Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali · 02-09-2019 11:20AM

JRM on LBC (link to clip in tweet below)

HOST: Do you still think the referendum is relevant considering all the new information we've got now, or whether a public vote wouldn't just clear up the air, all the information is out, we can make an informed decision now.

JRM: I think that the problem with that is that that would overturn the result we've already had.

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1168452333526798338

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 11:21AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even the UK haven't accepted it so strange you seem to think it's a given.

Apart from a minority in both the HoC and the public, the UK clearly does not want to entirely leave the EU.

Staying in a Customs Union including more than likely free movement of people was always going to be a tough sell by any PM who would struggle to get it through the HoC.

Abiding by rules you have no say or input into was going to be difficult to accept. Its not really leaving the EU. Its like staying in the EU but not having any power in the EU, a worse fate than actually staying in the EU for those who wanted to take back power. It would render the HoC a rubber stamping parliament for EU rules and I can't see the majority accepting that in the HoC. Like I said a tough sell.

Flex · 02-09-2019 11:21AM

Calina wrote: »

She is strongly implying her contact is Irish.

I think she has been wrong about everything she has reported on Brexit. Her narrative has constantly been against what EU leaders and negotiators have been publically saying and she constantly makes out the EU is terrified of the UK and disarray. She's doing it again; suggesting (stating actually)

mini deals are up for discussion,
that if the UK can guarantee that a deal can pass the British parliament theyll concede and
that the EU is prepared to make "painful" concessions on the backstop.
And of course, that the EU are in disarray and the UK has them on the ropes.

All of this after Michel Barnier's piece in the Telegraph only yesterday too. She appears to take opinions or potential ' what if' musings but runs with them and reports them as fact. Total disservice to the people of the UK who need some solid information from their media

Stop moaning ffs · 02-09-2019 11:21AM

I think that horse has already bolted with regards losing Conservative votes but the fracture in the party will be the real story this week I’d say. How many will rebel and ignore the dictate from Cummings?

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1168445755972960257?s=21

CelticRambler · 02-09-2019 11:27AM

BarryD2 wrote: »

But the rhetoric here is reminiscent of what pertained in 2008. Then anyone who dared to suggest that trouble was coming down the tracks, was laughed off the pitch. There was and is a sort of group think that all be grand.

Really struggling to understand what world you're living in, or what news your listening to, or what forums you're reading - but for the last four years, contributors to this forum have been saying that things will not be grand.

In fact, the only people who consistently say everything will be grand are Brexiters.

The rest of us have accepted that things will not be grand, and those of us likely to be significantly impacted (except you) have taken steps to lessen that impact. If any lesson has been learnt from 2008, it's "don't wait for the government to sort out foreseeable problems".

trellheim · 02-09-2019 11:30AM

Normally at this stage whatsapps off the Whips have leaked. I suppose since there's been no commons business till tomorrow ...

J Mysterio · 02-09-2019 11:38AM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Katya's take on things:

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1168449899316371457

She is best ignored, an absolute gimp. She has no understanding of EU and regularly misunderstands their/ our take.

She was today proposing that it might work for Ireland to accept checks on continent. Absolutely bloody hopeless is she.

Stop moaning ffs · 02-09-2019 11:45AM

Tony is back with a welcome antidote to katyas whispers and gossip.

Full thread worth a read

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1168472691302703105?s=21

woohoo!!! · 02-09-2019 11:47AM

Looking back, the last chance for the UK were the May Corbyn talks. But the principle of FPTP and winner takes all is too deeply ingrained. The behind the scene documentaries on Barnier and Verhofstadt made clear that they couldn't understand why U.K. politics could not come to an agreement over such an important issue, and were less than impressed with remainers essentially blocking a deal. Of course their chief ire was reserved for Brexiteers like Davis.

Johnson for all his bluster is in a very weak position and all this lashing out is akin to death throes. I don't see the UK being capable of sorting out their mess anytime soon. In such a scenario it's hard to see any sort of deal sticking post Brexit.

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 11:51AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apart from a minority in both the HoC and the public, the UK clearly does not want to entirely leave the EU.

There's a big difference between opinion polls and a final definitive vote such as a referendum when everything is on the line.

The vote in the referendum was to leave.

As for the HoC, there was a vote to open negotiations on a Customs Union arrangement. It was defeated by close to 30 votes, a reasonable majority.

Many in the UK view a CU as even worse than being in the EU.

CelticRambler · 02-09-2019 11:57AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's a big difference between opinion polls and a final definitive vote such as a referendum when everything is on the line.

The vote in the referendum was to leave.

As you say, there's a big difference. Unlike referndums in Ireland or (e.g.) Switzerland, the UK referendum was only "advisory" and non-binding - essentially a glorified opinion poll.

I'm sure there are at least 17.4 million UK voters who would welcome the chance to have a final definitive vote, rather than leave such a momentous decision to a bunch of 600 squabbling MPs.

Enzokk · 02-09-2019 11:58AM

Others have already commented on Katya Adler's take this morning, but surely this is a contradiction to her own thread?

'EU leader keen-ness to find a #Brexit compromise should not be confused as willingness to do whatever it takes to get a deal with UK. EU single market concerns are paramount when looking at alternatives to backstop. Merkel certainly not looking for deal "at any price" /5'

'BUT bottom line is that EU will only make compromises on backstop - if painful ones for EU - if bloc is convinced that a majority in parliament is guaranteed to approve the revised deal. Right now EU leaders see Johnson doesnt have the numbers /12'

So which one is it? Will there be a compromise but only one that will make it through the UK parliament or one that protects the single market?

I guess the answer is more complicated, and the only compromise the EU will make is when they are sure it will actually pass through parliament, but then this compromise will only be made if it still protects the single market and the backstop. That should lead you to the realization then that there isn't a lot of scope for change from the EU side.

'Officially EU position is 1) it awaits UK proposals because 2) the backstop as stands is the only credible solution that fits the UK red lines as set out by Theresa May and recognises unique situation on island of Ireland BUT privately some key EU players thinking... /7'

'"Did we miss something?" "Were we too focussed on encouraging UK to a closer position with us post #Brexit ?" "Is there a workable alternative to backstop that protects all-Ireland economy and EU single market enough?" /8'

When the UK's own reports are that the alternative arrangements has issues, then the EU didn't miss anything. This is back to raising doubts from the EU side, where they will move at the last moment or they are not all united behind the position.

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 11:58AM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Looking back, the last chance for the UK were the May Corbyn talks. But the principle of FPTP and winner takes all is too deeply ingrained. The behind the scene documentaries on Barnier and Verhofstadt made clear that they couldn't understand why U.K. politics could not come to an agreement over such an important issue, and were less than impressed with remainers essentially blocking a deal. Of course their chief ire was reserved for Brexiteers like Davis.

Johnson for all his bluster is in a very weak position and all this lashing out is akin to death throes. I don't see the UK being capable of sorting out their mess anytime soon. In such a scenario it's hard to see any sort of deal sticking post Brexit.

A backstop with a definitive end would probably have been enough of a fudge to get the WA passed the HoC. They could then move to discussing the type of trade arrangement between the UK and EU. Another fudge would probably have been required to get that through.

People always underestimate the importance of a fudge when it comes to difficult negotiations. It allows all sides to save face and kick some issues down the road for discussion at another time.

CelticRambler · 02-09-2019 12:03PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A backstop with a definitive end would probably have been enough of a fudge to get the WA passed the HoC.

There is a definitive end: when there are alternative arrangements in place. All the UK needs to do is sign the WA, present the (concrete, workable) plans when they're ready, and the backstop goes away, forever.

Problem solved.

Enzokk · 02-09-2019 12:04PM

I thought Labour wanted to stop no-deal first before an election?

https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1168475922095378432?s=20

I know if they win they could ask for an extension and get their own "jobs first Brexit", or whatever crap they think they can get, but that is predicated on them winning first. Legislating against no-deal is a sure bet. Foolish Corbyn once again.

reslfj · 02-09-2019 12:05PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

... as the TIR lorries can just join the empty queue since no checks are needed at Dover or Calais.

1. Do you know how many TIR permissions Ireland can have?

2. Irish TIR marked and sealed lorries should only need an inspection of an intact seal.

3. Do you know how many ECMT permits Ireland can have?

Lars

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 12:05PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

As you say, there's a big difference. Unlike referndums in Ireland or (e.g.) Switzerland, the UK referendum was only "advisory" and non-binding - essentially a glorified opinion poll.

I'm sure there are at least 17.4 million UK voters who would welcome the chance to have a final definitive vote, rather than leave such a momentous decision to a bunch of 600 squabbling MPs.

Still of far greater significance than an opinion poll. People understood they were giving a mandate to politicians to remain or leave the EU.

They weren't just voting for the craic. They expressed their opinion in a referendum.

You can say anything in an ordinary opinion poll. I've said yes to every question the one or two times I've been polled (not politics related) just to get off the phone.

20silkcut · 02-09-2019 12:08PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A backstop with a definitive end would probably have been enough of a fudge to get the WA passed the HoC. They could then move to discussing the type of trade arrangement between the UK and EU. Another fudge would probably have been required to get that through.

People always underestimate the importance of a fudge when it comes to difficult negotiations. It allows all sides to save face and kick some issues down the road for discussion at another time.

At this stage an Extension is really the only viable fudge.
When Brexiteers talk of the EU blinking at the last minute that is the only issue I see them blinking on.
It firmly puts the ball back in the UK court either agree to it or commit economic suicide.

Water John · 02-09-2019 12:09PM

Not so sure, maybe the only true way to stop a Hard/Crash out Brexit is to have the Brexiteers lose control of Parliament. A soft Brexit would probably be the best outcome for the EU and us, at this point.

woohoo!!! · 02-09-2019 12:11PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Looking back, the last chance for the UK were the May Corbyn talks. But the principle of FPTP and winner takes all is too deeply ingrained. The behind the scene documentaries on Barnier and Verhofstadt made clear that they couldn't understand why U.K. politics could not come to an agreement over such an important issue, and were less than impressed with remainers essentially blocking a deal. Of course their chief ire was reserved for Brexiteers like Davis.

Johnson for all his bluster is in a very weak position and all this lashing out is akin to death throes. I don't see the UK being capable of sorting out their mess anytime soon. In such a scenario it's hard to see any sort of deal sticking post Brexit.

A backstop with a definitive end would probably have been enough of a fudge to get the WA passed the HoC. They could then move to discussing the type of trade arrangement between the UK and EU. Another fudge would probably have been required to get that through.

People always underestimate the importance of a fudge when it comes to difficult negotiations. It allows all sides to save face and kick some issues down the road for discussion at another time.

The backstop with the process to review is the fudge. The border cannot become a bargaining chip in trade talks which is why any time limit implies that it can be. To give here, crossing red lines means giving at Dover Calais. Such would be unacceptable to France. It comes back to this outdated thinking that the big boys decide things while the smaller ones fall into line. The whole point of the EU with common rules and seats at the table for all PMs of member states is the opposite, deliberately, for what reigned in Europe before (and all those wars with different groups manoeuvring for power).

It is up to the UK to come to a solution, given they're the ones leaving and want a deal with the larger remaining bloc.

Enzokk · 02-09-2019 12:11PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still of far greater significance than an opinion poll. People understood they were giving a mandate to politicians to remain or leave the EU.

They weren't just voting for the craic.

It doesn't matter really what the people thought though, legally the referendum was nothing more than a big opinion poll. If the government went against the result and they are sued by Farage or any Brexiteer, the government will win because the referendum result was not binding. It doesn't matter what who said, if it is not legislated for then it doesn't matter. Ask Johnson that and his claims about proroguing or most of his cabinet.

farmchoice · 02-09-2019 12:12PM

i know its becoming a mantra of mine at this stage but
johnson desperately needs an election and he needs it to be forced on him by the opposition.

without a change to parliamentary arithmetic he can pass nothing, on brexit or anything else. everything he has done so far is to A. make himself seem acceptable to the Brexit party voters and B.force the opposition into going for a VONC and an election. what he wants to avoid is any sort of legislative move by Parliament that forces him into anything (extension request for example) as this will whip the carpet from under him with the brexit party types and he is Theresa may mark II without the morals or decency.

so now he has resorted to proroging parliament and on top of that actually threatening to simply ignore anything parliament may pass.

prawnsambo · 02-09-2019 12:13PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Staying in a Customs Union including more than likely free movement of people was always going to be a tough sell by any PM who would struggle to get it through the HoC.

Abiding by rules you have no say or input into was going to be difficult to accept. Its not really leaving the EU. Its like staying in the EU but not having any power in the EU, a worse fate than actually staying in the EU for those who wanted to take back power. It would render the HoC a rubber stamping parliament for EU rules and I can't see the majority accepting that in the HoC. Like I said a tough sell.

Abiding by rules you have no say in is brexit. No matter what form it takes. Even hard brexit. The world of so called 'free' trade deals for an isolated UK would be as rule takers in all but the smallest and least valuable FTAs.

Even their WTO schedule is being objected to on various grounds that leave them a prisoner to the whims of any of 163 different countries. And any concession they make for one, could start a further avalanche of 'issues' with others.

They need to face up to this, but don't have the political will to do so.

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 12:23PM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The backstop with the process to review is the fudge. The border cannot become a bargaining chip in trade talks which is why any time limit implies that it can be. To give here, crossing red lines means giving at Dover Calais. Such would be unacceptable to France. It comes back to this outdated thinking that the big boys decide things while the smaller ones fall into line. The whole point of the EU with common rules and seats at the table for all PMs of member states is the opposite, deliberately, for what reigned in Europe before (and all those wars with different groups manoeuvring for power).

It is up to the UK to come to a solution, given they're the ones leaving and want a deal with the larger remaining bloc.

I think something like that was agreed back in March between the EU and May. The UK Attorney General advised it still didn't give enough legal guarantees the UK could leave the backstop unilaterally. This was enough to swing the vote to another defeat in the HoC.

Hence the reason for a clear legally guaranteed timeline for exiting the backstop, probably after a referendum on the issue or something like that.

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

Stop moaning ffs · 02-09-2019 12:26PM

Parse that

https://twitter.com/bbcvickiyoung/status/1168484101604741120?s=21

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 12:26PM

Enzokk wrote: »

It doesn't matter really what the people thought though, legally the referendum was nothing more than a big opinion poll. If the government went against the result and they are sued by Farage or any Brexiteer, the government will win because the referendum result was not binding. It doesn't matter what who said, if it is not legislated for then it doesn't matter. Ask Johnson that and his claims about proroguing or most of his cabinet.

I don't agree with Johnson on much, but I agree that not to respect referendum results would fundamentally undermine credibility in UK politics.

No-one would bother voting again or there'd be p*ss poor turnout in future referenda or elections. "Why bother, they will only ignore the outcome", would be what people say.

Leroy42 · 02-09-2019 12:29PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I don't agree with Johnson on much, but I agree that not to respect referendum results would fundamentally undermine credibility in UK politics.

No-one would bother voting again or there'd be p*ss poor turnout in future referenda or elections. "Why bother, they will only ignore the outcome", would be what people say.

What part of the ref result did the backstop go against? On what basis had the ERG and Johnson got to not vote for it?

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 12:30PM

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No backstop has no mandate in Europe and is a thick blood red line, is what escapes brexiters.

Why brexiters do not respect the will of Irish and European people?

You'll have to phrase this better if you want a reply as its not making sense.

prawnsambo · 02-09-2019 12:30PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think something like that was agreed back in March between the EU and May. The UK Attorney General advised it still didn't give enough legal guarantees the UK could leave the backstop unilaterally. This was enough to swing the vote to another defeat in the HoC.

Hence the reason for a clear legally guaranteed timeline for exiting the backstop, probably after a referendum on the issue or something like that.

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

That's because the all-UK backstop is unacceptable to those who want the UK to have a free hand in making their own trade deals. Which is fair enough as far as that goes. But it's not up to us to square the circle caused by the inability of the UK government to control a majority in the HoC. Leaving aside the difficulty in 'selling' a brexit that could match the extravagant promises of the leave campaign, a NI only backstop would have been a more saleable proposition for a government that didn't rely on the DUP for their majority.

J Mysterio · 02-09-2019 12:31PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Firstly I don't think you understand what a Hard Brexit is and how it applies to Ireland.

Secondly I don't think you have accepted the UK voted to leave the EU, fully and entirely.

When you are ready to accept this second part I'm willing to discuss this with you ie when you are ready to accept facts and not deal with fantasys, what ifs and if onlys.

No one should be 'ready to accept' that vote as the basis for the scandalous carry on of the UK government. How you can defend this mania is beyond me.

The vote itself should be under full investigation for outside interference from foreign powers, fraud, illegal funding, illegal overspends, illegal influencing of voters on social media, illegal handling of information and outright fabrications designed to mislead.

These things will only happen in earnest after the fact, when the most damage is fully delivered. The UK apparatus cant even process this as its so fully engaged in tearing itself asunder.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments