Continuation Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Ponderingturtle was very careful in their choice of words.

Perhaps Ponderingturtle was, and perhaps the meaning went over my head, but IMO a no-deal Brexit is now inevitable because in trying to avoid being seen to be responsible, paralysis will ensue and the default will happen.

[Nessie]

I think history will look back and conclude that most MPs, did not understand what it would mean to go into negotiations with the EU.

The Brexit lot had no definitive, clear, agreed upon plan of negotiation, what they wanted, what the lines in the sand were, what they would compromise on and by how much.

Then, they elected a leader who did not want Brexit to run the negotiations.

Then, rather than organise, they argued and argued and argued, amongst themselves. Many resigned as it became easier to snipe from the sidelines than it was to try and solve the problem.

Meanwhile, the elected leader who did not want Brexit had to try and cobble together something, which she did over a few days at Chequers. In the face of no alternative she had to run with that plan.

The resulting mess was inevitable.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by The Don

Hard Brexit:



https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37724833.html

No hard Border:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question

Thank you.

I am, however, not convinced Arlene Foster really wants a "hard Brexit", she seems to want a deal with the EU:

Quote:

Mrs Foster told the BBC Radio Ulster's The Sunday News that if the EU wants a deal it has to be one that is acceptable to both sides.

"I think we really need to focus on trying to get a deal - that's what the DUP want, that's what the government wants and I believe it's what the EU wants," she said.

(https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47107879 )

Quote:

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May should not waste time with a parliamentary vote and instead seek a new Brexit deal with Brussels, Arlene Foster said today.

(https://www.politico.eu/article/arle...w-brexit-deal/ )

She seems, however, to want an exit from the EU. From your first quote:

Quote:

We have been consistent that for us it is the backstop which needs to be dealt with," the DUP leader said.

"For the future we want an agreement which returns control of our money, our laws and our borders through a U.K. wide free trade arrangement with the EU."

Here again, you see she wants a "free trade arrangement".

Your second quote shows she doesn't want a hard border in Ireland, like most people, but this could be easily achieved by doing only random checks on or near the border (of the kind that are done near the border between France and Belgium), and online registrations with checks away from the border for goods that are imported or exported (optical recognition of license plates on the border could also help).

So, I would say the people who need to be convinced to change their minds are (in my opinion) more European leaders (Juncker, Barnier, Tusk ...) and Irish Prime Minister Varadkar, much more than Arlene Foster. European leaders should understand that you cannot make a deal with a country, and, at the same, try to "break it up".

[Nessie]

Channel 4 news has just tweeted;

"Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve says "the penny is beginning to drop" among politicians, including some of his Conservative colleagues, that "there is no form of Brexit that is going to benefit our country."

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I am not too sure about the exact backstop history, though I think it was originally proposed by the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, not by the UK government. <snip>

This is no-more true now than the last time you claimed it.
And it's 'taoiseach'

Originally Posted by Michel H

Nonetheless, it seems to me Arlene Foster's position is fairly reasonable and understandable <snip>

Then you are, like most Brexiteers, completely out of touch with reality.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by The Don

Perhaps Ponderingturtle was, and perhaps the meaning went over my head, but IMO a no-deal Brexit is now inevitable because in trying to avoid being seen to be responsible, paralysis will ensue and the default will happen.

No matter what option is put forward there will be enough votes to kill it as the various faction realign.

Unless Labour votes with the Tories to pass something.

[dudalb]

One real problem is that both the major parties are badly divided on Brixet.That makes any kind of a deal really hard.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Thank you.

I am, however, not convinced Arlene Foster really wants a "hard Brexit", she seems to want a deal with the EU:

(https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47107879 )

(https://www.politico.eu/article/arle...w-brexit-deal/ )

She seems, however, to want an exit from the EU. From your first quote:

Here again, you see she wants a "free trade arrangement".

Your second quote shows she doesn't want a hard border in Ireland, like most people, but this could be easily achieved by doing only random checks on or near the border (of the kind that are done near the border between France and Belgium), and online registrations with checks away from the border for goods that are imported or exported (optical recognition of license plates on the border could also help).

So, I would say the people who need to be convinced to change their minds are (in my opinion) more European leaders (Juncker, Barnier, Tusk ...) and Irish Prime Minister Varadkar, much more than Arlene Foster. European leaders should understand that you cannot make a deal with a country, and, at the same, try to "break it up".

Yes, it's the standard Brexiteer position, they want a free trade agreement without wanting to adhere to any of the conditions which would typically allow a free trade agreement to be established

• Commonality of rules
• Commonality of standards
• Commonality of worker and environmental protections

Number plate recognition only allows you to tell what number plates have been affixed to vehicles passing the cameras. It's not much use in the context of the Northern Irish border because:

• The border is messy - it has thousands of crossing points, it would be easy to avoid cameras by driving across a field
• The cameras themselves would be a target for terrorists
• The cameras wouldn't be able to tell you what's in a vehicle, or even if the plate is valid (unless the EU allows access to some, as yet not established, pan-European number plate database)
• It cannot stop the flow of people

[The Don]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

No matter what option is put forward there will be enough votes to kill it as the various faction realign.

Unless Labour votes with the Tories to pass something.

Yup, that's why I'm convinced that a no-deal is the sadly inevitable result.

If Labour and Conservative are to come to an agreement, one party or the other will have to make a huuuuuuuuge climbdown.

Labour would have to accept the bribes from the magic money tree and abandon their demand for Customs Union membership - of course members and supporters overwhelmingly want to remain in the EU so that's miles away from what the members want.

OR

The Conservatives would have to accept "Brexit in name only" and agree to a Customs Union. This simply cannot happen.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Your second quote shows she doesn't want a hard border in Ireland, like most people, but this could be easily achieved by doing only random checks on or near the border (of the kind that are done near the border between France and Belgium),

If the UK wants a border with the EU which will be like the one between France and Belgium, the best way of having that is to remain in the EU. Then the border will be an internal EU one, as the Franco-Belgian border currently is.
Foster doesn't want free movement of people within the EU. How can that be stopped without a hard border in Ireland? The CTA is not relevant. It permits people to pass from NI to the Republic, which I imagine Arlene Foster is relaxed about. But an unguarded Ireland border would allow undesirable people like Poles and Slovaks to pass from the EU into the UK. Putting a stop to this is the main purpose of leaving the EU, and the main motive for Brexit.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think history will look back and conclude that most MPs, did not understand what it would mean to go into negotiations with the EU.

The Brexit lot had no definitive, clear, agreed upon plan of negotiation, what they wanted, what the lines in the sand were, what they would compromise on and by how much.

Then, they elected a leader who did not want Brexit to run the negotiations.

Then, rather than organise, they argued and argued and argued, amongst themselves. Many resigned as it became easier to snipe from the sidelines than it was to try and solve the problem.

Meanwhile, the elected leader who did not want Brexit had to try and cobble together something, which she did over a few days at Chequers. In the face of no alternative she had to run with that plan.

The resulting mess was inevitable.

I'd like to don the ol' tinfoil hat

I agree with those posters who have said that Theresa May's primary objective throughout the whole Brexit debacle is to remain Prime Minister and so she has little or no concern for the national welfare, or indeed the good of the Conservative Party beyond its ability to keep her as Prime Minister.

I'm not so sure that Theresa May isn't a Brexiteer at heart. For sure she supported Remain during the referendum campaign but IMO her support was as half-hearted as Jeremy Corbyn's. When she was Home Secretary she often expressed a desire to be free of EU human rights legislation so I'm not so sure that she wouldn't be quite content with a no-deal Brexit.

If she really was committed to the Remain cause, she has had plenty of opportunities over the last 30 months to significantly water-down Brexit or indeed knock it on the head, but from my perspective, ever time there has been a fork in the road, she has chosen the one which has led to a harder Brexit.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by The Don

I'd like to don the ol' tinfoil hat

I agree with those posters who have said that Theresa May's primary objective throughout the whole Brexit debacle is to remain Prime Minister and so she has little or no concern for the national welfare, or indeed the good of the Conservative Party beyond its ability to keep her as Prime Minister.

I'm not so sure that Theresa May isn't a Brexiteer at heart. For sure she supported Remain during the referendum campaign but IMO her support was as half-hearted as Jeremy Corbyn's. When she was Home Secretary she often expressed a desire to be free of EU human rights legislation so I'm not so sure that she wouldn't be quite content with a no-deal Brexit.

If she really was committed to the Remain cause, she has had plenty of opportunities over the last 30 months to significantly water-down Brexit or indeed knock it on the head, but from my perspective, ever time there has been a fork in the road, she has chosen the one which has led to a harder Brexit.

During one of her speeches, she made it clear one main reason why she was pushing ahead, it was to avoid another referendum which would make another Scottish referendum more likely.

The difference for me is that the Scottish referendum was more honest and open and it had a far bigger majority, 55% to 44% on a 84% turnout, so people were clearer about what they wanted. (Brexit 52% to 48% on a 72% turnout).

I think May is convinced by the arguments about democracy that we have to keep going and leave. I think she understands what a negotiation is, far better than most MPs. I think she knows that there is no deal that would be well regarded.

So, she has to work with what she has, a very weak hand and she has shown the same sort of resolve as that last Tory Iron Maiden.

[GlennB]

From The Guardian:

"TV’s Angus Walker released a wonderful scoop last night. He happened to find himself in a hotel bar in Brussels where he heard Olly Robbins, the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, chatting in a voice loud enough to be heard about what will happen next in the Brexit process.

Assuming that Robbins was not engaged in an elaborate act of subterfuge (which seems very unlikely), there were two important revelations in what Robbins said.

Robbins said that he expected the final vote on Brexit to take place at the very last minute. He talked about a decision point in “the week beginning end of March”. Presumably that would be the week beginning Monday 25 March, after the EU summit (starting on Thursday 21 March), and only four days before Brexit (Friday 29 March). This confirms what Jeremy Corbyn and many other MPs were saying in the Commons yesterday; that Theresa May is running down the clock.

Robbins said that he expected MPs to be presented with a final choice between backing May’s deal and a long extension of article 50. This is also very interesting, because most of those accusing May of running down the clock were doing so on the assumption that she would end up offering MPs a choice between her deal and no deal. If Robbins is right, then May has or will conclude that a no-deal Brexit would be unacceptable."

Fuller story here at 9:23

[Amazer]

Originally Posted by GlennB

From The Guardian:

"TV’s Angus Walker released a wonderful scoop last night. He happened to find himself in a hotel bar in Brussels where he heard Olly Robbins, the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, chatting in a voice loud enough to be heard about what will happen next in the Brexit process.

Assuming that Robbins was not engaged in an elaborate act of subterfuge (which seems very unlikely), there were two important revelations in what Robbins said.

Robbins said that he expected the final vote on Brexit to take place at the very last minute. He talked about a decision point in “the week beginning end of March”. Presumably that would be the week beginning Monday 25 March, after the EU summit (starting on Thursday 21 March), and only four days before Brexit (Friday 29 March). This confirms what Jeremy Corbyn and many other MPs were saying in the Commons yesterday; that Theresa May is running down the clock.

Robbins said that he expected MPs to be presented with a final choice between backing May’s deal and a long extension of article 50. This is also very interesting, because most of those accusing May of running down the clock were doing so on the assumption that she would end up offering MPs a choice between her deal and no deal. If Robbins is right, then May has or will conclude that a no-deal Brexit would be unacceptable."

Fuller story here at 9:23, though the suggested extension has been 'officially' denied.

Seems like a risky strategy... assuming that all 27 will agree to a lengthy extension of article 50.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

[The Don]

Originally Posted by GlennB

From The Guardian:

"TV’s Angus Walker released a wonderful scoop last night. He happened to find himself in a hotel bar in Brussels where he heard Olly Robbins, the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, chatting in a voice loud enough to be heard about what will happen next in the Brexit process.

Assuming that Robbins was not engaged in an elaborate act of subterfuge (which seems very unlikely), there were two important revelations in what Robbins said.

Robbins said that he expected the final vote on Brexit to take place at the very last minute. He talked about a decision point in “the week beginning end of March”. Presumably that would be the week beginning Monday 25 March, after the EU summit (starting on Thursday 21 March), and only four days before Brexit (Friday 29 March). This confirms what Jeremy Corbyn and many other MPs were saying in the Commons yesterday; that Theresa May is running down the clock.

Robbins said that he expected MPs to be presented with a final choice between backing May’s deal and a long extension of article 50. This is also very interesting, because most of those accusing May of running down the clock were doing so on the assumption that she would end up offering MPs a choice between her deal and no deal. If Robbins is right, then May has or will conclude that a no-deal Brexit would be unacceptable."

Fuller story here at 9:23, though the suggested extension has been 'officially' denied.

They may be offered that choice but as I understand it, any prolongation of article 50 would require the UK to hold European elections - something we're not in a position to be able to do. It would also require parliament to vote to extend article 50, something it has repeatedly said that it is not prepared to do.

This sounds like wishful thinking on behalf of the Guardian to me - IMO Theresa May would be perfectly happy with a no-deal Brexit and far happier with a no-deal Brexit than with any delay to article 50.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Nessie

During one of her speeches, she made it clear one main reason why she was pushing ahead, it was to avoid another referendum which would make another Scottish referendum more likely.

The difference for me is that the Scottish referendum was more honest and open and it had a far bigger majority, 55% to 44% on a 84% turnout, so people were clearer about what they wanted. (Brexit 52% to 48% on a 72% turnout).

I think May is convinced by the arguments about democracy that we have to keep going and leave. I think she understands what a negotiation is, far better than most MPs. I think she knows that there is no deal that would be well regarded.

So, she has to work with what she has, a very weak hand and she has shown the same sort of resolve as that last Tory Iron Maiden.

Thatcher was not presented as a "maiden" by her devotees, but as a "Lady". Please try not to overdo the adulation; it ends by being preposterous.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Amazer

Seems like a risky strategy... assuming that all 27 will agree to a lengthy extension of article 50.

Unless it's a two-year or greater extension, of course., which would certainly qualify as "lengthy."

Dave

ETA: Since TM has indicated she'll step down as PM once Brexit is over, it's also compatible with her apparent core aim of remaining in power.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by The Don

This sounds like wishful thinking on behalf of the Guardian to me - IMO Theresa May would be perfectly happy with a no-deal Brexit and far happier with a no-deal Brexit than with any delay to article 50.

Well, it's ITV's story and The Guardian is just reporting it with a few added comments of their own.

I'd guess a no-deal Brexit would spell a rapid end for May and quite possibly a Labour government pretty soon. While I agree that Corbyn has handled this atrociously it won't be his party in the cross-hairs of public disgust as the horrible reality hits home, it'll be the Tories.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Well, it's ITV's story and The Guardian is just reporting it with a few added comments of their own.

I'd guess a no-deal Brexit would spell a rapid end for May and quite possibly a Labour government pretty soon. While I agree that Corbyn has handled this atrociously it won't be his party in the cross-hairs of public disgust as the horrible reality hits home, it'll be the Tories.

No it won't. It'll be those evil Europeans and the socialists in power that are at fault for everything.

This will be the spin in the right wing* press. Enough of the loud people will believe it and those responsible for this *********** will be able to scream like ****-knuckles from the sideline while ensuring no stain of fuckwittery applies to them.




*Usual caveats apply

[Nessie]

Johnson etc who resigned during negotiations, will try and reappear claiming, they would have done a better job. They would not have. The Tories and Parliament were too split and no one has produced a better plan that has widespread backing.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The CTA is not relevant. It permits people to pass from NI to the Republic, which I imagine Arlene Foster is relaxed about.

No it doesn't. It allows citizens from one country to live and/or work in the other country, as if they were citizens there. It's not about day-to-day cross-border travel.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Don

Well, yes and no.

They have made bleating noises about no-deal on a number of occasions but when they had the opportunity to make a binding vote to discount a no-deal Brexit, the amendment failed.

A non-binding amendment to allow parliament to voice an opinion regarding a no-deal did pass but that's like saying that you want to lose weight but failing to commit to either eat less or move more.

A non binding vote got this whole mess started why do they need a binding vote now?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

A non binding vote got this whole mess started why do they need a binding vote now?

Without a binding vote, Theresa May does not have to refer the matter to parliament.

MPs were offered the chance for parliament to have a legal right to have a say in the event of a no-deal Brexit. They declined that chance, opting instead for something non-binding. They were given a chance to make a difference but chose instead to virtue signal.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

No it doesn't. It allows citizens from one country to live and/or work in the other country, as if they were citizens there. It's not about day-to-day cross-border travel.

The Common Travel Area^WP (CTA; Irish: Comhlimistéar Taistil) is an open borders area comprising the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. The British Overseas Territories are not included. Based on agreements that are not legally binding, the internal borders of the Common Travel Area (CTA) are subject to minimal controls, if any, and can normally be crossed by British and Irish citizens with minimal identity documents with certain exceptions.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The Common Travel Area^WP (CTA; Irish: Comhlimistéar Taistil) is an open borders area comprising the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. The British Overseas Territories are not included. Based on agreements that are not legally binding, the internal borders of the Common Travel Area (CTA) are subject to minimal controls, if any, and can normally be crossed by British and Irish citizens with minimal identity documents with certain exceptions.

Thanks for proving my point and disproving your own, i.e. "But an unguarded Ireland border would allow undesirable people like Poles and Slovaks to pass from the EU into the UK."

They can pass, but then they're stuck in NI, and can't live or work legally there, anyway.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Thanks for proving my point and disproving your own, i.e. "But an unguarded Ireland border would allow undesirable people like Poles and Slovaks to pass from the EU into the UK."

They can pass, but then they're stuck in NI, and can't live or work legally there, anyway.

Erm, you know there are boats between NI and the big island? With no ID checks.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Johnson etc who resigned during negotiations, will try and reappear claiming, they would have done a better job. They would not have. The Tories and Parliament were too split and no one has produced a better plan that has widespread backing.

I wouldn't be shocked to find David Davis claiming that he would have done a better job

Then again, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are claiming that their equally fantastical scheme, customs union membership together with the ability to negotiate separate trade deals, would have been possible if they had been in a position to make the deal.

Given the various red lines within which she has chosen to operate, it's likely that Theresa May got the least worst deal she could. The problem being the red lines which are (for both parties)

• No to the four freedoms
• Wanting to be able to negotiate separate trade deals
• Not wanting to be bound by EU legislation

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by The Don

The problem being the red lines which are (for both parties)

• No to the four freedoms
• Wanting to be able to negotiate separate trade deals
• Not wanting to be bound by EU legislation

You forgot:

• Leaving the EU

Dave

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

You forgot:

• Leaving the EU

Dave

Good point

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Erm, you know there are boats between NI and the big island? With no ID checks.

Indeed the DUP have been very clear that any kind of border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would be unacceptable.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Thanks for proving my point and disproving your own, i.e. "But an unguarded Ireland border would allow undesirable people like Poles and Slovaks to pass from the EU into the UK."

They can pass, but then they're stuck in NI, and can't live or work legally there, anyway.

I travelled by bus last week from Glasgow to Donegal, on the ferry from Cairnryan to Belfast, and then the Border crossing road from Derry to Donegal town, without passing any identity checks at all. Same on the return journey. Therefore I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Erm, you know there are boats between NI and the big island? With no ID checks.

With no ID checks at the moment.

But let's unpick this supposed "problem."

Ireland - like the UK - is not in Schengen. It still has passport controls and checking, and so the only people getting in without question are UK and other EU citizens. No hard border with NI would allow such EU citizens to slip across and get a boat - but not fly - to the rest of the UK, as long as even the most cursory of passport checking was not instituted.

So what? Seriously, just how many EU citizens - with 26 countries to choose from other than their own - are going to be interested in going the long-way round to sneak into the UK, where they can't live or work legitimately? If they were still aiming for the latter, why not just come in direct as a legitimate short-stay visitor? Even if that required a visa, it's still going to be easier and cheaper than playing "Around the British Isles in X Days."

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I travelled by bus last week from Glasgow to Donegal, on the ferry from Cairnryan to Belfast, and then the Border crossing road from Derry to Donegal town, without passing any identity checks at all. Same on the return journey. Therefore I have no idea what you are talking about.

Congratulations, you made a journey under conditions as they stand now.

Then again, as a UK citizen you have the right to live and work in Ireland as if you were an Irish citizen. This is the aspect you seem unwilling to engage with.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by The Don

Indeed the DUP have been very clear that any kind of border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would be unacceptable.

Identity checks doesn't make it a border.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Identity checks doesn't make it a border.

Can I be there to watch when you tell Arlene that?

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Can I be there to watch when you tell Arlene that?

The DUP are going to have to suck up and accept something, given that some of the things they have said they want are incompatible with each other. Even to the Tories, their usefulness is transitory, and even their support may be unnecessary in certain circumstances.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Identity checks doesn't make it a border.

The DUP haven't spoken specifically about identity checks. I'd be very surprised if they would tolerate identity checks being introduced between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK where they don't currently exist. I presume the identity checks on flights are accepted because all domestic flights are subject to them.

Unless similar identity checks are going to be introduced on the Isle of Wight ferry, it's a clear example of Northern Ireland being treated differently.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Thatcher was not presented as a "maiden" by her devotees, but as a "Lady". Please try not to overdo the adulation; it ends by being preposterous.

You're right, but an instrument of torture isn't inappropriate.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by The Don

The DUP haven't spoken specifically about identity checks. I'd be very surprised if they would tolerate identity checks being introduced between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK where they don't currently exist. I presume the identity checks on flights are accepted because all domestic flights are subject to them.

Unless similar identity checks are going to be introduced on the Isle of Wight ferry, it's a clear example of Northern Ireland being treated differently.

The DUP finding something intolerable isn't necessarily going to prevent it from happening.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Congratulations, you made a journey under conditions as they stand now.

Then again, as a UK citizen you have the right to live and work in Ireland as if you were an Irish citizen. This is the aspect you seem unwilling to engage with.

The CTA does not give UK citizens the right to live and work in Ireland, it is merely a freedom of travel agreement. It is not being subject to the 1935 Aliens Act that allows UK citizens unrestricted access to live and work in Ireland;

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en..._citizens.html

"UK citizens are entitled to live in Ireland. In general, people who are not Irish citizens are subject to the Aliens Act 1935 as amended. UK citizens are not."