[Politics] Brexit

[Gwylan]

But I still think it won't happen for the same two reasons as back then. One, it would split the Tory party and two, why would Labour want to take any responsibility for this complete clusterf*** if they can avoid it ? (Which is why they still won't make a decision). There really has been no change whatsoever in the last 3 years and I can't see Johnson changing anything.

And what I said a couple of years ago was that bringing Labour into the negotiation would be a real dilemma for them. If they didn't get involved, the Tories could say that they were obstructing the chances of a deal. They could have done that a couple of months ago, but May refused to compromise and Labour had an easy way out.

One thing that has changed in the last few years is the question of the union. Three years ago, the Tory philosophy was that the union must be preserved but we saw that survey last week that said 60% would jettison Northern Ireland to push Brexit through, so Tory MPs know they have the support of their members on this.

The other thing that's changed is that we're on the 3rd Tory leader in three years. Johnson/Hunt know they can do deals that would have unacceptable to MPs a few months ago as they're not likely to change leaders again - it gives them a lot of leeway.

 

[WATFORD zero]

And what I said a couple of years ago was that bringing Labour into the negotiation would be a real dilemma for them. If they didn't get involved, the Tories could say that they were obstructing the chances of a deal. They could have done that a couple of months ago, but May refused to compromise and Labour had an easy way out.

One thing that has changed in the last few years is the question of the union. Three years ago, the Tory philosophy was that the union must be preserved but we saw that survey last week that said 60% would jettison Northern Ireland to push Brexit through, so Tory MPs know they have the support of their members on this.

The other thing that's changed is that we're on the 3rd Tory leader in three years. Johnson/Hunt know they can do deals that would have unacceptable to MPs a few months ago as they're not likely to change leaders again - it gives them a lot of leeway.

I agree that the pressures are different, but I believe the fundamentals are still the same.

No deal Brexit won't happen without a few years and 10s of Billions investment in the infrastructure required (which would give us a few years notice, if anyone with any sort of power was to start to take 'no deal' seriously).

Any sort of deal with a Customs Union would split the Tory party in two, and as TM proved, won't get through Parliament.

Border in Irish sea is a possibility but would the Conservative and Unionists party do that ? (You may be right, but it will be Ironic if Cameron's attempts to paper over the Cracks in the Tory party results in the Break up of the Union). Also, I'm presuming that this option would still be 'no deal' for the rest of Britain, so all we've done is remove the border issue, but not all the other issues ?

2nd Referendum (possibly via a GE).

I think we may just have to agree to disagree, but time will tell

 

[Gwylan]

Any sort of deal with a Customs Union Brexit would split the Tory party in two, and as TM proved, won't get through Parliament.

Yes, the CU bid failed ... but that's because it was a backbencher's motion (and it failed by just eight votes). Lib Dems and SNP abstained but if they were involved in discussions it could well pass. Yes, it could well split the Tory party but I can see problems ahead whatever the next PM does

 

[ManOfSussex]

Border in Irish sea is a possibility but would the Conservative and Unionists party do that ? (You may be right, but it will be Ironic if Cameron's attempts to paper over the Cracks in the Tory party results in the Break up of the Union). Also, I'm presuming that this option would still be 'no deal' for the rest of Britain, so all we've done is remove the border issue, but not all the other issues ?

Irrespective of the economic damage to Northern Ireland by a border in the Irish Sea and the territorial integrity of The UK being compromised, it's very wishful thinking if anyone just assumes Unionists in Northern Ireland are quietly and peacefully going to accept having that imposed on them as a price worth paying by English Brexiteers to achieve their aim of Brexit at any cost.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Raab in full blame the EU mode if we crash out on WTO.

Least he’s admitting WTO would be rubbish

 

[Gwylan]

Irrespective of the economic damage to Northern Ireland by a border in the Irish sea and the territorial integrity of The UK being compromised, it's very wishful thinking if anyone just assumes Unionists in Northern Ireland are quietly and peacefully going to accept having that imposed on them as a price worth paying by English Brexiteers to achieve their aim of Brexit at any cost.

I don't think there'd be much economic damage: there'd be closer links to ROI (which is in good shape economically) and have seamless trade with the EU. But you raise a good point about the Unionist response, it won't be an easy ride

 

[A1X]

Negotiating with the DUP alone would be a breach of an international treaty to which the UK is a signatory. He'll have to take in SF, SDLP, Alliance and UUP also - the first three of which are Remain and the last of which is rather on the fence.

I think it's fair to say at this stage the Brexiters seem quite happy to defecate upon any and all international agreements and norms in their desperate pursuit of unicorns.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

but come the day we leave the EU I am sure we can all get on well together again and work to make Britain even stronger than ever and even exciting again.

#believeinbritaintogetheragain

Given that the hard Brexit beloved of the rabid self-interested forces in charge, is likely to be swiftly followed by the break up of the Union, I'm not convinced that your hypothesis or especially, your #hashtag, are particularly prescient.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I don't think there'd be much economic damage: there'd be closer links to ROI (which is in good shape economically) and have seamless trade with the EU. But you raise a good point about the Unionist response, it won't be an easy ride

It depends how 'seamless' the trade is in all directions, but in 2017 Northern Ireland exported £11.3 Billion worth of goods to the rest of The UK and just £3.9 Billion to ROI. Exports to the rest of The EU were just £2 Billion.

 

[A1X]

but come the day we leave the EU I am sure we can all get on well together again and work to make Britain even stronger than ever and even exciting again.

#believeinbritaintogetheragain

Interesting. I know people who have relatives who have been told that if, as predicted by the people who understand the supply chains, there is a disruption to the supply of medication there is a strong chance they'll die. Now I don't know about you but I struggle to understand how someone who has basically seen their mum been handed a death sentence is going to get behind or get along with the people who signed her death warrant. Maybe it's because I lack respect.

 

[Gwylan]

It depends how 'seamless' the trade is in all directions, but in 2017 Northern Ireland exported £11.3 Billion worth of goods to the rest of The UK and just £3.9 Billion to ROI. Exports to the rest of The EU were just £2 Billion.

But there won't be a barrier between NI and GB, they'll still be part of the UK so they wouldn't lose anything - everything for NI is as before. It's GB who'll have more problems

 

[ManOfSussex]

But there won't be a barrier between NI and GB, they'll still be part of the UK so they wouldn't lose anything - everything for NI is as before. It's GB who'll have more problems

So a border in The Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and The UK and different customs territories between the two with Northern Ireland remaining in The ECU, following EU tariffs, aligned to single market rules and exempt from future UK trade deals, means it'd all stay exactly the same as before and they wouldn't lose anything?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Irrespective of the economic damage to Northern Ireland by a border in the Irish sea and the territorial integrity of The UK being compromised, it's very wishful thinking if anyone just assumes Unionists in Northern Ireland are quietly and peacefully going to accept having that imposed on them as a price worth paying by English Brexiteers to achieve their aim of Brexit at any cost.

I have no romantic affinity with the protestants of Ulster, but Ulster is de facto part of our country (our country, by the way, is The United Kingdom which, oddly, is comprised of four constituent countries; the notion of a country is a peculiar thing). Consequently we cannot have a hard border between one part of the country (Ulster) and the rest. We simply cannot. Devolution does not allow for it. Only full independence for Ulster allows it, and even then it becomes compulsory ONLY if there is no hard border between Ulster and Eire.

Our current hard border with EU nations, manifested at sea ports and airports, where passport control is implemented, is an artificial construct we have kept because we did not fancy a porous border such as between France and Germany/Belgium etc. This was a concession to the xenophobic Brits, tiresome but determined entirely by ourselves and tolerated by our weary neighbours.

So, we could, if we want, have an open border with France at the ferry ports and, at airports with Italy and Germany etc., now. Obviously that is anathema to Brexitters, which is why we don't.

Yet....there has been an open border between Eire and Ulster for many years, has there not? That means an open border between the EU and the country called the United Kingdom. So....and bear with me here (I am a remainer after all)....we have passport control with the EU right now, everywhere except between the Ulster and Eire border, and we haven't all died. So....why can't we carry on in the same way after we leave?

Surely if we can visualise how travel to France or Italy will be after we leave, importing via lorries and trains, with presumably not a great deal more border checking than we have now, why is there a need to change anything in terms of arrangements with Eire? Edit: having read up on this, we will have to up the ante when importing and (especuially exporting) ti the EU because we won't have a free trade deal an all exports to the EU will need to be validated (the contaminated prawn issue, see below). That is a separate issue.

Obviously if we find there is a flood of guns, drugs and Albanians across the Irish border after Brexit then we can deal with that then. But....there is an open border there now so why would there be a sudden massive increase in illegal activity? Is that 'project fear'?

Can someone explain to me, in a few sentences (ideally) what the problem is here?

Boris claims that a workaround can be found, which acknowledges that there is a real issue, but he hasn't said what it is. That sounds like the worst of all worlds. If my musings above are correct there is no real problem, so why doesn't he say so? If there is a real problem (that I don't understand) as appears to be the case, then what is his solution?

I decided to look up the Irish Border issue online (several sources) to find out what the problem actually is. Basically it seems that the plan is to leave the border as it is now, but not label this as a permanant solution. In order to allow the possibility of bringing in a hard border in Ireland (to protect the EU from the dangers of crap the UK imports, like antibiotic laden shrimps from the far east coming into the EU) then a hard border may be invoked - this is the 'backstop'.

Unfortunately parliament voted this down on a range of different grounds: the ERG weirdos say this means effectively Northern Ireland (and by definition the UK) will remain in the customs union all the while the order remains open and that is unacceptable. This means they want a hard border in Ireland since nothing else addresses their isues (except a hard border in the North Sea - the traitors!). Others argue that the backstop must be time limited so a proper solution can be introduced at a defined point. Others claim the backstop is illusory because a technological solution (favoured by the EU, involving some sort of as-yet-uninvented way of scanning and tagging imports and exprts using some sort of super fast and powerful MRI machine) is pie in the sky. So we will either be saddled with an open border forever (which the ERG will never accept) or we will have to go 'hard border' within a defined period, which the Ulstermen and, more importantly, the Eire folk (who have the power of veto) will never accept.

Ok....just as I though and have maintained repeatedly, Brexit cannot happen all the while there are elected MPs with a vote who object to one or other aspect of the only possible ways to get Brexit done. I can relax again, happy in the knowledge that Boris cannot get the deal done, and will be prevented for hard Brexitting by his own party if he foolishly tries to go that route.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Raab in full blame the EU mode if we crash out on WTO.

Least he’s admitting WTO would be rubbish

Says the man who said he would prorogue Parliament to go out with No Deal.

 

[Lever]

Interesting. I know people who have relatives who have been told that if, as predicted by the people who understand the supply chains, there is a disruption to the supply of medication there is a strong chance they'll die. Now I don't know about you but I struggle to understand how someone who has basically seen their mum been handed a death sentence is going to get behind or get along with the people who signed her death warrant. Maybe it's because I lack respect.

Thank you for your no-nonsense, explicit response; austerity measures have already indirectly caused countless deaths. It really is time that the 'blue-sky' Leave brigade recognised what a catastrophic outcome it will be for some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Daft denials only generate more antipathy and you are right to point out how dire the consequences may be for some.....

 

[A1X]

Thank you for your no-nonsense, explicit response; austerity measures have already indirectly caused countless deaths. It really is time that the 'blue-sky' Leave brigade recognised what a catastrophic outcome it will be for some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Daft denials only generate more antipathy and you are right to point out how dire the consequences may be for some.....

Yep. I submitted a question for the BBC PM debate (which amazingly they didn't pick up) asking each candidate who says they would pursue No Deal what body count they are prepared to accept as being worth that outcome. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

 

[Gwylan]

I have no romantic affinity with the protestants of Ulster, but Ulster is de facto part of our country ... Only full independence for Ulster allows it, and even then it becomes compulsory ONLY if there is no hard border between Ulster and Eire.

Ulster isn't part of our country ... some of it is.

There can't be a hard border between Ulster and Eire (sic) because part of Ulster is in the ROI

 

[Trufflehound]

Ulster isn't part of our country ... some of it is.

There can't be a hard border between Ulster and Eire (sic) because part of Ulster is in the ROI

He's clearly been typing so much his little fingers went stiff. He meant an alternative Ulster...

 

[WATFORD zero]

I have no romantic affinity with the protestants of Ulster, but Ulster is de facto part of our country (our country, by the way, is The United Kingdom which, oddly, is comprised of four constituent countries; the notion of a country is a peculiar thing). Consequently we cannot have a hard border between one part of the country (Ulster) and the rest. We simply cannot. Devolution does not allow for it. Only full independence for Ulster allows it, and even then it becomes compulsory ONLY if there is no hard border between Ulster and Eire.

Our current hard border with EU nations, manifested at sea ports and airports, where passport control is implemented, is an artificial construct we have kept because we did not fancy a porous border such as between France and Germany/Belgium etc. This was a concession to the xenophobic Brits, tiresome but determined entirely by ourselves and tolerated by our weary neighbours.

So, we could, if we want, have an open border with France at the ferry ports and, at airports with Italy and Germany etc., now. Obviously that is anathema to Brexitters, which is why we don't.

Yet....there has been an open border between Eire and Ulster for many years, has there not? That means an open border between the EU and the country called the United Kingdom. So....and bear with me here (I am a remainer after all)....we have passport control with the EU right now, everywhere except between the Ulster and Eire border, and we haven't all died. So....why can't we carry on in the same way after we leave?

Surely if we can visualise how travel to France or Italy will be after we leave, importing via lorries and trains, with presumably not a great deal more border checking than we have now, why is there a need to change anything in terms of arrangements with Eire? Edit: having read up on this, we will have to up the ante when importing and (especuially exporting) ti the EU because we won't have a free trade deal an all exports to the EU will need to be validated (the contaminated prawn issue, see below). That is a separate issue.

Obviously if we find there is a flood of guns, drugs and Albanians across the Irish border after Brexit then we can deal with that then. But....there is an open border there now so why would there be a sudden massive increase in illegal activity? Is that 'project fear'?

Can someone explain to me, in a few sentences (ideally) what the problem is here?

Boris claims that a workaround can be found, which acknowledges that there is a real issue, but he hasn't said what it is. That sounds like the worst of all worlds. If my musings above are correct there is no real problem, so why doesn't he say so? If there is a real problem (that I don't understand) as appears to be the case, then what is his solution?

I decided to look up the Irish Border issue online (several sources) to find out what the problem actually is. Basically it seems that the plan is to leave the border as it is now, but not label this as a permanant solution. In order to allow the possibility of bringing in a hard border in Ireland (to protect the EU from the dangers of crap the UK imports, like antibiotic laden shrimps from the far east coming into the EU) then a hard border may be invoked - this is the 'backstop'.

Unfortunately parliament voted this down on a range of different grounds: the ERG weirdos say this means effectively Northern Ireland (and by definition the UK) will remain in the customs union all the while the order remains open and that is unacceptable. This means they want a hard border in Ireland since nothing else addresses their isues (except a hard border in the North Sea - the traitors!). Others argue that the backstop must be time limited so a proper solution can be introduced at a defined point. Others claim the backstop is illusory because a technological solution (favoured by the EU, involving some sort of as-yet-uninvented way of scanning and tagging imports and exprts using some sort of super fast and powerful MRI machine) is pie in the sky. So we will either be saddled with an open border forever (which the ERG will never accept) or we will have to go 'hard border' within a defined period, which the Ulstermen and, more importantly, the Eire folk (who have the power of veto) will never accept.

Ok....just as I though and have maintained repeatedly, Brexit cannot happen all the while there are elected MPs with a vote who object to one or other aspect of the only possible ways to get Brexit done. I can relax again, happy in the knowledge that Boris cannot get the deal done, and will be prevented for hard Brexitting by his own party if he foolishly tries to go that route.

If I understand the question correctly, you are asking if we (Britain) could keep the open border in NI, as current, after we leave the EU ? (Continuing to give the EU complete access to all British markets and Freedom of movement across that border)

A few issues that I can see.

Currently, there is no difference whether goods come though Dover or over the Irish border. If we have left the EU then the rules governing goods (Imports and Exports) would be significantly different and if they weren't applied on the Irish Border, everything would simply head to that border until the rules were aligned and border posts were built to apply those rules.

Even if we want to give the EU full access to British markets and people, the EU may not want to continue to give unfettered access to the EU in return, as that is the main benefit of being a member of the EU.The Brexiteers may well cry out that that's the EU's problem and it will be down to the EU to put customs posts in Ireland. However I'm not sure that giving the EU full access to British Markets and people while having no such reciprocal access is sustainable. (Import tariffs only going one way etc).

The most pressing issue I can see though is that we will be operating under the infamous WTO. Their Most Preferred Nations (MPN) rules say that if we grant unlimited access for the EU to British Markets and People, we must also grant it to the whole world.

Is that what you were looking for ?

 

[Stat Brother]

In the off chance this hasn't been posted yet:-

[tweet]1143622994910203909[/tweet]