Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

MrMusician18 · 17-05-2021 12:28pm

ambro25 wrote: »

You’ll have to supply some data to back up that claim.

Because where I’m looking from, once Brexit became inevitable, ‘remainers’ never wanted anything more, than to be let in on planning and negotiations initiatives, to mitigate the fully-mapped consequences of Brexit.

They weren’t engaged by the ruling government on that front, any more than devolved governments, business federations and associations, and any and all other groups with an actual stake or dozens in the Brexit outcome, were.

So what were these ample opportunities, which ‘remainers’ could have compromised anything about?

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 12:38pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Come off it.

If you insist on blaming two then Johnson and the voters in the UK are to blame.

They voters had ample opportunity to put a stop to this, yet time and again they happily joned Johnson in his flight of fancy.

But lets play your little thought process.

Swinson agrees to back Corbyn, who becomes PM. The price of that support is that Brexit is stopped, immediately have the entire right wing press go mental at Corbyn, along with half his party and the entire ERG. Calls that he is anto-democracy, a traitor, a suck up to Brussels. That is even if he could bring himself to do anything given he never really wanted the EU.

And then what. He get voted out and they hold an election and Johnson sweeps into power. Nothing would have changed.

fiveleavesleft · 17-05-2021 12:49pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Corbyn's offer was serious though. He was the only one in that fantasy football summer period who was offering a way out. They really should have backed him.

Joe_ Public · 17-05-2021 12:51pm

It's always handy to have scapegoats, probably reassuring too in some ways. But realistically, the proposed interim government was never a starter for any number of reasons. And if you want to throw blame around, i think you'd need to reserve some space for the likes of Kenneth Clarke who, despite receiving widespread praise from all sides of the political divide for their principled remain stance, couldn't quite put their political prejudices aside for a short period to support the opposition leader as interim pm, as protocol dictated should happen.

dublin49 · 17-05-2021 12:58pm

ambro25 wrote: »

You’ll have to supply some data to back up that claim.

Because where I’m looking from, once Brexit became inevitable, ‘remainers’ never wanted anything more, than to be let in on planning and negotiations initiatives, to mitigate the fully-mapped consequences of Brexit.

They weren’t engaged by the ruling government on that front, any more than devolved governments, business federations and associations, and any and all other groups with an actual stake or dozens in the Brexit outcome, were.

So what were these ample opportunities, which ‘remainers’ could have compromised anything about?

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

fiveleavesleft · 17-05-2021 1:05pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's always handy to have scapegoats, probably reassuring too in some ways. But realistically, the proposed interim government was never a starter for any number of reasons. And if you want to throw blame around, i think you'd need to reserve some space for the likes of Kenneth Clarke who, despite receiving widespread praise from all sides of the political divide for their principled remain stance, couldn't quite put their political prejudices aside for a short period to support the opposition leader as interim pm, as protocol dictated should happen.

Bang on about Clarke. The whole way through he was praised for his wisdom & foresight. When Corbyn made the offer he should have told Swinson & others to cop on & support it. Instead he got giddy at the thought of being PM.

When he did come round to supporting Corbyn he half-assed it with his "only if we can control him" guff:rolleyes:

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 1:21pm

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

Do you know what the voting numbers were? It was voted down by historic numbers. Even Johnson voted it down.

TM failed to even attempt to get any plan, any cross-party thinking. This was a Tory Brexit, she only brought Corbyn in late, and with no intention of actually listening.

Johnson then bulldosed his agreement through, without even giving the house the time to read and study the deal. Which his party enthusiastically voted for.

The opposition has many questions to answer but to try and blame them for this is laughable.

Anytime anyone even tried to point out that Brexit was less than perfect the Brexiteers, the media and many in the public were quick to jump on them calling them traitors and sell-outs. Eventually even TM suffered the same fate, all because she wasn't willing to just burn everything around her.

The blame lies squarely with the voters and Johnson. And it is important that the voters are not given a free pass. THey had ample opportunities to get across how much they didn't like the deal or even the costs of Brexit, but not only did they return the Tories, then gave them a massive majority.

And only a few weeks ago they gave them their approval again.

Sam Russell · 17-05-2021 1:36pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

The blame lies squarely with the voters and Johnson. And it is important that the voters are not given a free pass. THey had ample opportunities to get across how much they didn't like the deal or even the costs of Brexit, but not only did they return the Tories, then gave them a massive majority.

And only a few weeks ago they gave them their approval again.

Well, if you are blaming the voters, spare a bit of blame for the voting system.

The FPTP system is not democratic - only slightly better than a no voting. No party has achieved a majority popular vote since 1932, and only one coalition outside of the war time Gov of 1939 to 1945.

So an ignorant electorate, unrepresentative electoral system and a foreign owned right wing press are all to blame for corrupt system hat currently controls the UK.

The Raging Bile Duct · 17-05-2021 1:52pm

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

I don't understand how people can say stuff like this with a straight face. 'Even though the campaigned against it and tried everything to stop it, I think you'll find that Brexit is the remainers' fault.' Seriously...

Brexit was always going to be like eating a chocolate cake with a poo filling because there was never any one definitive 'Brexit' that the 52% of the electorate voted on. The Brexit campaign worked purely on vague slogans like 'Take Back Control' that had zero substance to them and hid just how monumentally complex leaving the EU and having to negotiate a trade deal with their former partners was going to be. The Remain did a cataclysmic job in trying to get across the benefits of EU membership but to lay the blame of the shítshow that Brexit is now at their feet is crazy. It's like me hitting myself in the balls with a hammer and then giving out to the friend that tried to stop me about how much it hurt and blaming him for my swollen testicles.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2021 2:00pm

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

May's deal was not a soft Brexit, it was out of the Single Market and Customs Union, just like Johnsons. May was the one who drew those red lines to begin with.

And we can see from their antics now that if it had passed, the UK would have been threatening to tear it up ever since and demanding that the EU Do Something Or Else.

As Brexit was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

J Mysterio · 17-05-2021 2:44pm

His excellency lord Frost at parliaments European Scrutiny Committee meeting

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0da61fda-7a2a-48e4-ad74-64ff1542d39f

quokula · 17-05-2021 2:55pm

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

This. During the series of meaningful votes, the UK Parliament came within 2 votes of a majority for staying in the customs union. Moderate Tories voted for it, Corbyn and the majority of Labour voted for it, but it was blocked by a coalition of the hard right Tories, a few holdouts in Labour, and the Lib Dems and SNP. I can somewhat understand the SNP's all-or-nothing stance to an extent when they have the fallback plan of independence, but ultimately it was the Lib Dems and the small contingent of no-compromise remainers in Labour that stopped a sensible solution from happening.

During the series of votes, Corbyn also voted for a second confirmatory referendum, and voted for staying in the common market, both of which did have support from some SNP and Lib Dems but didn't have enough Tory support to go through. The idea many seem to promote that he was responsible for a hard Brexit by failing to compromise or offer up solutions is really inaccurate.

fiveleavesleft · 17-05-2021 3:12pm

quokula wrote: »

This. During the series of meaningful votes, the UK Parliament came within 2 votes of a majority for staying in the customs union. Moderate Tories voted for it, Corbyn and the majority of Labour voted for it, but it was blocked by a coalition of the hard right Tories, a few holdouts in Labour, and the Lib Dems and SNP. I can somewhat understand the SNP's all-or-nothing stance to an extent when they have the fallback plan of independence, but ultimately it was the Lib Dems and the small contingent of no-compromise remainers in Labour that stopped a sensible solution from happening.

During the series of votes, Corbyn also voted for a second confirmatory referendum, and voted for staying in the common market, both of which did have support from some SNP and Lib Dems but didn't have enough Tory support to go through. The idea many seem to promote that he was responsible for a hard Brexit by failing to compromise or offer up solutions is really inaccurate.

The indicative votes 1 & 2 were extraordinary. The 5 loudest Remain parties (Lib Dems, SNP, CUK, Greens & Plaid) essentially voted against the Remain options. Even old Dennis Skinner 40+ years voting against Europe was willing vote for some pro-EU stuff if it meant finding a solution.

Remainers (Politicians) were never serious people.

Professor Moriarty · 17-05-2021 3:16pm

quokula wrote: »

This. During the series of meaningful votes, the UK Parliament came within 2 votes of a majority for staying in the customs union. Moderate Tories voted for it, Corbyn and the majority of Labour voted for it, but it was blocked by a coalition of the hard right Tories, a few holdouts in Labour, and the Lib Dems and SNP. I can somewhat understand the SNP's all-or-nothing stance to an extent when they have the fallback plan of independence, but ultimately it was the Lib Dems and the small contingent of no-compromise remainers in Labour that stopped a sensible solution from happening.

During the series of votes, Corbyn also voted for a second confirmatory referendum, and voted for staying in the common market, both of which did have support from some SNP and Lib Dems but didn't have enough Tory support to go through. The idea many seem to promote that he was responsible for a hard Brexit by failing to compromise or offer up solutions is really inaccurate.

Had Corbyn represented the wishes of the large majority of Labour MPs, members and voters, he would have actively campaigned for Remain and the Brexit referendum would have been defeated. But he didn't. Instead he made vague mealy mouthed comments that meant nothing at all and did nothing else. Corbyn's slimy duplicity ensured that Johnson and Farage won. What he did subsequently pales in significance and meaning.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-05-2021 3:29pm

UK proposes new Irish Sea food checks from OctoberBut only for fresh meat as part of phase one.

Phase two for dairy, plants(phytosanction)s and wine(!) is for end of January 2022. There's a phase three and a phase four.

The only fly in the ointment is that EU might not knuckle down to the UK's unilateral demands.

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 3:56pm

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

The indicative votes 1 & 2 were extraordinary. The 5 loudest Remain parties (Lib Dems, SNP, CUK, Greens & Plaid) essentially voted against the Remain options. Even old Dennis Skinner 40+ years voting against Europe was willing vote for some pro-EU stuff if it meant finding a solution.

Remainers (Politicians) were never serious people.

But it wouldn't have found a solution. We know from the carry on since they got the deal they said they wanted. At best, they would have signed a different deal and been even more anxious to ditch it.

Why are you blaming remainers for voting against a type of deal they didn't want? Simply because it was the best offer they were going to be offered you think they should have accepted it and given up on actually remaining?

Why does one side get to redefine what it wants constantly yet the other side, which lest we forget have the most support given that the 52% is actually split across many different version of Brexit.

The very fact that people are looking to blame those that lost is the only proof you need that Brexit is a disaster.

Professor Moriarty · 17-05-2021 3:59pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it wouldn't have found a solution. We know from the carry on since they got the deal they said they wanted. At best, they would have signed a different deal and been even more anxious to ditch it.

Why are you blaming remainers for voting against a type of deal they didn't want? Simply because it was the best offer they were going to be offered you think they should have accepted it and given up on actually remaining?

Why does one side get to redefine what it wants constantly yet the other side, which lest we forget have the most support given that the 52% is actually split across many different version of Brexit.

The very fact that people are looking to blame those that lost is the only proof you need that Brexit is a disaster.

Hindsight is 20/20 vision. At that time, Remain had a very good chance of forcing a second referendum as the Tories were in a very precarious position.

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 4:03pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK proposes new Irish Sea food checks from OctoberBut only for fresh meat as part of phase one.

Phase two for dairy, plants(phytosanction)s and wine(!) is for end of January 2022. There's a phase three and a phase four.

The only fly in the ointment is that EU might not knuckle down to the UK's unilateral demands.

And what happens in the meantime? Remember that the UK refused an extension, saying that business needed certainty. Now they are effectively demanding open access with no actual timeframes of when they will deal with the issues.

This is just another form of cake and eat it. They want the EU to give in on everything to help them out yet do nothing to try to garner any relationship or support. It might make them feel good writing pithy opinion pieces in the mail about how terrible the EU is, and have MP's out decrying how unfair the nasty EU is, but it is no way to try to generate goodwill or seek the other side to give concessions

fiveleavesleft · 17-05-2021 4:21pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it wouldn't have found a solution. We know from the carry on since they got the deal they said they wanted. At best, they would have signed a different deal and been even more anxious to ditch it.

Why are you blaming remainers for voting against a type of deal they didn't want? Simply because it was the best offer they were going to be offered you think they should have accepted it and given up on actually remaining?

Why does one side get to redefine what it wants constantly yet the other side, which lest we forget have the most support given that the 52% is actually split across many different version of Brexit.

The very fact that people are looking to blame those that lost is the only proof you need that Brexit is a disaster.

Agree Brexit is a disaster. Just don't think at that point there was any back to Remain. There were a number of votes on another ref & they all lost. There was no great mood in the country for one. A soft Brexit would have been the least harmful.

Everyone made mistakes.

fash · 17-05-2021 4:45pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But lets play your little thought process.

Swinson agrees to back Corbyn, who becomes PM. The price of that support is that Brexit is stopped, immediately have the entire right wing press go mental at Corbyn, along with half his party and the entire ERG. Calls that he is anto-democracy, a traitor, a suck up to Brussels. That is even if he could bring himself to do anything given he never really wanted the EU.

And then what. He get voted out and they hold an election and Johnson sweeps into power. Nothing would have changed.

Best thing would have been to "give the public a confirming vote" on the Tories' (May's) Brexit deal.

A "you were promised that before proceeding you would get a 2nd vote to confirm, the Tories lied but we are holding them to their promises"

Admittedly not possible with the constellation available.

dublin49 · 17-05-2021 4:50pm

I remember a commentator saying at the time of Theresa's deal that it went a long way to satify the 6 labour tests.I think her deal was portrayed as a lot harder than it actually was and the hard brexiteers saw thru that.I am not blaming Remain MPs for where it all ended up ,just stating there was an opportunity for remainers from the opposition benches to vote thru a softer Brexit than what was eventually agreed .We constantly heard there was no majority in Parliament for a hard Brexit and yet we ended up with one.So the Parliamentary majority allowed partisan politics get in the way of reaching agreement on a soft Brexit and that was a failure,the hard Brexiteers /right wing press etc obviously own the result but that doesnt mean we cannot comment on what might have been with a bit more leadership /statesmanship from the parliamentary majority as mentioned above.

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 5:04pm

The remainers didn't think that even a soft Brexit was a good idea, and they were right. They knew that any Brexit was bad for the UK and so tried to stop it.

Hindsight, of course, is great, they clearly should have taken the least bad option I think they never really understood how fanatical the Brexiteers actually were. Can any of us really have thought that the UK would break international law? That they would look to cancel a deal they signed only 5 months ago?

I also think they actually thought that the majority were with them. The marches etc. But they were all essentially voted out of their seats (those that ran). The UK were not interested in remain. Remainers were painted as traitors, turn-coats, EU shills. They were abused on the street. Attacked in the press.

This was not a time when compromise and logical debate was part of the process. Either agree with what we want (Brexiteers) or get out. Johnson purged them from his party. Had Labour forced through a soft Brexit, every small issue, the same issues that are being so casually dismissed as mere teething problems now, would have been blamed entirely on them and why they didn't stand it fo the UK against the EU.

You are speaking about it as if there was an actual debate being held. As if both sides were being treated the same.

PeadarCo · 17-05-2021 5:20pm

dublin49 wrote: »

I remember a commentator saying at the time of Theresa's deal that it went a long way to satify the 6 labour tests.I think her deal was portrayed as a lot harder than it actually was and the hard brexiteers saw thru that.I am not blaming Remain MPs for where it all ended up ,just stating there was an opportunity for remainers from the opposition benches to vote thru a softer Brexit than what was eventually agreed .We constantly heard there was no majority in Parliament for a hard Brexit and yet we ended up with one.So the Parliamentary majority allowed partisan politics get in the way of reaching agreement on a soft Brexit and that was a failure,the hard Brexiteers /right wing press etc obviously own the result but that doesnt mean we cannot comment on what might have been with a bit more leadership /statesmanship from the parliamentary majority as mentioned above.

May's deal was a hard Brexit. For me a soft Brexit is Brexit where the UK stays in at least either the EU single market and customs Union or both.

The biggest difference with May's deal was that the NI protocol was effectively a UK protocol until the UK found a way around May's red lines. You could argue that's better than the current deal from a remain side with the protocol defacto enforcing a soft Brexit. Given how much certain members of the Conservatives hate the EU it wouldn't have been sustainable. They would have tried to rip up the deal at the first opportunity as they are trying to do now. On a political level the biggest opposition to the agreement has been from the very people who negotiated the deal(which is a hard Brexit) or favoured a no deal Brexit.

Even May's less hard Brexit would not have been sustainable unless you had a remain/soft Brexit inclined government. With Corbyn in charge and Labour more generally in disarray it was never a realistic option at the time or at the moment in the immediate short term at least.

dublin49 · 17-05-2021 5:22pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

The remainers didn't think that even a soft Brexit was a good idea, and they were right. They knew that any Brexit was bad for the UK and so tried to stop it.

Hindsight, of course, is great, they clearly should have taken the least bad option I think they never really understood how fanatical the Brexiteers actually were. Can any of us really have thought that the UK would break international law? That they would look to cancel a deal they signed only 5 months ago?

But wasnt it as clear as day if the ERG managed to shaft Theresa she would be replaced by one of their choosing.I think May did her best and was probably unlucky Corbyn was opposite her as they were never going to work together.I cannot understand why the opposition remainers didnt abstain from Brexit votes and protest it was nothing to do with them and it was a Tory internal issue and let them sort it out .

Seth Brundle · 17-05-2021 5:32pm

Christ Almighty :eek:
The UK are really trying to irk the EU into something but I'm not sure what. Do they expect to be given access to the Single Market without conditions or what?

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1394307757298302977

Nody · 17-05-2021 5:48pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Christ Almighty :eek:
The UK are really trying to irk the EU into something but I'm not sure what. Do they expect to be given access to the Single Market without conditions or what?

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1394307757298302977

They need the fight with EU to continue because EU forced their hand by offering a solution to their previous attempt to pick a fight (EU offered an alignment to EU standards with an open end date allowing UK to end it at any time).

fly_agaric · 17-05-2021 7:08pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Christ Almighty :eek:

As discussed here alot, I think that is just what the Tory rags and Brexit battle-axes in their party have been saying should happen for a long time.
Just not implement the NI Protocol (in effect), & then say "your move now Ireland/EU; what are you going to do about it?".

It's really impossible to know with current UK government if it is noise (like that big fuss over the EU ambassador that only lasted a few weeks) or they will actually follow through on it.

Probably they (Boris Johnson and whoever has his ear like Lord Frost) haven't decided or don't know themselves & are just making it up as they go along.

To be honest I've come to believe they will not implement the agreement any more than they have already, but they will never actually come out and say they are scrapping it completely.

Something else will probably crop up in future to force the issue (either the EU/some member states just running out of patience with the UK footdragging on this/combined with many other ongoing post Brexit rows with the UK, or a scandal in the EU involving substandard goods or contraband and the open NI border.

ambro25 · 17-05-2021 7:28pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

May’s minority governement was never at risk from the arithmetic of the pro-Leave Labour vote and the free-falling LibDem vote.

Brexit became inevitable when Theresa May was elected party leader on a platform of implementing the advisory referendum result. That pre-dates the triggering of Article 50, which sealed the matter politically, 4 whole years and crumbs ago.

You need only look at the GE2019 result (and the ‘top’ team that came out of it, being the very same Leave ‘top’ team of 2016) and the more recent local election results, 5 years, a red bus lie, a critically-mismanaged pandemic and a toilet flushed-economy later, to realise that ‘remainers’, genuine and not, were never in with any chance of countering anything: the ‘new’ Tories planned and successfully blitzkrieged the British political system to power, using Brexit as a tool, like it was May 1940 all over again for the traditional British political class.

Who you are blaming, are not so much ‘remainers’, as the old political guard like Clarke, Corbyn and so many other dinosaur and/or principled MPs, which did not see the disruption of post-truth politics coming, and were still bringing political knives to Trumpian gunfights after the referendum. Many, like Starmer, still do now.

Leroy42 · 17-05-2021 8:59pm

So Frost seems to be saying that the UK cannot or will not stick to the agreement but just Hope the EU simply ignores that and carries on.

Thats Brexit in a nutshell. The plan is one of simply closing your eyes, crossing your fingers and hoping it all works out!

That he should actually admit to that and face no come back tells you everything of where the UK is heading.

forgottenhills · 18-05-2021 12:11am

fly_agaric wrote: »

As discussed here alot, I think that is just what the Tory rags and Brexit battle-axes in their party have been saying should happen for a long time.
Just not implement the NI Protocol (in effect), & then say "your move now Ireland/EU; what are you going to do about it?".

It's really impossible to know with current UK government if it is noise (like that big fuss over the EU ambassador that only lasted a few weeks) or they will actually follow through on it.

Probably they (Boris Johnson and whoever has his ear like Lord Frost) haven't decided or don't know themselves & are just making it up as they go along.

To be honest I've come to believe they will not implement the agreement any more than they have already, but they will never actually come out and say they are scrapping it completely.

Something else will probably crop up in future to force the issue (either the EU/some member states just running out of patience with the UK footdragging on this/combined with many other ongoing post Brexit rows with the UK, or a scandal in the EU involving substandard goods or contraband and the open NI border.

I agree with what you say except for the last paragraph. What you are forgetting is that the trade balance for goods is very much in the EUs favour so it will take an awful lot for EU countries to suspend the TCA. You don't end deals with your big customers unless really, really forced to. So the EU will huff and puff... Remember that most people in the EU won't care less what happens on the Irish UK border.

fash · 18-05-2021 12:29am

forgottenhills wrote: »

I agree with what you say except for the last paragraph. What you are forgetting is that the trade balance for goods is very much in the EUs favour so it will take an awful lot for EU countries to suspend the TCA. You don't end deals with your big customers unless really, really forced to. So the EU will huff and puff... Remember that most people in the EU won't care less what happens on the Irish UK border.

The TCA was designed knowing that the counterparty was the UK- the EU can claim fixed penalties or suspend targeted parts of the agreement in response to UK actions - e.g. flights or electricity.
This was the reason the member states were convinced to sign the TCA in the first place despite UK provocations in falling to implement the NIP. Let's see where this goes.

fash · 18-05-2021 12:45am

. Well at least the UK is no longer trying to hide what it is.

18-05-2021 4:20am

That is absurd. Didn't take long for them to be legitimised.

Enzokk · 18-05-2021 7:18am

Tony Connelly with the UK plan on the NIP,

UK considers using force majeure over NI protocol

The British government has suggested it could use the concept of force majeure to absolve it of its obligations to apply the Northern Ireland Protocol, RTÉ News understands.

Force majeure is a legal concept through which a party can demand to be relieved of its contractual obligations because of circumstances beyond its control or which were unforeseen.

The suggestion is contained in a 20-page letter the UK has sent to the European Commission.

The letter sets out a litany of factors which, the UK says, forced it to take unilateral action on how the protocol was being implemented.

The factors include the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, and the overall obligations of the protocol.

It's a bit ridiculous, using the pandemic when the EU offered the UK an extension due to pandemic and they rejected it. And your overall obligations under the protocol you agreed to? Really?

And it also has this beauty,

It is understood the letter makes a series of accusations against the European Commission of failing to take account of unionist sensitivities in the application of the protocol, and of a refusal to be flexible in its approach.

So say we agree to unionist sensitivities and put the border on land, what about republican sensitivities? So this will be an unending series of unhappiness on an agreement Lord Frost agreed to and hailed only a few months ago.

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1342128237871292417?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1342128240677298176?s=20

fash · 18-05-2021 7:50am

Enzokk wrote: »

So say we agree to unionist sensitivities and put the border on land, what about republican sensitivities? So this will be an unending series of unhappiness on an agreement Lord Frost agreed to and hailed only a few months ago.

It's no longer "just" the military and hidden elements of the UK government colluding with loyalist terrorists - the UK government and parliament is doing so - and doing so in public.

Seth Brundle · 18-05-2021 9:08am

In case the UK had forgotten, there is still strong support for the GFA in America...

https://twitter.com/SFRCdems/status/1394439614404960261

Fionn1952 · 18-05-2021 9:09am

https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2021/0518/1222261-us-senate-good-friday-agreement/

And just as the UK get themselves back up to peak bluster and puffed out chests, a bipartisan resolution reaffirming support for the GFA and NI Protocol passes in the US Senate.

EDIT: pipped to the post on this.

BonnieSituation · 18-05-2021 9:14am

Enzokk wrote: »

Tony Connelly with the UK plan on the NIP,

www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0518/1222266-brexit/"]UK considers using force majeure over NI protocol

It's a bit ridiculous, using the pandemic when the EU offered the UK an extension due to pandemic and they rejected it. And your overall obligations under the protocol you agreed to? Really?

And it also has this beauty,

So say we agree to unionist sensitivities and put the border on land, what about republican sensitivities? So this will be an unending series of unhappiness on an agreement Lord Frost agreed to and hailed only a few months ago.

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1342128237871292417?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1342128240677298176?s=20

It's pretty amazing.

www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0518/1222266-brexit/

It's like the defensive strategy of a teenager, essentially hoping we'll forget what happened.

Like you said above; and it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the story.

---

Also, on the 'meetings with loyalists', can someone else recall, I'm not sure of the circumstances at this remove, that Johnson or Lewis refused to meet with SF or something in the last few months? What was that about again? It's at the tip of my tongue.

Leroy42 · 18-05-2021 9:52am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's pretty amazing.

www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0518/1222266-brexit/

It's like the defensive strategy of a teenager, essentially hoping we'll forget what happened.

Like you said above; and it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the story.

---

Also, on the 'meetings with loyalists', can someone else recall, I'm not sure of the circumstances at this remove, that Johnson or Lewis refused to meet with SF or something on the last few months? What was that about again? It's at the tip of my tongue.

What do people think is the endgame that the UK is working towards? It seems to me, always has, that the UK is going to bluff and bluster and threaten to try to get their own way. Up to now, it hasn't worked.

But thinking this through it can go one of a number of ways.

A) EU capitulate and allow the UK to rip up the agreement and get free access

EU stand firm and demand the agreement is implemented and the UK walk off and cancel the deal (No Deal)
C) Compromise position is reached which in effect gives the UK much of what they wanted and effectively renegotiates major parts of the deal.

I can't see A) happening.

is in no ones interests but I can't see how any other option is anything more than a delaying tactic
C) I think this is what the UK is looking for but cannot see how the EU can agree to ignore a deal already passed by the parliament and signed. It would, IMO, seriously harm the standing of the EU across the rest of the world. And of course, mean that the UK will return soon enough when they want something else.

IMO, the UK will continue to look to negate the deal in small amounts. A little extension here, lack of proper checks there. And none of them by itself is enough to warrant a response by the EU, certainly not one that actually amounts to anything. I think a big mistake was made over the unilateral extension and the EU opting to start legal proceedings which by their nature take time and looked very much like a stalling tactic. And the UK saw this as well. They were basically allowed to do what they wanted without any implications.

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-05-2021 9:57am

Back in January, the UK formed the Taskforce for Innovation and Growth through Regulatory Reform (TIGER... rarrrr!), led by Iain Duncan Smith, to find ways to take advantage of their new found freedom from the shackles of the EU. They can't seem to come up with any benefits yet so now they're looking outwards for anyone to tell them that what they've done wasn't completely moronic.

The U.K. government is recruiting an external adviser to identify new opportunities created by Britain’s split from the European Union, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson seeks to prove the value of Brexit. “We have high hopes of outside input into this process,” David Frost, the minister in charge of the U.K. post-Brexit relationship with the EU, said to a committee of MPs on Monday. “We’re all fully behind making things happen.”

Nearly five years on from the divisive Brexit referendum, Johnson’s government is still struggling to demonstrate the benefits Britain has gained from being outside the EU. A task force set up to assess how Britain can re-shape its economy led by former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith has yet to publicly make any suggestions.b

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/u-k-to-hire-external-advisor-to-find-post-brexit-opportunities

Peregrinus · 18-05-2021 10:20am

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do people think is the endgame that the UK is working towards? . . .

As I see it, the UK have painted themselves into an awkward corner, as regards the NI Protocol:

They have basically three options:

Option 1: Try to make the NIP work

Pro: Would improve relations with the EU, rebuild trust, improve international perceptions of the UK as a reliable partner. Probably would be some mutterings from the looney wing of the Tory backbenches, but not really a lot they could or would want to do about it.

Con: Loyalists in NI would be pissed; might feel let down (again) by HMG if they feel HMG has encouraged then to expect renegotiation or repudiation of NIP. Also requires Johnson to backtrack, but he’s good at doing that and getting away with it. Might require Lord Frost to be pushed over a steep precipice on a dark night, metaphorically speaking (although maybe that’s a pro rather than a con).

Option 2: Try to renegotiate the NIP

Pro: At least in the short term, Loyalists and Tory parliamentary party would be pleased, and so reduction in tension in NI.

Con: Even the request contributes to general impression that UK is not a reliable negotiating party, given that the ink is barely dry on a deal that Johnson hailed as a triumph. EU very likely to reject request, which could be humiliating, and still leaves Johnson with dilemma of what to do - he’d have to pick option 1 or option 3. If EU does agree to renegotiate then very unlikely to agree sweeping changes favourable to UK. Would take many months and keeps Brexit (which is supposed to be “done”) high on the political agenda. Outcome of renegotiation might be unpopular with Tory backbench, loyalists, or renegotiation could fail (in which case current NIP continues in force, and Johnson still has dilemma of what to do).

Option 3: Unilaterally terminate application of NIP

Pro: Immediately popular with loyalists and Tory looneys (but likely consequences of unilateral termination could be rather less popular).

Con: Highly negative reaction from EU is certain; legal proceedings; enforcement measures. Very bad reaction from Republican/Nationalist community in NI; very destabilising. Makes Brexit the central political issue in UK for quite some time, and sidelines other political agenda of government. Serious reputational damage to UK. Probably puts the kibosh on a US trade deal. Hard for Johnson to avoid political ownership of these consequences, though no doubt he would seek to blame EU.

Seth Brundle · 18-05-2021 10:21am

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...
UK government split over Australia trade deal

Cabinet worried about political fallout and backlash from agriculture sector if UK grants tariff-free access to farming produce
The British government is locked in a “ferocious” internal battle over whether to sign off a trade deal with Australia after a split between the department of agriculture and the department of international trade over the terms of the agreement.

The government estimates that a free trade agreement with Australia would be worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years — or £200m-£500m more than 2018 levels. “Basically we’re talking about signing off the slow death of British farming so Liz Truss can score a quick political point,” said one insider opposed to the deal.

Truss is adamant that Britain should trade with Australia on similar “zero tariff, zero quota” terms to the deal the UK struck with the EU.

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-05-2021 10:30am

I thought they'd got the upper hand with the Aussies after making them sit in uncomfortable seats for the trade talks. Gah, this negotiation thing is hard...

fash · 18-05-2021 10:34am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...

I would imagine the SNP would be generally in favour (i.e. as a stick to then beat Westminster over the head with). My money is on the UK accepting

ancapailldorcha · 18-05-2021 10:42am

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

I thought they'd got the upper hand with the Aussies after making them sit in uncomfortable seats for the trade talks. Gah, this negotiation thing is hard...

I think it stinks of Imperialism to be honest. There was the tacit idea that the Commonwealth and former Dominions would just meekly fall into line for Global Britain. A poor substitute for the reality where said nations are used to negotiating trade deals while the Tories are recruiting a brand new team with a minister selected for loyalty as opposed to competence.

Joe_ Public · 18-05-2021 11:14am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...
UK government split over Australia trade deal

"...worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years"

Just doing some very rudimentary maths here, but if reports that brexit would entail a 2 to 2.5% drop in gdp were accurate, they would compensate for it with 150 Australian free trade deals or thereabouts. Have to start somewhere, i suppose.

Sam Russell · 18-05-2021 11:33am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"...worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years"

Just doing some very rudimentary maths here, but if reports that brexit would entail a 2 to 2.5% drop in gdp were accurate, they would compensate for it with 150 Australian free trade deals or thereabouts. Have to start somewhere, i suppose.

On that basis, they will quickly run out of countries, since most countries are already in deals with the EU, or they have vanishingly small GDP figures, except for USA, China and Russia.

They could of course start with those three.

Nody · 18-05-2021 11:48am

fash wrote: »

I would imagine the SNP would be generally in favour (i.e. as a stick to then beat Westminster over the head with). My money is on the UK accepting

Boris getting a chance to show of "global Britain" and receive praise with the only cost being throwing small farms under the red buss? That's not even a debate to be had there; if anything it's a double bonus because his mates can they buy up the land on the cheap.

Joe_ Public · 18-05-2021 11:51am

Sam Russell wrote: »

On that basis, they will quickly run out of countries, since most countries are already in deals with the EU, or they have vanishingly small GDP figures, except for USA, China and Russia.

They could of course start with those three.

There was talk of a £1bn boost in trade with india recently so that'd be another 0.05% or so if it happens. They seem to be investing quite some energy in that direction anyway, given their apparent reluctance to add india to the travel red list initially. The other side of all this is what kind of add ons come with these deals in terms of immigration opportunities etc.

18-05-2021 11:55am

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Back in January, the UK formed the Taskforce for Innovation and Growth through Regulatory Reform (TIGER... rarrrr!), led by Iain Duncan Smith, to find ways to take advantage of their new found freedom from the shackles of the EU. They can't seem to come up with any benefits yet so now they're looking outwards for anyone to tell them that what they've done wasn't completely moronic.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/u-k-to-hire-external-advisor-to-find-post-brexit-opportunities

Michael Gove's Red Tape Initiative also effectively a predecessor to this too

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/government-backed-red-tape-group-eu-fire-safety-rules-grenfell-fire

https://www.wikicorporates.org/wiki/Red_Tape_Initiative

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments