Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The paralysis of the UK political system is nobody else's problem to sort out. They are not crashing out. With their red lines they cannot leave... the UK's problem again. We will stand by, prepared, until they make their minds up.

What do you expect from an ass but a kick? This country is well used to being screwed over by the Brits. if a no deal outcome is what happens, We will have to live with it. rebuild and come back stronger.

Serious question here ,

Is there Any chance of a Euro wide referendum by the 420 million remaining eu citizens to allow the British back in after Brexit or can they just rejoin willy nilly ?

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s just not really a logical position for Britain to voluntarily put itself in prior to negotiations with Europe on the future deal.

It would be akin to having one foot on a bed of hot coals during a negotiation, only to be told you can lift your foot as soon as you’ve shaken hands on a separate dispute. You are never going to hold out for the best deal in those circumstances, you are going to agree to almost anything that allows you to move your foot.

I accept your analogy, but only of you agree the UK voluntarily put it's foot in it.

Bigus wrote: »

It's an interesting conundrum though , as I'm sure most Brexiteers assume membership of the EU is a given if their oxbridge intelligence so desires,at some time in the future.

Those Brexiteers need to realise that the absolute best deal they will get within the EU (or outside) is the one they have now. i really think it is that simple.

Folkstonian wrote: »

Britain leaves the EU with or without a deal at the end of next month. So there’s at least one more show in town than you suggest!

"London's latest tactic is like saying 'give me what I want or I'll jump out the window'."

- Coveney, January 19.

Westernyelp wrote: »

There would be a process of negotiation and ratification to go through first. and the terms would certainly be less favorable than currently available to the UK,

Most countries do not require popular referendums either afaik.

so certainly not 'willy nilly'

Wait, we would get to vote on allowing them back in? They have really made life easy for the no campaign.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The HoC is not the only body that matters in this process, if the deal does not work for us by ensuring that there can be no hard border, then it is not going to fly. There is very little point in talking about a deal that does not ensure there us no hard border, it is simply not good enough.

Can you see Irish people mobilize and take to the streets over brexit? I certainly would. I honestly fear that we will take most of the pain from brexit and our previous history of meekly taking tough medicine in the past does not bode well for us. We are not good at fighting our corner. We are not a nation of protesters especially when it comes to a low resolution,death by a thousand cuts, issue like brexit.

We surely have a moral case as much as there ever was a cause on this island for a unity poll or a border in the Irish Sea.

This is as big an existential threat as we ever faced certainly since the economic war of the 1930’s perhaps worse cause brexit might never resolve.

Patser wrote: »

, while the ERG stood smugly to the side.

.

Quiet reassuring to see that the ERG counts someone with the surname Trevelyan among its members.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its not what I think.

What matters is what those in the HoC think and how they vote. So far they are not in favour of the WA and there's no sign they are changing their minds. The EU also isn't changing course. So disorderly brexit seems the most likely outcome with Ireland caught in the headlights.

I really think you are being naive here. The backstop is used as a blocking point because it allows the anti agreement bunch to pick on Ireland and rage against it in the popular press, demonise an enemy which is getting far too uppity. If the backstop did not exist the ERG would try a different tactic, the 39 billion probably.

Regardless of whether the backstop is changed or not, the UK still won't be ratifying the agreement unless the ERG's constituency committees start deselecting those members as candidates.

Their problem is not the backstop, it is the agreement itself. That is why the UK cannot come up with a solution here: even if by some miracle they found something that would get past the EU, or even removed it, they still cannot be sure the agreement would pass the HoC.

The UK-wide backstop, contentious as it is, is a UK contribution. Not an EU one. They would be happy with NI only.

But I don't think the deal will pass either way. Whether she needs 10 cross bench votes (NI only backstop meaning she needs to replace the DUP) or 60 plus (ERG). The UK needs a little more reality.

Calina wrote: »

Accession would have to be negotiated, but in theory, it should be straightforward as there is a well defined process. It would require the UK implementing the acquis communautaire in its legislation, something which in theory should be easier the sooner they try to rejoin. If regulation has diverged a lot, UK will have a lot of work to do. The two sticking points from a populr press point of view will be Schengen and the euro.

The optouts and spevial cases that the UK has enjoyed up to now may well be serious history unless the UK can make a special, special case fot getting them back.

This will not require a EU wide referendum.

If they use the same negotiators as they've used for the WA I think we can see they'll get no special case. I can't see it happening. If the UK leaves it'll be a generation or two before they ever get back. They'll go into EU blame game override for every job loss or any austerity. And a significant proportion of the population lap that up.
Sure they've begun that already.

I saw a user post on this thread that the EU doesn't care about the GFA if they don't give people living in the North EHIC cards. You need a special type of contortion to get to that kind of conclusion.

I'd say we would welcome them back. It's not the EU vs the UK that the UK have always thought.
I think the UK have been its own worst enemy in these negotiations. They've a bit of a Trump type negotiation style. There has to be a winner vs a loser. So there will be.

reslfj wrote: »

Easy now - Ireland has very much support in the EU27.

Lars

It hasn't stopped the UK using every means at its disposal - diplomatic and political to brief against and destroy that support - they merely have been unsuccessful in trying to do so.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ill-informed post and a lie that garners lots of thanks. Par for the course on here it seems. Read all my posts re the backstop then we'll talk.
The UK said it wants changes to the backstop not its abolition. Simple enough.

As for rifles and nonsense like that, lets see where we are in a months time. As far as I can see the UK hold most of the cards. The Irish government themselves have admitted a hard border could cost up to 50,000 jobs and 3.5% growth. Do you understand what that means? It means budget cutbacks. And this when they need to spend more to counteract brexit. The sums don't add up. Coveney now says brexit will be lose-lose-lose. He's worried no deal is coming.
.

And the UK loses 7% of its GDP, millions of jobs and already has 50+ % of its population thinking Brexit is a stupid idea to begin with - yet they hold most of the cards?! Not even Michael Gove is that delusional at this stage.
By the way, I (probably stupidly) took the time of going through your historic posts and you did NOT set out a position as regards what concession on the backstop should be made (contrary to your assertions otherwise) - aside from vague and meaningless statements about making concessions.

Here however is my proposal: the EU can give a legal and binding guarantee that the backstop will not be used if provided with and subject to a binding UK guarantee that there will be no hard border.

judeboy101 wrote: »

Here however is my proposal: the EU can give a legal and binding guarantee that the backstop will not be used if provided with and subject to a binding UK guarantee that there will be no hard border.

That's a dangerous deal. Uk could use Ni as a backdoor in EU as they make dodgy deals around the world. They would not technically be in breach and we'd end up putting up border not them.[/QUOTE]

I should be more clear: no hard border implemented or caused to be implemented" - the wording needs more work but hopefully you get the general idea.

Surely right now it is about fudging the deal that May negotiated already through parliament. She has said she wants to work together with other parties, but that seemed to last only a week. Since then she has been giving appearances of getting a new deal done but the reality is that there will be no new deal. There will be legal clarifications that the backstop is not permanent and when either a new trade deal is negotiated or technology exists that means a physical border is not needed it will not be implemented, or if it has been implemented it will cease to be in effect.

However, I don't think she gets this through parliament as the ERG are so determined to leave the EU, and some of them with no-deal as the aim, they will not fall for the legal fudges being sold to them. At the same time Corbyn knows if she gets her deal through the Tories are in power until 2022 and he loses his chance to be PM, so he will not vote for it. The DUP will not vote for it either as it is not whatever they want.

So we are no closer to where we were, with May's deal the only one on the table and not having a majority to get it through because she has alienated the opposition parties during the negotiations and there are enough hardliners in her party that just wants to leave with no-deal.