ancapailldorcha wrote: » Trade deals take years to negotiate while the WA gives one
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » 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.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » No it does NOT. The WA is an entirely separate agreement. What is so hard to understand about that? It does not matter one iota if the trade talks fail for GB after that agreement is ratified.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Utterly disgraceful. Now you're employing the Troubles for this. We should try to appease extremists? When has that ever worked out?
GM228 wrote: » I think you miss the point that it isn't just about trade, it's an 11 month transition period, there are other issues to discuss and talk other than trade, if they fail then the transition period also fails meaning back to no deal.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I am not "employing" the troubles. I am stating what could happen. That is "toys out of pram" argument you try to make. I know this does not suit the pro EU remain agenda but it is simple fact that as things stand it is overwhelmingly in our interests that the withdrawal agreement is passed without delay. That is why the Irish Government wants it passed.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Appealing fanatics is no way to run a country. That's a lesson we should have learned in 2016. By the way, Unionists hate the WA. Overwhelminigly in our interests? Can you substantiate this please?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The UK is going to leave one way or another. You need to face this reality and accept it. There will be consequences for us no matter what. But we will be better off not having to man a border on top of everything else. That is why it is in our interest. Anything less than a tory win will only strengthen unionist arguments and cause instability if they think they have a genuine prospect of overturning the arrangements.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » No interest in Britain breaking the agreement - why would they?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Again you guys don't understand the process. The WA allows for a transition period. It does not matter whether anything breaks down in that period. The WA still applies. This is really not complicated. What do you all think the backstop was for for goodness sake and why it formed part of the WA? Because it applies in ALL circumstances. It gives certainty.
GM228 wrote: » Yes but the Northern Ireland protocol is required to be changed to a some other agreement before the end of 2020, the NIP only kicks after that time and for a limited time, it does not last forever and would default back to no deal. The NIP can not continue indefinitely.
Imreoir2 wrote: » As I understand it, this is no longer the case. The backstop could not last forever but the new frontstop can.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The NI protocol in Johnson's deal starts immediately the transition period ends and lasts until a majority in Stormont votes it down, meaning in practice that it lasts forever. Or until Westminster decides to tear it up.
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.
Joe_ Public wrote: » it still remains the case that a labour led government is the only reality path to remaining in the eu. The notion floating around today that the lib dems could somehow trade johnson into granting a second referendum seems fanciful to me.
quokula wrote: » With that said Labour still have the only mature, workable policy of any major party on Brexit. They can’t pursue a damaging Brexit that would harm the country, and they can’t revoke out of hand and disenfranchise more than half the electorate. They’re doing the only responsible thing they can, even if it is potentially a harder sell.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Voting Lib Dem and in the process gifting them an extra maybe 10 - 15 seats but also confirming a whopping Conservative majority will be the last silly act of the completely hapless and defeated remain cause in the UK. If you want to stop Brexit you need a Labour government and the second referendum they will provide. That’s it. The Lib Dem’s cannot win this election which means they cannot enact their revoke policy which means a vote for them is a vote to leave on Johnson’s deal. For sure, it highlights the major issues with using a general election to try and solve the issue but here we are. Voting for the Lib Dems as a remainer because you don’t like Corbyn is the voting equivalent of a selfish teenage tantrum. Useless and self defeating.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Lib Dem’s have 0 chance of a majority. Their revoke stance on Brexit will not be implemented. Juvenile or not, if you’re a remainer in a constituency where Labour are the closest challenger to the Conservatives hold your nose and vote Labour. That’s it. Otherwise you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » The idea that Labour have a responsible Brexit policy or that they are the path to remaining is not a sustainable proposition, no matter how many times Labour try to assert that it is. Let's say that Labour get 322 seats, an effective working majority when SF seats are excluded, what then? Corbyn says that within 3 months they will have renegotiated a new leave deal. The EU have said no more negotiations which means they only have a month and a half, but even if we assume they will allow the full 3 months Corbyn claims to need, there is no way that they will come to any meaningfully different Brexit deal in the meantime. In fact, under Labour's stated policy, they cannot get any Brexit deal because no deal can possibly be better than what they have as members. Well, to clarify, it is possible, but the EU would never, ever agree to it, as it would lead to the end of the EU as the British get all the benefits but none of the downsides of membership. So Corbyn is deluded at best, and guilty of the same hubris that he accuses the Tories of.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » But lets take it a step further. Let's say that he gets deal X, he won't get a majority of his 322 MPs to agree to put it to a vote. Because the vote must either be his deal or remain (which will not be acceptable to Labour Brexiteers who don't agree with his deal) or his deal or no deal (which the remainers will not agree to).
johnnyskeleton wrote: » But, if the local Labour candidate is telling leavers he wants to leave, remainers that he wants to remain, and inbetweeners that he doesn't care about Brexit, then the remain voter should not vote for this candidate.
robinph wrote: » I don't think Labour has been claiming that any variation of leaving would be better than remaining, just that they will try to get a better version of leaving than the May/ Johnson version of leaving.
The MP's don't need to vote on any deal, just that they will put the option of Corbyns deal v remain to a referendum and and then carry out the option the people decide on.
If the people vote remain then Corbyn revokes Article 50 and moves along, no MP's need to approve anything for him to revoke. Admittedly, there could be a stumbling block where the public vote for Corbyns deal but then there are not enough MP's to vote it through at that point because they would then still need to change the laws to make it happen, but is it really likely that after a 2nd referendum with an actual deal document being presented to the people, who then approve it that there would be a majority of MP's to not approve because it's not Brexity enough?
robinph wrote: » Not seeing the problem there, as long as Labour carry out the 2nd referendum on an actual choice between two real options then I couldn't care less what way the MP would vote. It might help if they are campaigning for the option that I want to win in that referendum, but that is just secondary to having the referendum.
johnnyskeleton wrote: They will need to vote to put the deal to the people, and I don't see how they will agree to this. Some will not be happy with the deal and so will vote against the second referendum, some will not be happy that no deal isn't on the table and so will vote against it. The point being that an utterly divided party will not be able to reach agreement as to what it will do, when the time comes. They aren't even fully behind the idea of a second referendum:
ancapailldorcha wrote: » It's an excellent thread which does much to dispel the cosmetically logical argument that a trade deal between the EU and the UK could be done quicker and easier than normal.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I think the noises from Phil Hogan and the EU side about how a fast deal is possible are completely true - unspoken is that a fast deal is possible if the UK caves to the EUs terms. As Adler says in that thread:Infact my EU contacts say the PM already told them he can’t accept being tied to EU rules like that after #Brexit Mind you, that's pretty much what Johnson did in October, the EU (via Varadkar) offered a different WA with a rebadged NI-only backstop and Johnson simply accepted what he was offered because he was under time pressure (which he had put on himself with his Oct 31st deadline). So maybe he will cave again next year.
