Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Brexit discussion thread IV

24567…331

Comments

  • #32
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    All the signs point to the fact that the government have not prepared anything in terms of any change.

    Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

    They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.


  • #33
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

    They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.
    I don't think it can be this.
    There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.


  • #34
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Enzokk wrote: »
    The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit. They believe that when (not if mind you) Brexit is a success it will ensure that a united Ireland will never happen as people will be content being in the UK and will see no need to join the EU via Ireland.

    So just as David Cameron gambled on the EU referendum, so did the DUP. They hope that Brexit is such a success that people in NI will see no need to change the status quo and will want to be British due to that. That is a massive risk they took. The fact that many of their MLA's and MP's are wary of the EU probably clouded their thinking here. They may just have scored an incredible own goal when the match hadn't officially started.

    At least that that clears up the thinking process of the DUP for me. Its still an idiotic move on their part, but at least I sort of understand why they are for Brexit.

    It's also total nonsense. The DUP went for Brexit because the nationalists and Republicans were for remain. They also went for Brexit because it allowed them to wrap up in union jacks, and portray themselves as true unionists believing in a strong independent United kingdom.

    The reality is of course they feel they could do this because they thought they would be valiant losers and wouldn't have to own the consequences.


  • #35
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The hope is still that a last minute deal will be struck, but at this stage it is thought that any concessions will have to come from the UK side as they have left it too late to persuade the EU to change their rules. The transition period will then see some concessions.


    Will there be a transition if there is no deal?


  • #36
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.

    May is not working towards a long political career, she is looking to tomorrow, maybe next week.

    Next February, the options will be:

    a) kick the can down the road with some sort of non-Brexit Brexit transition period A50 extension keep talking option or

    b) Hard Brexit with no preparation, meaning no food in the shops, no medicines in hospitals, no flights in the air, no fuel on forecourts, riots, looting, the army on the streets, Scottish independence, chaos on the NI border, the end of the UK.

    When it comes to it, they will fold.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Will there be a transition if there is no deal?

    No.


  • #38
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

    They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.
    I don't think this can be the case for May. May did not commit herself to any particular form of Brexit until well after she won the party leadership (it was all vague platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit", you may recall) so she didn't plump for hard Brexit with all the red lines in order to win the leadership. She chose her Brexit when she was party leader, and apparently riding high in the polls over the supposedly unelectable Corbyn. So she wasn't under any kind of political constraint or pressure. She chose her own Brexit, and she chose appallingly. She chose a Brexit that she could not deliver and that, if she did deliver it, could not possibly work well for the UK.

    It makes no sense to think that she chose this, intending to betray it later. She will pay a huge political price if (or when?) she betrays it - a price that she could easily have avoided by not committing to this version of Brexit in the first place.

    I think she genuinely did not know how disastrous her Brexit vision was. She's a slow learner, but she has learned that she simply cannot deliver what she has publicly committed herself to, and she is trying to drag her government towards a functionall, deliverable Brexit policy. She may not succeed - her efforts may be too little, too late. But this is certainly not a position she consciously strategised to get herself into.


  • #39
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Will there be a transition if there is no deal?
    No.


  • #40
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,472 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I don't think it can be this.
    There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.

    I think this might be close to the truth. I think the UK really did believe that Brexit would be easy, they fully believed that the EU needed them more than they did it (since they hate the EU and think it is useless it isn't a hard position to understand).

    Hard Brexit was never anything other than a negotiation position, and a political stance to garner support from the public. 'The tough Little Englander giving Johnny Foreigner whats for'

    EU without the UK is unthinkable (except that is was exactly that for years) and that seeing the UK threaten to walk away would bring the EU rushing back with any deal the UK wanted.

    No deal was never a serious consideration, hence the total lack of actual planning or even a plan on what to plan for. TM's first speech very much was along the lines of the UK want Brexit, this is what we want, and if you don't give it to us then we walk away. What is your answer?

    And the EU simply shrugged and said the two positions were incompatible. We want you to stay but you don't like anything about us so lets just try to make this as polite as possible and move on.

    However, the threat of No Deal has continued to be raised to try to force the EU to chance, and each time it fails, it is ramped up even more. To the point where a No Deal almost seems like the option that was always wanted and the EU are turning their noses up and the great deal the UK was offering.

    So I think a combination of bravado, posturing, political manoeuvring and stupidity have combined to make some people think that a No Deal is actually good for the UK


  • #41
    Unpossible
    Registered Users Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭Unpossible


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    May is not working towards a long political career, she is looking to tomorrow, maybe next week.

    Next February, the options will be:

    a) kick the can down the road with some sort of non-Brexit Brexit transition period A50 extension keep talking option or

    b) Hard Brexit with no preparation, meaning no food in the shops, no medicines in hospitals, no flights in the air, no fuel on forecourts, riots, looting, the army on the streets, Scottish independence, chaos on the NI border, the end of the UK.

    When it comes to it, they will fold.
    Will February not be too late by then?
    Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    She chose her Brexit when she was party leader, and apparently riding high in the polls over the supposedly unelectable Corbyn. So she wasn't under any kind of political constraint or pressure.

    She was under no kind of politicical pressure from outside the Tory Party. From Day 1 in #10, May has been under pressure from her own Eurosceptics to demand the maximum from the EU in negotiations.

    Everyone could see, and the EU publicly pointed out, that they would either have to go for a really hard brexit or ditch the red lines.

    If she always intended to go for a Hard brexit, they would have been taking real action to prepare for it. They haven't prepared anything, so in my book that means they were never intending that.

    So they have always been planning to ditch their red lines.

    But they can't do it too early, or the Brexiteers will rebel.


  • #43
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Unpossible wrote: »
    Will February not be too late by then?
    Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?

    If we get to February and the UK is facing Mad Max day in March, the EU will bend the rules to prevent utter chaos. Extend Article 50 for 5 years and appoint Barnier negotiator-for-life.


  • #44
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Unpossible wrote: »
    Will February not be too late by then?
    Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?
    The Withdrawal Agreement has to be approved by each Member State in accordance with its own constitutional processes, which in most or all cases will mean involving national and sometimes subnational parliaments.

    All this needs to end by 29 March 2019 so, realistically, if it hasn't started by early January, it ain't happening.

    In that scenario there are two possibilities:

    1. Crash-out Brexit on 29 March with no deal of any kind. This is the nuclear option.

    2. Extend the Art 50 period until some date after 29 March 2019. This requires unanimous consent of the EU-27, but only at governmental level, not national parliaments. So it's something that could be agreed at a European Council meeting.

    But it wouldn't be a shoe-in. There's no point in extending the Art 50 negotiation period if we're only going to end up in the same place in six months (or whenever). So there would have to be pretty good reason to think that an extension would actually produce a workable deal. In other words, the deadlock would have to have already been broken.


  • #45
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    She was under no kind of politicical pressure from outside the Tory Party. From Day 1 in #10, May has been under pressure from her own Eurosceptics to demand the maximum from the EU in negotiations.
    Except she was already party leader, and was riding high in the polls. What could the eurosceptics do to her? They could possibly mount a leadership challenge, but it seems very unlikely that they would win it. May was well-positioned to survive any leadership heave. (I bet she looks back fondly on those days.)
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Everyone could see, and the EU publicly pointed out, that they would either have to go for a really hard brexit or ditch the red lines.
    But they could only see that after she adopted the red lines. She didn't have to adopt them, is my point; she chose to. She could have tried to craft a Brexit designed (a) to reassure the 48% at home that their concerns were being listened to and would have some influence in shaping Brexit, and (b) to appeal to the EU, and (c) to be rational and workable. She chose to do none of these things, and she has been paying for her choice ever since.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If she always intended to go for a Hard brexit, they would have been taking real action to prepare for it. They haven't prepared anything, so in my book that means they were never intending that.
    We need to agree our terms. As far as I'm concerned:
    - Soft Brexit would be Norway, Switzerland, something like that; remain in single market and/or customs union; accept ECJ jurisdiction where relevant.

    - Hard Brexit is what May actually wants - leave the CU; leave the SM; reject ECJ jurisdiction, but with a deal addressing transition period, financial settlement, etc and with a trade deal of some kind providing "frictionless trade" or, at any rate, favourable trade terms.

    - Crash-out Brexit is what nobody wants.

    It's crash-out Brexit that they haven't bee preparing for. You reckon this is because they have always planned to accept soft Brexit. I reckon it's because they have been in persistent denial about the fact that they won't get hard Brexit; they started out believing or assuming that they would get it, and they have been very reluctant to let go of the idea that they won't.

    I don't know when May finally accepted that it wasn't going to happen. It may in fact have been some time ago, and since then she has been playing a long, slow game of moving to soft Brexit by salami tactics, for the reason you suggest. Or it may have been a slowly-dawning realisation. It's even possible that she still hasn't fully accepted it.

    But if her plan all along had been to have a soft Brexit, then nailing her colours to a hard Brexit mast would have been an extraordinary tactic, and not one that political circumstances at the time required her to adopt. It's only singe the General Election, remember, that she's been a wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie.


  • #46
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There's no point in extending the Art 50 negotiation period if we're only going to end up in the same place in six months (or whenever). So there would have to be pretty good reason to think that an extension would actually produce a workable deal. In other words, the deadlock would have to have already been broken.

    I disagree. It is in the EUs interest that the UK never leaves at all. It is in the EUs interest that if the UK does leave, it stays in the Single Market and Customs Union. If the UK ever leaves, a Norway model is in the EUs interests. If the UK is going for a Hard Brexit, it is in the EUs interest that it does it in an orderly way with a suitable transition period and an arrangement for the NI border.

    These are all EU interests which a hard Brexit next March would damage. Given the choice next February of damaging its own interests by forcing a Hard brexit with no preparation, or extending A50 to allow one of these better outcomes to be negotiated, the EU will kick the can down the road.

    Not for the sake of the Brits being tied to the radiator of Imperator Mays war-rig, but purely out of EU self-interest.

    And if they do punt, I think they will go long - extend negotiations for 5 years to take the deadlines and headlines out of them. The whole matter can be delegated to Barnier and a permanent staff and the EU can move on and talk about real stuff.

    Of course the UK press will go mental, but they will do that no matter what happens, and the EU doesn't really care anymore.


  • #47
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    - Hard Brexit is what May actually wants - leave the CU; leave the SM; reject ECJ jurisdiction, but with a deal addressing transition period, financial settlement, etc and with a trade deal of some kind providing "frictionless trade" or, at any rate, favourable trade terms.

    You could be right - if this is what May really wants then her lack of preparation for crash-out brexit is more understandable - the EU will give her most of that tomorrow if she asks for it, no need for a crash-out.

    The only bit they can't have is frictionless trade, and they'll need to put the DUP in their box, but neither of those should be a sticking point.

    But if that is all she wants, why the utter lack of progress?


  • #48
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Under Art 50, they can only give the UK the extension that the UK agrees to. They can't extend indefinitely, or for five years, unless the UK wants that extension. For domestic political reasons, I don't think May can look for such an extension.

    I agree, they'd like the UK to stay a member, or failing that to remain in close association, but it doesn't follow that they will automatically grant an extension. The UK's current uncertain state is damaging, and drains attention and resources. They won't prolong it unless doing so does actually look likely to result in the UK opting to stay, or opting for a close association. The current state of affairs - the UK has no clear and realistic notion of what it wants - is not something that would found an extension. The UK will have to change its position signficantly before an extension become politically realistic.


  • #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    You could be right - if this is what May really wants then her lack of preparation for crash-out brexit is more understandable - the EU will give her most of that tomorrow if she asks for it, no need for a crash-out.

    The only bit they can't have is frictionless trade, and they'll need to put the DUP in their box, but neither of those should be a sticking point.

    But if that is all she wants, why the utter lack of progress?
    The EU will give her most of that tomorrow provided she commits to arrangements which will keep the Irish border open. I don't think she can puit the DUP back in the box as easily as you suggest. Between the DUP, and the Tory remainer rebels, even if there are only a few of them, it's hard to see how she could get it through Parliament.


  • #50
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Under Art 50, they can only give the UK the extension that the UK agrees to. They can't extend indefinitely, or for five years, unless the UK wants that extension. For domestic political reasons, I don't think May can look for such an extension. .

    If we get to that position in negotiations, it will be do it the EUs way or the end of UK domestic politics along with the end of the UK itself.


  • #51
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Between the DUP, and the Tory remainer rebels, even if there are only a few of them, it's hard to see how she could get it through Parliament.

    This means the DUP and remainer rebels would prefer to precipitate a crash-out Brexit with no preparation? Are these the people she is hoping to railroad with a last minute Call My Bluff act rather than the Eurosceptics as I supposed earlier?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    trellheim wrote: »
    Try and sell that . Grieve's amendment last week being voted down proved this train cant be stopped. Only road out is for May to convince the middle of the road or big business like Airbus to put the fears into the moderates.

    But remember - May wants out.

    Not sure how much more dramatic this can get though.

    The closer you get to a cliff edge the more visible it becomes.
    The full gravity of Brexit is starting to sink in albeit slowly.
    If the polls rise to 60% in or 76% wanting Ref2 then it can be stopped.
    We are looking at a situation where the British Government may have to formally request an extension of A50. This would have to be done in good faith. That means not to gain a negotiating advantage. Good faith might equal a referendum.


  • #53
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 17,954 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The reason Brexit is running into massive difficulties is because 'leaving the EU' is an emotional idea with nothing to back it up.

    It has become patently obvious most Brexiteers haven't got a clue what the EU or Single Market is or how they work. Brexit could only succeed if people knew what it was they were leaving and what their future destination was, As it stands, Brexit is just a vague ideological notion by people who don't know the first thing about single markets, international trade or anything else,


  • #54
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Evidently no-one told the BBC that the Taoiseach doesn't follow soccer:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1012298147442446336


  • #55
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    demfad wrote:
    The full gravity of Brexit is starting to sink in albeit slowly.
    Well, it’s about to get a shot in the arm: Nissan is freezing UK investments.
    Car manufacturing giant Nissan is putting its investment plans in the UK on hold until there is more certainty over Brexit, according to reports.


  • #56
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    On a more serious note, leading Tory Brexiteer Lord Ashcroft has written an article extolling Malta as an EU base for post-Brexit UK companies:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/06/lord-ashcroft-special-report-malta-makes-a-strong-case-to-host-the-eu-outposts-of-british-companies-after-brexit.html


  • #57
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,555 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    An Ciarraioch wrote: »
    On a more serious note, leading Tory Brexiteer Lord Ashcroft has written an article extolling Malta as an EU base for post-Brexit UK companies:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/06/lord-ashcroft-special-report-malta-makes-a-strong-case-to-host-the-eu-outposts-of-british-companies-after-brexit.html

    I wonder is it anything to do with the easy access to corruption on the island that is making him write these thoughts. 'ambitious british business'


    Tory government is hammering down on oversight and they want their business pals to have free reign .


    Hilarious that working people voted for this and will still shout down opposition to it from the roof tops


  • #58
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Dutch PM says solving Irish border problem now 'first, second and third priority' in Brexit talks

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/28/uk-could-be-heading-for-very-worst-brexit-says-mays-former-policy-chief-politics-live

    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1012319466737238017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Fjun%2F28%2Fuk-could-be-heading-for-very-worst-brexit-says-mays-former-policy-chief-politics-live

    Little old us causing all the trouble it would seem .


    Meanwhile RTÉ have new Brexit podcast
    https://twitter.com/colmomongain/status/1012313854842458112

    That statement by dissidents makes for grim and worrying reading


  • #59
    Munster2018
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Munster2018


    The UK will likely enter an abyss. A very deep recession. And then need a referendum to re-enter the EU.


  • #60
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Varadkar was very forthright in his doorstep interview at the summit. He must be comfortable with the idea of being brexiteers enemy de jour today as his comments will go down like a lead balloon. There's always the political advantage at home to be got by sticking the boot into England - but such unguarded comments really indicate severe frustration in the Irish government with the process so far.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If we get to that position in negotiations, it will be do it the EUs way or the end of UK domestic politics along with the end of the UK itself.
    Yes, but the EU's way will definitely not be to string this thing out for another five years or more. Either the UK has shifted it's position in a way that a realistic deal is attainable, in which case it won't take 5 years to attain it, strike while the iron is hot, etc, or the UK has not shifted its position, in which case the EU won't be interested in any extension.

    They've looked at a crash-out Brexit, and they've priced it. They reckon they can deal with it. It's not something they have to avoid at all costs. They'll only go for an extension that is likely to lead to a deal, in a reasonably short time-frame.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement