Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the central point.

The UK are the ones leaving , the UK are the ones that have set the terms of how they want to leave.

The EU have merely responded and said "Ok , if those are the terms under which you want to leave , then these are the things we need to have to ensure we are not damaged by your exit".

It is entirely up to the UK to address those concerns either by accepting the conditions that the EU are requesting or altering the manner they wish to exit.

If they cannot do either of those things then their choice is simple , leave without any special terms or don't leave.

Indeed, all the UK have done after November 2018 is to keep moving the goalposts - and it's very likely they would do so again if negotiations reopened.

Their request to reopen talks is not a reasonable one. They have been slipping and sliding and changing the Brexit narrative almost on a daily basis for the last two years and don't appear to be acting in good faith.

ambro25 wrote: »

There is a difference between a draft agreement, a signed agreement, and a ratified agreement. You appear to be confusing them all. Allow me.

The withdrawal agreement ceased to be a 'draft' when the EU and Theresa May signed it (technically, even before that: the very moment the last of the 2 parties at the table, signified 100% agreement about the then-latest draft; whereby the commonly-approved draft is then be 'cleaned' and signed).

Theresa May signed the WA. But as you correctly note, under UK constitutional principles it had to be ratified by the HoC to become binding on the UK. It was not ratified, due to internal UK politics. Nothing to fo with the EU27.

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

brickster69 wrote: »

Ambro. The withdrawal agreement is dead. It has been rejected 3 times by a remain majority parliament. No good saying sign it or else !

Looks like the EU have to come out and say negotiations have failed and are finished in that case.

Why don't the UK just ask the EU to remove it's signature from the Agreement to Extend Brexit?

If they disagree with the content of that Agreement than they should withdraw.
In reality, they want to cherry pick the bits they want from that agreement also.
They want to keep it's expiration date of Oct 31.

beggars_bush wrote:

You cannot yearn for a return of The Empire, when all the peoples from the countries you subjugated followed you home; and then you complain about them

Perhaps but the point is that Brexit has no affect on immigration from the UK's former colonies.

Because the media is rabidly in favor of Brexit. Anything from the BBC, Guardian, Economist, FT, etc which doesn't affirm that Brexit will be unicorns and rainbows will just be derided as fake news.

Notice how the narrative shifted from Brexit being amazing to a duty that must be followed because people voted for it. Now we're at the stage where the Brexit press is incessantly playing the victim card. So much for buccaneering, global Britain...

The media is not aimed at us - it is aimed precisely at the British Public as a particular narrative shaped by Cummings etc to a particular end . The question is a 'cui bono' one whenever you see a Mail/Telegraph headline etc

It is mostly designed to aid the Tory party's survival

As to the question above . The backstop is merely the most obvious thing to rail against ; several ERG types have said that the whole WA should be torn up , ECJ oversight is anathema to them . My point is that if they dropped the backstop, some other unacceptable item in the WA would immediately be found to have a crisis over ; thus there is no point in entering negotiations.

Limpy wrote: »

The EU will give the tories all the time they need to save themselves. Or untill someone other then Corbyn can become PM

You might think that but the issue is Johnson has to publicly ask for an extension which breaks his main election manifesto of 'Out on Oct 31' . As he is a serial liar and changer of position I can see him doing this personally but not with the Brexit party on the horizon .

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think that it'll be the moment that, should it ever arrive, will kill the Brexiter coalition of nationalists, libertarians, populists and Ulster unionists who all seem to want mutually exclusive things.

If there is an election, I think it will be a very interesting one. The experiment in Brecon and Radnorshire was a success for a remain pact, so if they continue that process between the LibDems/Greens/Plaid/SNP/Change whatever into a GE, it could actually result in another minority government. At that stage, anything could happen.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think the Breacon result also showed that the only risk that the Brexit party present is of splitting the Tory vote.

If the election was called in the morning , at best the Brexit party might win a half dozen seats and that's very very optimistic, far more importantly they'll hand a host of current Tory seats to the Lib-Dems or Labour by splitting the leave vote.

Yeah. However I'm wary of making those kinds of predictions. The UKIP experience was that they never got much above 12% in a GE and just one seat in Westminster. These are different times, but it seems that the Johnson government are doing everything to place themselves square in front of the BP to ensure they don't lose votes to them. They'll lose some clearly, but I would be surprised if the BP get much more than UKIP did at their best. The voting public don't seem to see them as a 'Westminster' party.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's possible that he's trying to goad Parliament into taking control and forcing him to go to Brussels to request an extension. That way, he'll have a new scapegoat and can dodgy the missiles which will inevitable be fired at him.

That is a theory that I have heard quite a lot, but I am not so sure. Johnson, being the unprincipled opportunist that he is, will do whatever is in his own interest. Right now, I can't see the above strategy being in his best interests. Firstly I think it is reasonably clear what he wants, to win a good sized majority for himself as PM. I think he see's the best path to doing that in a No-Deal Brexit.

Right now the counry is devided between Brexiteer and Remainer. With both sides also devided, the Brexiteer side between the Brexit Party and Conservatives and the remain side between Lib-Dems and Labour. The trick for Borris in an election is to unite the Brexiteer side behind him while keeping the remainers devided. If he goes for an election before Brexit, then the Brexiteer side will be devided with alot of the vote going to the Brexit Party. After a no-deal Brexit, however, the Brexit party has no reason to exist. If there was a no-deal at the end of October and an election in mid November then the Conservatives could reasonably expect to pick up the Brexit vote, while there is every reason to expect an angry and frustrated remain camp would be devided in recriminations between the Lib Dem's and Labour.

Borris could get a large majority simply because the other side was too devided to stop him. Then he could do whatever he likes, including for the optimists among us, ditch the DUP and do a quick deal with the EU not unlike the deal on offer now with backstop included. Remember, no-deal is not the end. The UK and the EU will still need a deal, and if a Johnson Government is willing and able to accept the deal after Brexit that May could not get through before Brexit, then I think the EU would find a way to put the genie back in the bottle as far as trade relations go for an interim period while both sides settle in for the long slog of talks to finalise the future arangement.

If he plays his cards right, he could, maybe, be the PM who delivers no-deal Brexit and also saves the UK from no-deal Brexit. But that is very much a glass half full picture of where all this is headed.

Lux23 wrote: »

I had this discussion with a sales man from Yorkshire today.

Would you be interested in taking out an advert in a UK publication?
No, I don't think it's the right market for us at the moment.
Why?
Well, we are focusing on other European markets as things are looking quite complicated given Brexit.
But why would that affect Ireland?
Well, if it turns out there is a no deal or no backstop we don't think UK customers will be coming here as much and so we are focusing what little budget we have on other EU countries.
But you will be leaving the EU as well? You're the same as us.
No, Ireland will remain - unless you mean Northern Ireland?

Complete silence and then he said thanks for your time. I googled his name and it came up as 'Sales Representative for the UK and Ireland' how on earth does someone dealing with Irish customers everyday not know that most of the island is Independent.

I guess most British people don't give it much thought. It would not surprise me if when they hear that Ireland is causing trouble over the backstop, they just file it away as being much the same as Sturgen being uppity about an independance referendum. Just another devolved government causing ructions, but ultimatly what Westminster decides goes.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is a theory that I have heard quite a lot, but I am not so sure. Johnson, being the unprincipled opportunist that he is, will do whatever is in his own interest. Right now, I can't see the above strategy being in his best interests. Firstly I think it is reasonably clear what he wants, to win a good sized majority for himself as PM. I think he see's the best path to doing that in a No-Deal Brexit.

Right now the counry is devided between Brexiteer and Remainer. With both sides also devided, the Brexiteer side between the Brexit Party and Conservatives and the remain side between Lib-Dems and Labour. The trick for Borris in an election is to unite the Brexiteer side behind him while keeping the remainers devided. If he goes for an election before Brexit, then the Brexiteer side will be devided with alot of the vote going to the Brexit Party. After a no-deal Brexit, however, the Brexit party has no reason to exist. If there was a no-deal at the end of October and an election in mid November then the Conservatives could reasonably expect to pick up the Brexit vote, while there is every reason to expect an angry and frustrated remain camp would be devided in recriminations between the Lib Dem's and Labour.

Borris could get a large majority simply because the other side was too devided to stop him. Then he could do whatever he likes, including for the optimists among us, ditch the DUP and do a quick deal with the EU not unlike the deal on offer now with backstop included. Remember, no-deal is not the end. The UK and the EU will still need a deal, and if a Johnson Government is willing and able to accept the deal after Brexit that May could not get through before Brexit, then I think the EU would find a way to put the genie back in the bottle as far as trade relations go for an interim period while both sides settle in for the long slog of talks to finalise the future arangement.

If he plays his cards right, he could, maybe, be the PM who delivers no-deal Brexit and also saves the UK from no-deal Brexit. But that is very much a glass half full picture of where all this is headed.

I don't agree. Firstly because he'd be mad to try and campaign after a hard brexit. The reality would repel all lies. The chaos at ports and shortages in supermarkets would be hard to ignore and even harder to spin. And secondly because the blame would fall squarely on his shoulders. That's something he would sell his (undetermined number of) children to avoid.

And regardless of all that, the EU could not reinstate the WA after a hard brexit. It would breach EU law to in effect, grant membership to a third country in that way. There isn't a mechanism and would never get through the EuCo.