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 XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with you that economically the UK would have incurred more damage than the EU, but the EU would have still have incurred damage. That the UK gets to suffer more damage is no compensation for someone losing their job in another part of the EU.

This is why if the EU fully believed that Johnson was not going to go through with it, they would simply have stuck with the original May deal. Remember the stance was very much that the UK had already agreed to that deal and that therefore there was no need to reopen it.

Things started changing shortly after Boris was elected. In particular, if you remember, Merkel announced that they would be willing to entertain alternatives to the backstop.

Even if you stand to lose more, you still need to be able to walk away in negotiations. Standing to lose more simply means you have to be more strident in you willingness and Johnson was certainly that.

It is perfectly logically consistent to think that Johnson was fully ready to leave with no deal while also not considering it a credible threat. This is not about whether the EU thought he would go through with it or not - it is not a credible threat either way. The other EU member states would much rather he left with no deal then compromising on any of their core principles. No least because the UK would inevitably have to come back and negotiate from a much weaker position shortly after.

Merkel said they would entertain alternatives to the backstop that fulfilled all the same requirements. And what they have landed on is basically turning it from an insurance policy into just policy. The EU has "given in" on basically nothing, all of the compromise has come from the UK side.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well no. Merkel suggested that alternatives to the backstop would be entertained and this suggestion was before the Benn act came into force. Previously that would have been unthinkable.

Movement was already underway.

It's not really anything amazing that on a new PM coming into power the other side in the negotiations says that they are prepared to listen to what they have to say. If the EU had just said to Johnson they were not interested in his new ideas that would have been a story.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.

What hard border?

That is down the middle of the sea.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.

Ireland's view was exactly the same. Far better to take no deal than accept a deal that did not achieve their aims as the UK would eventually need some kind of deal and the border would be the first thing they would need to address.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.

This is basic stuff that you really should know. The alternative you are suggesting is that the EU accept something that forever puts a border in Ireland. The alternative is to wait out the no deal mayhem until they come back to the table and the border is front and centre as a pre-condition. This was stated on here many times when the idea of no deal was supposedly Johnson's strategy. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was the view here because of the reality that would come crashing down on the UK and Johnson.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

Merkel said they would entertain alternatives to the backstop that fulfilled all the same requirements. And what they have landed on is basically turning it from an insurance policy into just policy. The EU has "given in" on basically nothing, all of the compromise has come from the UK side.

Well no. The alternative to the backstop less watertight measure compared to the original. The "level playing field" clause has been dropped as has the keeping the UK in a customs arrangement during the transition period. The first is a concession by the EU to the Unionists in the North. The other two are concessions to the more Brexiteer elements in the Tory party.

These I think are fair enough concessions. No deal would have been worse for us than this deal.

robindch

Ihatewhahabies wrote: »

But even that has been undermined by Trump (in talk with farage) when he stated that the Boris deal will not be sufficient to allow a free trade agreement with the US.

Here's F and T chatting yesterday - for people with strong stomachs and three minutes to spare:

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1189955162602909696

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is basic stuff that you really should know. The alternative you are suggesting is that the EU accept something that forever puts a border in Ireland. The alternative is to wait out the no deal mayhem until they come back to the table and the border is front and centre as a pre-condition. This was stated on here many times when the idea of no deal was supposedly Johnson's strategy. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was the view here because of the reality that would come crashing down on the UK and Johnson.

Well the "No deal is better than a bad deal" was stated by May fairly early on but the problem is that no one really believed that she would carry it out. It was really only when Johnson came to power that the thing that was not going to be reopened under any circumstances was reopened.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it was believed that Johnson would go through with it if push came to shove. The proof is that elements of his own parliament moved to block him. This was before the deal had been finalized with the EU. Had they believed that he was not going to carry out his intentions then the easiest and most politically profitable would have been to call his bluff on the matter and watch him back down at the last minute in humiliation.

Of course we will never really know but it does come across that he was serious about his intentions and this will be reflected in how people vote in the UK.

I don't think that is the case. Johnson and Cummings knew long before they got to No 10 that the HoC would never allow a no-deal Brexit and banked on No-Deal being ruled out by Parliament. They have used this to try to set up a people v parliament election.

Had they called his bluff it would have left him on a very sharp hook indeed, he would have been left with no choice but to backdown anyway, but he knew as anyone should be able to see that it would have been impossible for the opposotion to let him bluff away about a no-deal without challenging him because of their longstanding position on the subject. It was a safe bluff to make because Johnson knew he would never be allowd carry out the threat he never had any intention of carrying out.

This is all for domestic consumption by the way, no one in the EU is fooled by this nonsence, and the idea that this pantomime is benefiting the UK negiotating position with the EU is laughable.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.

The Macron view was that since No Deal would be an utter disaster, the UK would be back to the table in a short time and much more open to the EUs terms.

We'd barely have begun thinking about enforcing a Hard Border when it would be gone again.

Shelga

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Nigel's speech so far is a dream for Remainers/LibDems/Labour.

Asking the implausible of Johnson (to reject his own deal), threatening to stand in every constituency if he doesn't, and saying a no-aggression pact at local level can only be done with Tory candidates who reject the deal.

Great! I was hoping Farage's ego would get the better of him. He is overplaying his hand here, if this is his strategy.

Lately even some of his brainwashed supporters seem to be tiring of him, knowing that no-deal isn't going to happen, and telling him they support Johnson's deal.

If Farage is fielding candidates in 150 seats, then hopefully we see many many repeats of the recent Wales by-election, where the BXP split the Tory vote, and a Lib Dem candidate won. I just hope the same doesn't happen with Labour and the Lib Dems.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Things started changing shortly after Boris was elected. In particular, if you remember, Merkel announced that they would be willing to entertain alternatives to the backstop.

You are grasping at straws. Entertaining alternatives to the backstop was written into May's deal, it is not something that the EU only conceeded becasue of Boris Johnson, surely your understanding of the process to date is not so faulty as to think this was a concession Boris gained?

The EU was clear for the last year now that alternatives that meet the objectives of the Backstop would be acceptable. That is why May's backstop was only an insurance policy. The alternative Borris managed to get was to go back to the EU's first offer on the backstop, an off the shelf alternative because the EU had already proposed it as a posible solution, a position that is even worse for the UK and puts them into a worse position in the future trade talks, in case you missed it.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Macron view was that since No Deal would be an utter disaster, the UK would be back to the table in a short time and much more open to the EUs terms.

We'd barely have begun thinking about enforcing a Hard Border when it would be gone again.

Doesn't really matter the reasons Macron gave. The fact that France would potentially vote against an extension meant that the UK could still have left on the 31st had no deal been made. It is possible also that some nationalistic governments in the more Eastern parts of the EU would have rejected the deal. Of course we will never know what might have happened but the threat would have had the effect of focusing minds in the EU.

Tea Shock

Bit cynical wrote: »

Things started changing shortly after Boris was elected. In particular, if you remember, Merkel announced that they would be willing to entertain alternatives to the backstop.

Alternative arrangements to the backstop was always in the original WA (page 302)

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.

Ireland is the EU; the EU is Ireland.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well no. The alternative to the backstop less watertight measure compared to the original. The "level playing field" clause has been dropped as has the keeping the UK in a customs arrangement during the transition period. The first is a concession by the EU to the Unionists in the North. The other two are concessions to the more Brexiteer elements in the Tory party.

These I think are fair enough concessions. No deal would have been worse for us than this deal.

You really need to inform yourself. There is so much misunderstanding of the situation above that it's hard to know where to start. But I'll try.

The LPF provisions were there because of the all-UK backstop. Once that was gone, there was no longer a need for them. Do you need this explained too?

And the TP means that the UK must abide by all EU rules for the duration. And pay into the budget. They are no longer a member but continue to abide by the rules. That means CU and SM rules, to be clear. They are NOT out of the CU or the SM during the TP. It's business as usual to all intents and purposes.

Yes, no deal would be worse for us than this deal. But at the end of the TP, they are the same (putting aside the border issue for the moment). There is absolutely no difference for us (economically speaking) between a no deal now and the end of the TP in 14 months time. Unless there is a FTA. Which there won't. Because it's nowhere near enough time to agree one.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

The "level playing field" clause has been dropped as has the keeping the UK in a customs arrangement during the transition period.

Nothing changes during the transition period in any version of the WA, that is the point of it.

What you mean is that in May's deal, the whole UK stayed aligned with the CU while the backstop was in force, but that was never an EU idea, that was a concession by the EU from their original NI only backstop proposal, and it was put there by May to keep the DUP onside.

The "level playing field" is properly part of the Future Relationship trade talks, which haven't begun yet, so in or out of the WA is nothing to the EU side. May put that in the WA to try and get Labour leavers to back it.

So these things that you think are concessions by the EU are the opposite - Johnson threw away things which were put in by May for domestic UK political reasons, not because the EU wanted them.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the "No deal is better than a bad deal" was stated by May fairly early on but the problem is that no one really believed that she would carry it out. It was really only when Johnson came to power that the thing that was not going to be reopened under any circumstances was reopened.

Yes. It was. And it was ironic that we were saying it when Johnson was threatening it again. Because it was truer for us than it was for them.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Doesn't really matter the reasons Macron gave.

Yes, it does, because it answers your question - why would the EU allow No Deal if they care about the border in Ireland?

Because they thought the UK would be back desperately needing a deal pronto, and the EU would have more leverage over issues like the border and citizens rights, issues which the UK was trying to use as leverage in pre-Leave talks.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You are grasping at straws. Entertaining alternatives to the backstop was written into May's deal, it is not something that the EU only conceeded becasue of Boris Johnson, surely your understanding of the process to date is not so faulty as to think this was a concession Boris gained?

Well no. It was never envisaged that a lesser alternative to the backstop could be introduced before the transition period had even begun. The idea was that the transition period would start and then if the UK came up with something equal to or better than the backstop then that would be put in place. But the UK could be legally held to the backstop otherwise. Anything else would have constituted a renegotiation of the deal which had been ruled out at that point.

If I had suggested back in, say, March that instead of the backstop some measure that would allow the North to vote on whether or not they place a border on the island, this would have been overwhelmingly rejected on this very forum I think you will agree. The overwhelming response would have been that the deal has already been done and they can either accept it, reject in and have no deal, or revoke A50.

And this would have made sense. After all, at that point they were never going to take the no deal option and the other two options were acceptable from Ireland's and the EU's perspective. Only when Johnson said that they were leaving no matter what did things begin to change. The Benn Act did lessen Johnson's bargaining power but not completely and things had already started to move before then.

Tea Shock

robindch wrote: »

Here's F and T chatting yesterday - for people with strong stomachs and three minutes to spare:

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1189955162602909696

Just listened to the full interview this morning

Trump still claiming he was laughed at when he arrived at Turnburry and said Brexit was going to pass - but he arrived in Turnburry about 5 hours after the result was announced

He also claims the UKs trade with the US could be 4 to 5 times more than it is right now. Not so according to experts in both the UK and the US

There was more bull about the Ukrainian call transcript, the Harry Dunn accident etc etc but all off topic

[Deleted User]

Tea Shock wrote: »

Just listened to the full interview this morning

Trump still claiming he was laughed at when he arrived at Turnburry and said Brexit was going to pass - but he arrived in Turnburry about 5 hours after the result was announced

He also claims the UKs trade with the US could be 4 to 5 times more than it is right now. Not so according to experts in both the UK and the US

There was more bull about the Ukrainian call transcript, the Harry Dunn accident etc etc but all off topic

In an interview with Piers Morgan, three months before the referendum, Trump argued that the UK would vote to leave.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well no. It was never envisaged that a lesser alternative to the backstop could be introduced before the transition period had even begun. The idea was that the transition period would start and then if the UK came up with something equal to or better than the backstop then that would be put in place. But the UK could be legally held to the backstop otherwise. Anything else would have constituted a renegotiation of the deal which had been ruled out at that point.

If I had suggested back in, say, March that instead of the backstop some measure that would allow the North to vote on whether or not they place a border on the island, this would have been overwhelmingly rejected on this very forum I think you will agree. The overwhelming response would have been that the deal has already been done and they can either accept it, reject in and have no deal, or revoke A50.

It is hard to know as it was never proffered. However, it would be difficult to argue against NI having some properly democratic say over the situation. I do not envisage there being a scenario where they will vote to install a border, though if they do fair enough. If you wish to call that a concession then fair enough - but committing NI to stay in the CU/SM no matter what the rest of the UK does is a massive shift in UK policy and a huge climbdown. I would not consider this iteration of the withdrawal agreement to be a "lesser" situation for NI. It accomplishes exactly what was demanded of it.

Ultimately Johnson has not really achieved anything - he has accepted offers that were essentially already on the table. It is also not a case of anyone thinking Johnson is more believable about leaving without a deal. The idea is what is being dismissed as not credible, not the messenger.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

In an interview with Piers Morgan, three months before the referendum, Trump argued that the UK would vote to leave.

Not the point of what hes trying to say, he's claiming he made the prediction the day of the results before they were announced and was laughed at, the point of story isn't about what prediction he made its about him trying to show off how much smarter than everyone else he is, yet the reality is he didn't arrive till 5 hours after the result so as with much of what comes out of his mouth the story is a complete and utter lie.

MrMusician18

Interesting that TBP are going to contest every seat unless the deal is dropped.

I suspect that Farage doesn't really want Brexit to happen at all, as it suits him to rail against the EU, whilst not actually having to offer any solutions that leaving actual poses.

Enzokk

I don't know how this is going to play out but at the moment it seems to be worse for the Tories if the Brexit Party has no agreement with them. It seems just a likely that they will be taking Conservative votes from the "Labour heartlands" than Labour votes as those people would have voted Conservative in 2017 with the collapse of UKIP.

As for Johnson, I think Corbyn would do well to continue his line of attack he used during PMQs on Wednesday. He didn't talk of Brexit directly but the effects Brexit will have on the NHS. He gets to avoid talking about Brexit but the negative repercussions of the policy Johnson wants to follow.

Johnson will also find Trump is not his friend,

https://twitter.com/alicewoolley1/status/1190210030605348864?s=20

That is Trump talking about stopping other countries from keeping medicine prices down. I don't think he will take on the EU directly, but a country desperate for a trade deal?

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Interesting that TBP are going to contest every seat unless the deal is dropped.

I suspect that Farage doesn't really want Brexit to happen at all, as it suits him to rail against the EU, whilst not actually having to offer any solutions that leaving actual poses.

I'd agree, the constant indecision and mess this has created keeps him on the front pages, he doesn't want to be in power but he also doesn't want the tories to romp home with a majority and get credit for brexit, the longer this plays out the better for him.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

If I had suggested back in, say, March that instead of the backstop some measure that would allow the North to vote on whether or not they place a border on the island, this would have been overwhelmingly rejected on this very forum I think you will agree. The overwhelming response would have been that the deal has already been done and they can either accept it, reject in and have no deal, or revoke A50.

I think you are right, and there were several posts here on the forum saying something like that when the details of Varadkar's proposal came out: people saying that is was a climbdown and a bad idea and giving a say to Stormont was nuts.

But after folks thought about it for a while, we mostly concluded that this "frontstop" is better for Ireland than May's deal. It starts day one and is permanent, with no Unless and Until clause except a vote at Stormont. WHich means Unionists would have to vote explicitly for a hard border in order for it to happen. Which would be mad, and would move an actual UI closer.

Tea Shock

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Interesting that TBP are going to contest every seat unless the deal is dropped.

I suspect that Farage doesn't really want Brexit to happen at all, as it suits him to rail against the EU, whilst not actually having to offer any solutions that leaving actual poses.

There are some conspiracy theories that Farage is a 'Remain" plant.

It's probably more complex than that - he was never going to offer Johnson anything he might accept - once Brexit is finished, his MEP salary/expenses are gone, his appearance fee is gone, his LBC radio show is gone, his (potential) Westminster seat is gone, his entire political party is gone!

He knows what he's doing - but I do wonder what the likes of Richard Tice and others are getting for playing along with it!

gooch2k9

Tea Shock wrote: »

There are some conspiracy theories that Farage is a 'Remain" plant.

It's probably more complex than that - he was never going to offer Johnson anything he might accept - once Brexit is finished, his MEP salary/expenses are gone, his appearance fee is gone, his LBC radio show is gone, his (potential) Westminster seat is gone, his entire political party is gone!

He knows what he's doing - but I do wonder what the likes of Richard Tice and others are getting for playing along with it!

The fact he has a radio show is quite ridiculous. The UK badly needs to separate its politics from its celebrities.