would not be in breach of the WA. As noted, by then giving up the benefits of the WA would not be a big deal for the UK - the benefits would largely have been exhausted. There wouldn't be the damage to trust, credibilty, standing, etc associated with breaching treaty obligations. So it's something that it would be relatively easy and cost-free for the UK to do. And, since we very much don't want the UK to do it (remember why we want an open border in the first place) it would be madness to include such a provision in the WA.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So in recent days the UK has managed a diplomatic faux-pas with Germany. And China. And Japan.

That's actually impressive.

Especially when their faux-pas specialist, Boris, is still on the sideline. Wait til he gets stuck in again.

downcow wrote: »

I have little doubt most on here will take different view but there is definitely a sense up here that UK and Eu have held fairly firmly to thier lines but that the roi has now blinked. The expectation was that either Eu or UK would blink first.
The public info on roi preparations for no deal has def lowered concern of no deal and has demonstrated that much of the talk up to now has been project fear.
I think this will be helpful in oiling negotiations for both Eu and UK.
I think it demonstrates goodwill and more of a spirit of cooperation from roi. Fair play to them. A bit more of this from all parties involved will make a no deal and a border much less likely.

Can you point to this public info you mention? RTE site simply says it will be published today

downcow wrote: »

I have little doubt most on here will take different view but there is definitely a sense up here that UK and Eu have held fairly firmly to thier lines but that the roi has now blinked. The expectation was that either Eu or UK would blink first.
The public info on roi preparations for no deal has def lowered concern of no deal and has demonstrated that much of the talk up to now has been project fear.
I think this will be helpful in oiling negotiations for both Eu and UK.
I think it demonstrates goodwill and more of a spirit of cooperation from roi. Fair play to them. A bit more of this from all parties involved will make a no deal and a border much less likely.
I have more confidence this morning that we will navigate our way through this

Assuming by 'up here' you mean NI, can you also drop this DUP style line of talking like your opinion represents all of NI. It doesn't.


As stated, nothing has even been published yet.

Again, Downcow, you certainly don't speak for the North as a whole. Anyone I've spoken to from my home, around the border, absolutely would disagree with your perception of that. I have no doubt that SOME may share your....odd perspectives, but as usual, despite you claiming it as such, it is definitely not a widely held view in my own experience. We are not a homogenous people, there is a whole spectrum of views.

I'd really appreciate it if you stopped taking the liberty of claiming to speak for us all. If you have an opinion, share it as that. If you're claiming something as factual, back it up.

The plural of anecdote isn't data, and the chat you had down the pub with your mates isn't really equivalent to opinion polls.

Now, establishing that it is your opinion, not 'the North' acting like the Borg and speaking through you.....I would love to get a bit of insight on what actually goes through your head when you say that Ireland demonstrating how far ahead they are with No Deal preparations than the UK is somehow weakening the EU negotiating position?


It seems like you've set your mind a certain way and would claim absolutely anything as, 'evidence of blinking first'. I suspect that if the Irish government WASN'T discussing No Deal preparation, you'd be on here calling that a victory too.