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

[Deleted User]

CelticRambler wrote: »

Speaking of Westminster complexity, a few nights ago this bit of whataboutery on my part got lost amongst a mass of eskimo tangents, but I'm still curious as to what would happen:

Like so much else in British politics the office of prime minister isn't defined in any law or constitutional document - it exists by convention.

In the best of British traditions they could make it up as they go along if they want, make him a lord, ask someone else in a safe seat to stand down.

Practically I can't imagine him surviving in his own party if it were to happen and he would have to resign before the new parliament met.

J Mysterio

Priti Patel reminding everyone she is a lovely person.

https://twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1197455768452313091

54and56

Much as it doesn't sit easy with me is it not better for ”Ireland Inc" North and South if BoJo wins a decent majority so the WA gets passed and the potentially negative impacts of a No Deal Brexit are mitigated?

I know it's still possible for the UK to not extend and walk away from the FTA negotiations to WTO conditions (until they eventually return to negotiate an FTA) but even in that scenario wouldn't the WA still stand and provide Ireland Inc with the agreed protections viz viz no border in Ireland and a customs border between NI and GB in the Irish sea in perpetuity unless voted against in the NI assembly?

IAmTheReign

J Mysterio wrote: »

No integrity Nicki Morgan digging a deeper hole on the FactCheckUK misrepresentation/ con.

https://twitter.com/DeborahMeaden/status/1197450676030320641

The spin doesn't seem to be working. Yougov poll from yesterday showing quite a few people did in fact care. 50% of the people people considered it unacceptable vs. 12% acceptable. I would assume the high percentage of don't knows are people who don't really use twitter. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1197175725083762689

ancapailldorcha

54and56 wrote: »

Much as it doesn't sit easy with me is it not better for ”Ireland Inc" North and South if BoJo wins a decent majority so the WA gets passed and the potentially negative impacts of a No Deal Brexit are mitigated?

I know it's still possible for the UK to not extend and walk away from the FTA negotiations to WTO conditions (until they eventually return to negotiate an FTA) but even in that scenario wouldn't the WA still stand and provide Ireland Inc with the agreed protections viz viz no border in Ireland and a customs border between NI and GB in the Irish sea in perpetuity unless voted against in the NI assembly?

It's not just possible, it's by design in my opinion. Once Parliament votes in the WA, that's it. Johnson isn't stupid. He'll have made sure that anyone or at least the vast majority of Conservative candidates will have been extensively briefed on this and selected accordingly.

If he wins big, ie 400-425+ then we'll see either a very soft Brexit to placate business or a no deal come this time next year. He has to give notice by July 2020 if he passes the deal. I think the former is more likely as he can ignore the ERG but who knows. I can't see him winning that big at all.

Zubeneschamali

54and56 wrote: »

Much as it doesn't sit easy with me is it not better for ”Ireland Inc" North and South if BoJo wins a decent majority so the WA gets passed and the potentially negative impacts of a No Deal Brexit are mitigated?

No, Johnson & Co. are advocates of the hardest possible Brexit, bad for everyone including Ireland.

If the LibDems were to win a majority, Brexit would be revoked. Better for Ireland. If Labour were to win a majority, Corbyn would negotiate some sort of Norway deal, and then a referendum would choose between that and Remain, both better for Ireland than Boris's deal.

Obviously neither of those will happen, it'll be another hung Parliament if not a Tory win, but that hung Parliament will not be more likely to pull No Deal than a Tory Government since everyone else is less keen on No Deal.

A Lab-Lib/SNP government would still mean a referendum. Even the horror that is a Johnson-led Tory-LibDem coalition would require a referendum on the deal.

The only risk is that No Deal happens by accident if Parliament somehow fails to stop it. I think that is less likely than a Tory majority fighting among themselves and failing to either extend or agree a deal during the 2020 transition.

Niska

CelticRambler wrote: »

Speaking of Westminster complexity, a few nights ago this bit of whataboutery on my part got lost amongst a mass of eskimo tangents, but I'm still curious as to what would happen:

What happens if Johnson loses his seat? He'll have his name on the WA, but he won't be PM. Presumably he can continue as leader of the Conservative Party, but surely the Tories - even with a majority in the HoC - would need to elect a new PM before they could trot over to Buckingham Palace and tell her they had the makings of a government? What then for the ratification process - would it even be possible for Parliament to request an extension beyond the 31st Jan if the process of forming a government is bogged down in cross party negotiations?

Interesting question which led to some googling.

I think a peer can be PM, so they could give him a peerage and member of the House of Lords. (Unlikley).

Most recent equivalent would be Alec Douglas-Home, who was a member of Government but not an MP. When he became PM, he renounced his peerage and stood in a by election - parliament's restart was delayed for this.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home#Prime_Minister_(1963%E2%80%9364) )

So in this case, a possibility would be a Conservative MP in a very safe seat would stand down, triggering a by-election, where Johnson would run.

Or the Conservatives remove Johnson as leader (or he stands aside) and they elect a new party leader.

Sam Russell

Niska wrote: »

Interesting question which led to some googling.

I think a peer can be PM, so they could give him a peerage and member of the House of Lords. (Unlikley).

Most recent equivalent would be Alec Douglas-Home, who was a member of Government but not an MP. When he became PM, he renounced his peerage and stood in a by election - parliament's restart was delayed for this.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home#Prime_Minister_(1963%E2%80%9364) )

So in this case, a possibility would be a Conservative MP in a very safe seat would stand down, triggering a by-election, where Johnson would run.

Or the Conservatives remove Johnson as leader (or he stands aside) and they elect a new party leader.

But sometimes the safe seat option backfires, and the candidate loses that as well. Voters do not like to be sheep.

GM228

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'They' including the UK.
That's the thing isn't it.
The UK joined the EEC in 1975. It was present - and not vetoing - everything that has happened since to create the current EU.

The UK helped write the rules so can hardly complain about 'tentacles'.

Indeed and I wonder how many realise for example that the internal market as we know it today was essentially a UK initiative driven by Lord Cockfield.

GM228

stefanovich wrote: »

What Maggie the UK signed up to in 75 is not what we have now.

The same can be said for all EU states.

What any state signed up to (with perhaps exception to states which have joined in recent years) is not exactly what they have now, things evolve and change and most forget that the EU evolution is a collective evolution which only happens when all states including the UK agree to it.

AllForIt

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thatcher signed up to nothing in 1975.

She did not become PM until 1979. Her major achievement up to 1975 was, as Education Secretary, depriving school children of their daily supply of school milk during their morning break for which she earned the sobriquet 'Thatcher the milk snatcher'. She later earned other ones.

A little update on that: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-thatcher-myths

robinph

Niska wrote: »

Interesting question which led to some googling.

I think a peer can be PM, so they could give him a peerage and member of the House of Lords. (Unlikley).

Most recent equivalent would be Alec Douglas-Home, who was a member of Government but not an MP. When he became PM, he renounced his peerage and stood in a by election - parliament's restart was delayed for this.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home#Prime_Minister_(1963%E2%80%9364) )

So in this case, a possibility would be a Conservative MP in a very safe seat would stand down, triggering a by-election, where Johnson would run.

Or the Conservatives remove Johnson as leader (or he stands aside) and they elect a new party leader.

In some even more daft parallel universe than the one we are currently inhabiting you could end up with a coalition between the SNP, Greens, Palid, a pile of NI parties, Brexit Party and the Lib Dems (with Swinson having lost her seat in Scotland) and none of the parties would have a "leader" with a seat in Westminster.

They just pick a PM amongst the MP's themselves and get on with it, it's just a Tory party internal issue if their leader isn't an MP.

Kermit.de.frog

The ratings agency Moody's saying that if Johnson fails to get a majority Ireland faces a credit rating downgrade.

Backs up exactly what I have been saying - anything less than a Con majority is bad for Ireland and will reopen the border issue straight away.

Most important for us is the deal is passed swiftly in January.

Looks like, thankfully, conservatives going to win big.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The ratings agency Moody's saying that if Johnson fails to get a majority Ireland faces a credit rating downgrade.

Backs up exactly what I have been saying - anything less than a Con majority is bad for Ireland and will reopen the border issue straight away.

Most important for us is the deal is passed swiftly in January.

Looks like, thankfully, conservatives going to win big.

No, it doesn't. Did you even check:

The New York-based agency said Ireland's 'A2 stable' grade - in place since September 2017 - would be vulnerable if the Brexit agreement is not approved after the UK's December 12 election.

While "the likelihood of the UK and the European parliament both ratifying the revised withdrawal agreement is higher than it has been for some time", the report said a no-deal outcome remained a significant risk.

"If a no-deal Brexit were to occur, the UK would fall into recession, with unemployment rising and house prices falling," Moody's said.

"The fallout would be credit negative... for its most interconnected major trading partners," the report added, identifying those most at risk as Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium.

"The greatest disruptions would occur in multinational supply chains, especially for manufacturers in the auto, aerospace and chemicals sectors, and for regional and local economies highly dependent on these industries," it said.

"A no-deal Brexit would also be negative for UK airports, ports and multinational insurance and reinsurance companies with operations in the UK and for structured finance transactions."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/brexit/nodeal-brexit-would-hit-irish-credit-rating-38707882.html

If Johnson's plan is to use this to secure no deal as seems possible then him winning now solves nothing.

Kermit.de.frog

Britain can have no deal all it wants - AFTER it ratifies the withdrawal agreement.

Whether GB no deals or not ahead of or in trade talks is not our concern at that point as the border situation is solved in ALL circumstances.

And Moody's clearly states Ireland is vulnerable if the deal is not passed.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Looks like, thankfully, conservatives going to win big.

I would put money on the result being a lot closer than today's polls.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Whether GB no deals or not ahead of or in trade talks is not our concern at that point as the border situation is solved in ALL circumstances.

Unless they break the agreement, and who could stop them if they are going out No Deal at the end of 2020?

Edit: Several Tory bigwigs have suggested before that they would just tear up the WA later if they felt like it.

BonnieSituation

There's a lot to like in Labour's manifesto.

I look forward to the Tories one which I guess is basically "LOOK AT LABOURS".

Kermit.de.frog

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unless they break the agreement, and who could stop them if they are going out No Deal at the end of 2020?

Edit: Several Tory bigwigs have suggested before that they would just tear up the WA later if they felt like it.

Nope. ALL tory candidates have signed a pledge to pass the agreement.

No interest in Britain breaking the agreement - why would they?

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Britain can have no deal all it wants - AFTER it ratifies the withdrawal agreement.

Whether GB no deals or not ahead of or in trade talks is not our concern at that point as the border situation is solved in ALL circumstances.

And Moody's clearly states Ireland is vulnerable if the deal is not passed.

This makes no sense. If we have no deal in a year, how is that an improvement?

Some seriously perverse logic there with you supporting Ireland being held hostage for Brexit when cancelling the whole thing is the best result for everyone except a few dodgy hedge fund managers.

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This makes no sense. If we have no deal in a year, how is that an improvement?

Ah you don't understand the process.

The deal that is going to be passed is the Withdrawal Agreement. Once that is passed in January we have what we want with the border.

It is completely separate to the trade talks. Whether the trade talks fail or not will not in any way effect the sanctioned WA or the outcome with the border.

That is why it is imperative for us the deal is passed in January.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ah you don't understand the process.

The deal that is going to be passed is the Withdrawal Agreement. Once that is passed in January we have what we want with the border.

It is completely separate to the trade talks. Whether the trade talks fail or not will not in any way effect the sanctioned WA or the outcome with the border.

Is the absence of a border what Moody's attempt at prognostication is based on?

GM228

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nope. ALL tory candidates have signed a pledge to pass the agreement

And we know those elected always stand by pledges made

Says a lot when Johnson insists they sign a pledge to support the Brexit deal, but tell candidates to refuse to pledge to protect the NHS, on issues relating to climate change or private schools for example, priorities I suppose.

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is the absence of a border what Moody's attempt at prognostication is based on?

It's part of it.

Giving harder core unionists/loyalists in the north a glimmer of hope with a minority govt in Westminster could have serious consequences for stability on the island and thus economic stability.

This needs to be done and dusted now.

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is the absence of a border what Moody's attempt at prognostication is based on?

No, of course not. The border and the economic impact of the UK trading with the EU on only WTO terms, in the absence of a trade deal, are two different issues.

Joe_ Public

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ah you don't understand the process.

The deal that is going to be passed is the Withdrawal Agreement. Once that is passed in January we have what we want with the border.

It is completely separate to the trade talks. Whether the trade talks fail or not will not in any way effect the sanctioned WA or the outcome with the border.

That is why it is imperative for us the deal is passed in January.

The trade talks have no effect on the outcome of the border? Well, that's news!

If they pass WA and then trade talks fail, the only difference is johnson has to explain to his hard right followers why he stumped up on the 30 something billion or whatever it is.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's part of it.

Giving harder core unionists/loyalists in the north a glimmer of hope with a minority govt in Westminster could have serious consequences for stability on the island and thus economic stability.

This needs to be done and dusted now.

So this attempt at soothsaying is completely worthless, basically. You're just using it as part of your attempt to spout Boris Johnson's slogan.

Trade deals take years to negotiate while the WA gives one and if Johnson wins, that won't be extended. The idea that one can be conluded in that time is as absurd as your "Get Brexit done by starting negotiations from a pathetically weak position" idea.

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

No, of course not. The border and the economic impact of the UK trading with the EU on only WTO terms, in the absence of a trade deal, are two different issues.

I know. I was wondering how much Kermit had looked into it. Seems not very much if at all.

GM228

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ah you don't understand the process.

The deal that is going to be passed is the Withdrawal Agreement. Once that is passed in January we have what we want with the border.

It is completely separate to the trade talks. Whether the trade talks fail or not will not in any way effect the sanctioned WA or the outcome with the border.

That is why it is imperative for us the deal is passed in January.

The WA is not separate to trade and other talks when you take account that the WA specifies a specific unrealistic timeframe for such talks which the UK Government refuse to allow Parliament extend under the provisions of the proposed WA Bill.

If the talks fail by the end of 2020 then it may as well have been no deal.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

No, of course not. The border and the economic impact of the UK trading with the EU on only WTO terms, in the absence of a trade deal, are two different issues.

I would argue if a bomb goes off in Limerick or Dublin (as loyalist thugs recently threatened) what do you think that would do for economic stability here?

Security correspondents say these groups are mobilising and we can't have any more delay. You will have noticed the uptick in public meetings and opposition to the border arrangements.

Delay will only unsettle things more.

We need to get the WA done and move on. That must be our immediate priority, ensuring stability in the north.