Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2019 9:51am

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how Ireland and EU refuse to budge on the back stop, saying it's there to prevent a hard border, but in not budging and excepting an alternative proposal it will be them that are responsible for an absolute hard border.

Maybe for a month or two, until the food riots start in London.

Peregrinus · 07-02-2019 9:52am

spacecoyote wrote: »

Just in reference to a Norway/Norway+ model, isn't part of that model a free travel arrangement between Norway & the EU, so open borders?

Yup.

spacecoyote wrote: »

If so, that basically renders it a moot conversation . . .

Not necessarily. While it seems to have been the biggest issue in swinging the vote to "Leave" in 2016, and while it's one aspect of Brexit which May personally values and will not compromise on, all the social surveys show that, by comparison with 2016, immigration is a much smaller concern for most people than it was at the time of the referendum. Europe's migrant crisis has passed, the Windrush scandal has led many people to reconsider, etc, etc. Signficantly, a Sayed Javid-and-gutter-press-led attempt at Christmas to whip up hysteria around migrants crossing the channel in boats has basically fizzled.

Leroy42 · 07-02-2019 9:54am

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how Ireland and EU refuse to budge on the back stop, saying it's there to prevent a hard border, but in not budging and excepting an alternative proposal it will be them that are responsible for an absolute hard border. UK seem right in this case, for EU to say we will never negotiate is simple wrong. You should always compromise.

How should they budge? What changes do you think the EU should make to the backstop to ensure that the HoC ratifies the deal?

And can you give us your forecast of the outcome to Ireland and the EU of these budges?

Fr Tod Umptious · 07-02-2019 9:57am

Deleted User wrote: »

Quick question. If NI had ended up having special status as both UK and EU, would Belfast have taken a lot of London's financial services and jobs?

If so, the DUP scored a serious own goal. UI would never happen if Belfast had that.

The DUP scored a serious own goal by supporting Leave.
If they did not support Leave then someone, somewhere out there might just think for a fleeting moment that they were not 100% British, and that is the last thing a DUP supporter wants.

Remember over 100 years ago the same ideology had people ready to take up arms against their own king to prove to the same king how loyal they were to him.

First Up · 07-02-2019 10:02am

Peregrinus wrote:

Tusk as an individual is famously Anglophile and almost certainly did hope that the UK would change his mind, though in his official capacity he could never say so. I think if there are bitter overtones in his more recent statements it's because it pains him to accept that this is not going to happen, but he can no longer deny it.

Tusk's remark reflects the exasperation widely shared across the EU at the UK's erratic and irresponsible behaviour.

I don't think he ever held out much hope of a Brexit reversal but he was entitled to expect it could be properly executed.

Nobody needs to apologise for calling them pathetic.

07-02-2019 10:06am

Feels like a tiered approach could work.. As usual, I haven't thought this through, but perhaps the current backstop with a guaranteed referendum in five years (Or just a Commons vote) if a trade deal hasn't been negotiated. The options could include anything with no border: EU / EEA / Border in the Irish Sea / Special customs union / Proven technology / etc.

These are things that there simply isn't really time to organise now so why not make a good attempt at a trade deal, and instead of "trapping" the UK, give them outs afterwards which they could have but haven't availed of by now.

Just firing out ideas.

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2019 10:13am

Peregrinus wrote: »

a break clause not in the backstop itself, but in the future relationship agreement which will (in due course) supersede the backstop.

Yes, that probably will have a break clause, but since the FRA can't be negotiated at this point we can't specify what the break clause might say or even, for definite, that there will be a break clause. That's a matter to be bargained over when the time comes to negotiate the FRA.

They could add a clause to the Political Declaration stating that any Future Relationship will include a break clause whereby either side can terminate it unilaterally.

This is kind of silly since a) it is obvious, either side can always break any treaty, and b) the Relationship will be agreed only if it is mutually beneficial, so whoever breaks it will be self-harming. Again.

But maybe this form of words would placate the "trapped" folks in Westminster.

Beechwoodspark · 07-02-2019 10:18am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Perhaps if the likes of the remainer MP's, the media interviewers etc had treated Brexiteers in the same fashion that Tusk did yesterday we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Even yesterday Davis was on Preston stating, without a shred of evidence that the EU always give in at the last minute. Of course Preston didn't even bother to ask that if that were true why were the UK looking to leave a group that is so easily manipulated and always gives in?

We had JRM yesterday on LBC stating that any reasonable person is worried about No Deal, after months of telling everyone that No Deal is nothing to worry about. Does the interviewer even ask him? No, they have a great laugh about things.

Laura K on BBC is more interested in the gossip, look how great TM did in completely lying to all and sundry for years.

This lack of a plan should have been exposed long before the ref, but certainly way before the vote to trigger A50. Every member of parliament should now be asked why they voted for A50 without having any idea of a plan.

Agree re kaunsberg -a dreadful commentator. More into the tittle tattle and gossipy sideshow than the substantive issues. Another sign of the declining standards of the bbc.

devnull · 07-02-2019 10:20am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Agree re kaunsberg -a dreadful commentator. More into the tittle tattle and gossipy sideshow than the substantive issues. Another sign of the declining standards of the bbc.

Beth Rigby, who is the designate Political Editor on Sky, is far better - gave a few people some tough times over the last few weeks and isn't afraid to ask difficult questions or to stick it up to politicians.

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2019 10:21am

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re right to say that it’s not helpful to the Remainers’ cause. It’s not intended to be. The EU is not expecting or pushing for a “remain” solution.

Yes, up to now, the EU side has been careful to keep the door open for Remain with hopes and sympathy for remainers. Tusk does not slam the door, he still has it open, but he has clearly given up on the Remainers ever pushing on the door:

Today, there is no political force and no effective leadership for remain. I say this without satisfaction, but you can't argue with the facts.

seamus · 07-02-2019 10:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

Feels like a tiered approach could work.. As usual, I haven't thought this through, but perhaps the current backstop with a guaranteed referendum in five years (Or just a Commons vote) if a trade deal hasn't been negotiated. The options could include anything with no border: EU / EEA / Border in the Irish Sea / Special customs union / Proven technology / etc.

These are things that there simply isn't really time to organise now so why not make a good attempt at a trade deal, and instead of "trapping" the UK, give them outs afterwards which they could have but haven't availed of by now.

Just firing out ideas.

Ultimately the purpose of the backstop is to not have an "out". For anyone.

Recent history has proven that if the backstop is in any way limited, then the UK's SOP will be to run out the clock to that limit in order to force the EU's hand on whatever deal.

There is no technological solution in existence at present to deal with this.

The most obvious alternative is to keep NI in a special customs union with the EU. But this been outright rejected by the UK.

All of the "other" off-the-shelf trade deals like EEA/EFTA have also been rejected by the UK

The withdrawal agreement on offer is basically the same thing that Switzerland and Canada have (in effect a free-trade deal), but with the backstop attached so that a breakdown in any relationship cannot lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. The UK have rejected this.

The UK's sticking point is the backstop. The purpose of the backstop is to prevent the border from ever being used as a threat or a political football. But the UK are right now using the border as a political football to fight for their right to use the border as political football in future.

The only "compromise" is to let them. And that's unacceptable.

robinph · 07-02-2019 10:24am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Agree re kaunsberg -a dreadful commentator. More into the tittle tattle and gossipy sideshow than the substantive issues. Another sign of the declining standards of the bbc.

But in yesterdays 6pm news it was Keunsbergs report that was more balanced. The news opened up with the main presenter going on in shocked terms about how Tusk was being a big meany and calling the UK names and putting curses on us all, then they played a segment from Keusberg and she was covering the point that there was still no plan and Tusk was probably right to be getting a bit peeved with the whole load of brexiteers.

Macy0161 · 07-02-2019 10:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

And that's the fundamental problem; there's no majority for any particular version of the UK/EU relationship, either in Parliament or - so far as we can tell - in the country at large.

I would think a Norway/ EFTA/ Customs Union would get over the HoC. Based on support from most of Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and remainer/ soft brexit Tories.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ironically, the option that probably comes closest to securing majority support is probably EU membership - it was the favoured option of 48% of the population in 2016, and there's no reason to think that support has fallen signficantly since them. Still, "comes closest" isn't good enough.

Given the continued inability of brexiters to agree on what brexit should mean, I believe there's a strong argument that "Leave" actually won. If it was a non-binary vote on options (e.g. Remain, No Deal, EFTA style arrangement, A.N.Other Deal) Remain would've walked it. And Brexiteers could hardly have complained about a first past the post vote...

It would have also forced some discussion as to what it meant before a vote. Obviously the horse has bolted, but no clear view (still) on what it means is a pretty good argument for a second vote. Never mind the range of options to the HoC, put them to the people.

woohoo!!! · 07-02-2019 10:28am

The political consequences within the UK if no deal, will I think be the most important thing. The EU will adjust to the new trade situation, as will the UK but over a longer time frame given their lack of preparation.

Westminster has been on the edge of a constitutional crisis for quite a while now. If this isn't adressed, I.e. status quo remains on Westminster, then it will be seen as the problem, and I don't just mean NI and Scotland. I can see a complete collapse of the political system there as sooner or later, attention will turn on those in the UK as to why it/they caused the turmoil.

We can only hope that whatever emerges, will have a coherent position on what it wants from the EU re future deals.

Beechwoodspark · 07-02-2019 10:30am

robinph wrote: »

But in yesterdays 6pm news it was Keunsbergs report that was more balanced. The news opened up with the main presenter going on in shocked terms about how Tusk was being a big meany and calling the UK names and putting curses on us all, then they played a segment from Keusberg and she was covering the point that there was still no plan and Tusk was probably right to be getting a bit peeved with the whole load of brexiteers.

My opinion is based on seeing her reports over the last year if not longer.

mrbrianj · 07-02-2019 10:32am

Tusk's jibe yesterday don't matter or make a blind bit of difference, only to show that the EU is losing patience with the whole saga.

The Brexiteers who were so offended by these words - were already a lost cause who were just repeatedly putting out lies, mangled half facts and insults towards the EU anyway - what changes?

The people claimed to be sitting on the fence and now because of Tusk are saying to hell with the EU? They were just going to jump on the bandwagon and put the brexit jersey on when the Mail or the Sun told them to, as if it were some football team they were supporting.
(note to the team brexit fans - when your soccer team loses you feel bad - when brexit happens you feel hungry).

And those who have any sense of perspective - in either camp- know he is right.

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2019 10:33am

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I can see a complete collapse of the political system there as sooner or later

I, for one, would like to extend a welcome to EU membership to the new Scouse Republic, the Duchy of Cornwall and the City-State Innit of London.

Peregrinus · 07-02-2019 10:34am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They could add a clause to the Political Declaration stating that any Future Relationship will include a break clause whereby either side can terminate it unilaterally.

This is kind of silly since a) it is obvious, either side can always break any treaty . . .

Actually, nope. That depends on what the treaty itself says.

(Obviously, yes, either party can break a treaty in the sense that any citizen can rob a bank, drive while drunk or default on their mortgage. You can do it; you just can't do it without consequences.)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

. . . and b) the Relationship will be agreed only if it is mutually beneficial, so whoever breaks it will be self-harming. Again.

Well, it's not that straightforward. The relationship might be mutually beneficial when it starts off, but a change in circumstances over time might mean that a point comes where it's not working out so well for one party.

(Bit like the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Worked for both parties in 1922, but by the 1930s it made sense for the Irish side to dismangle it.)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But maybe this form of words would placate the "trapped" folks in Westminster.

It could, depending on what exactly goes into it.

Hurrache · 07-02-2019 10:34am

The UK joining Norway in the EFTA keeps coming up, but Norway said a relatively long time ago that they don't want the UK there, ignoring the fact that May would have to drop some of her red lines in order to do so anyway.

lawred2 · 07-02-2019 10:36am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, put Tusk’s intervention in context:

1. May (on behalf of HMG) negotiates a deal with Barnier (on behalf of the Council). Each side understands that the other side has to go back to their respective parliaments to get the deal ratified. This is normal in international treaty-making.

2. There’s always a risk that one or other parliament won’t ratify the deal. This is understood. But it is expected that the negotiators on each side (a) by signing the deal, are indicating that they expect their parliament to ratify it, and (b) will recommend it to their parliament for ratification.

3. In the event, the Commons didn’t ratify the deal. But, much worse, May didn’t recommend it for ratification; she voted against ratifying it herself, and she whipped her party to vote against ratifying it. That’s (a) completely unexpected; (b) very shocking and (c) hugely destabilising to the process. Everything that has happened since has to be seen in the light of that.

4. The Commons (at May’s urging) passed a motion rejecting a key aspect of the negotiated deal and calling for it be replaced by something else, but (a) didn’t say what the “something else” should be, and (b) didn’t even set out any indicators or parameters or boundaries as to what kind of something else might be acceptable to them. This is a deeply, and almost deliberately , unhelpful stance to take so late in the negotiations. It is not calculated to maintain either trust or goodwill.

5. The most charitable explanation for this is that Parliament didn’t indicate what kind of something else it might accept because it couldn’t; there is (still) no agreement among Brexiters on the kind of Brexit that is acceptable.

6. This is clearly not a situation in which the EU is going to start offering further concessions; nor would any reasonable person expect them to. Clearly, the Brexiters are not yet ready to deal with the EU. Any further concessions offered at this point would simply be trousered by the UK, and then regarded as the baseline from which to formulate their request for some further concession as an “alternative arrangement”.

7. So the EU officials did the only thing they could to in this situation - indicate firmly that they have negotiated a deal, they stand over the deal, they see no need to depart from the deal, and if the UK wants to propose an alternative to the deal it needs to, well, actually propose an alternative to the deal.

8. For this purpose May assembled the “Alternative Arrnagements Working Group”, made up of Brexiter Tory MPs tasked with formulating an alternative arrangement that can be put to the EU, and offered civil service support/resources to do so.

9. Right. Yesterday, with depressing predictability, the Alternative Arrangements Working Group started to fall apart. A trip to Northern Ireland was arranged for the members of the AAWG to meet local businesses and politicians, and to be briefed by intelligence and security officials on the border issue. Ultra-Brexiteer members of the group decided that this was a sinister trap; the secret agenda was to expose them to the views of people who would be harmed by a no-deal Brexit and who would be opposed to it, which was obviously a deplorable attempt to skew their deliberations by requiring them to contemplate reality at least once. This was a stitch-up. Half the group refused to go, and the trip was called off. That half is now lining up with other ERG members who are briefing that that no changes to the backstop will be sufficient to secure ratification of the deal. The other half will not adopt this stance, which they see as politically suicidal, and they are breifing that if the ultras don’t come back to Earth the AAWG will split.

Right. That’s the context within which Tusk makes his remarks. His remarks are pretty pungent, right enough, but its notable that, among all those who profess to be outraged, insulted, horrified, etc at what he has said, virtually nobody has said that his basic premise is wrong. Nobody is saying “we had a clear, deliverable plan for Brexit; we know what we want”. Tusk’s remarks hurt not because they are false but because they are true.

OK, but, still, when you have the choice between speaking the truth and not speaking, sometimes the wise course is not to speak. So what was Tusk’s objective in speaking this particular truth at this particular moment?

The first object, I think, is to highlight it. The UK’s approach to Brexit is being crippled by the fact that Brexiters still don’t know what they want. The Brexiters themselves know this to be true. Tusk’s intervention makes it very clear that the EU understands this, and will take advantage of this state of affairs for so long as it prevails. It maximises the incentive for the Brexiters to stop fighting among themselves and start agreeing. Any agreed Brexit position, no matter how stupid and unrealistic, would be more conducive to progress than the current shambles in London.

And the second object is to provide support to the Commission and its officials. Barnier, Selmayr, Weyand, etc are Commission officials, and a common Brexiter line has been to dismiss what they say as the thoughts of unelected bureaucrats. But Tusk is the President of the Council, elected to that position by the EU governments (including the UK government, which voted for him). He is trying to strangle at birth, in a public and unmistakeable fashion, any half-formed notion that the Council of Minister will yet save the Brexiter, override the Commission and cave to the UK to avoid a no-deal. Tusk wouldn’t be taking this line if he wasn’t completely confident that the Council would support it (if not perhaps in quite such direct terms).

What Tusk is pointing to here is the fact that Brexiters still don’t have a realistic, practical, deliverable plan for Brexit that they themselves support. Put the other way, he is signalling that the way forward for them - the only way forward - is to come up with such a plan and agree among themselves to support it.

(You’re right to say that it’s not helpful to the Remainers’ cause. It’s not intended to be. The EU is not expecting or pushing for a “remain” solution.)

this is a fantastic summation of the last few months

But doesn't even begin to scratch the surface where HMG's deplorable behavior is concerned.

You should do the same for 2016 to now.

Starting with £350m per week

Then those who campaigned for Brexit in 2016 with no plan.. Remember the statement that Brexit didn't mean leaving the single market! How many Brexiteer conmen were wheeled out to publicly trot out that line?

No sooner had Brexit been voted for - TM introduced her red lines which rendered that 'promise' a lie.. and many other promises a lie

David Davis and the "easiest deal in history" - all he had to do was head to Berlin :rolleyes:

Dominic Raab - Brexit Secretary who never read the GFA and then quits in protest at a deal he himself 'helped' to frame

Karen Bradley - appointed as NI secretary despite not having a **cking clue about the place - doubtful she could even find it on a map. Who is it the nationalists vote for again?

The ERG - well - just a laughable shower of hurlers on the ditch who have never offered anything constructive. Just cheap knock downs and political back biting. Charlatans.

And then you have the insults

The EUSSR
Soviet prisons
political union by stealth and deception
EU following same path as Napolean and Hitler
Punishment beatings (that should have been especially bell ringing for those in NI)

There is no plan. There never was a plan. Liars and con men don't like to be outed as liars and con men. Just sad to see the same useful fools out in front taking faux offence on behalf of these liars and con men.

ednwireland · 07-02-2019 10:36am

Hurrache wrote: »

The UK joining Norway in the EEA keeps coming up, but they said a relatively long time ago that they don't want the UK there.

the wto also said that theres no such thing as a default deal they can pick up - the memebers would have to agree it

the canada deal to at least 7 years to negotiate

Peregrinus · 07-02-2019 10:40am

Hurrache wrote: »

The UK joining Norway in the EFTA keeps coming up, but Norway said a relatively long time ago that they don't want the UK there, ignoring the fact that May would have to drop some of her red lines in order to do so anyway.

Mmm. Various Norwegian politicians have indicated that they'd have concerns, but it's all been hypothetical. As the UK has never applied to join there has never been a formal or official response. Nobody's committed to anything yet.

lawred2 · 07-02-2019 10:42am

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I said,up until that point (Taoiseach Varadkar and Tusk sniggering about the comment)I thought the EU response to May and co. was faultless,that incident took the shine off things-I disagree with you slightly in that i thought the EU appears to want the UK to remain-officially anyway.

Seriously if that's all you've got to get upset about - you've got nothing.

Hurrache · 07-02-2019 10:45am

lawred2 wrote: »

David David and the "easiest deal in history" - all he had to do was head to Berlin :rolleyes:

He's always good for a laugh.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1093221210849230849

Hurrache · 07-02-2019 10:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. Various Norwegian politicians have indicated that they'd have concerns, but it's all been hypothetical. As the UK has never applied to join there has never been a formal or official response. Nobody's committed to anything yet.

True, but that waters at the moment don't look inviting. And as Norway has said, they accepts the 4 freedoms anyway.

Macy0161 · 07-02-2019 11:00am

Hurrache wrote: »

The UK joining Norway in the EFTA keeps coming up, but Norway said a relatively long time ago that they don't want the UK there, ignoring the fact that May would have to drop some of her red lines in order to do so anyway.

To be fair, even those MP's proposing it are suggesting a "Norway Style"/ "Norway+" deal rather than EFTA. It's just easier to refer to it as EFTA. For me at least.

Quin_Dub · 07-02-2019 11:06am

All,

This is a very fast moving thread , I just read through ~20 pages of new posts since yesterday evening and I've had to remove over a dozen posts that were either petty personal digs or glib one-liners.

Not good enough.

Please keep the standards up as we continue the debate.

Thanks

Hurrache · 07-02-2019 11:08am

Fraser Nelson seems to be living in an alternative reality
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1093415916119957504?s=19

VinLieger · 07-02-2019 11:13am

More noises around a hard border not being good for future trade deals coming from the US congress on both sides of the aisle

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/hard-border-in-ireland-could-threaten-postbrexit-usuk-trade-deal-congress-warns-37791274.html

Again how stupid were they to think this was all happening in a vacuum.

They constantly seemed to forget that the rest of the world likes us.....

breatheme · 07-02-2019 11:21am

Hurrache wrote: »

He's always good for a laugh.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1093221210849230849

And then TM made him Brexit secretary.

Those tweets will never get old.

How has he NEVER been challenged on that, publicly, by the British media?

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments