BREXIT GOES BACK AND FIFTH

[Alberon]

Yes, that's the whole point - what's that got to do with Paul's hot take about 'how is this securing our borders'? Why would anyone advocating this as a reason for leaving the EU include Ireland anyway? Everyone acknowledges there are some very specific special circumstances existing between the UK and Ireland.

Ireland is part of the EU. Despite the long and happy relationship between the Republic and UK there are many good legal reasons there has to be a border if there is not a customs union. If May could have worked out the backstop problem she could potentially be home free right now, but no one else has suggested it. Why?

Because it wouldn't work.

So now May is scrabbling around for something, anything to make a version of her plan work while we're staring a No Deal Brexit in the face.

[biggytitbo]

Well I can't speak for May as I'm long past understanding what she's doing/thinking, but the EU don't want to solve the backstop issue, they want to wangle a reversal of Brexit. Why would they even bother contemplating alternatives when they can dig their heels in and effectively make it too difficult for us to leave?

[Buelligan]

There isn't a solution to be had Biggy.  Some things, no matter how inconvenient, cannot just be hand-waved away.

Yes, that's the whole point - what's that got to do with Paul's hot take about 'how is this securing our borders'? Why would anyone advocating this as a reason for leaving the EU include Ireland anyway? Everyone acknowledges there are some very specific special circumstances existing between the UK and Ireland.

So what happens if Turkey joins the EU and all the Turkish people in the world go to Dublin and hire a car up to Belfast?


_{Not Turkish people with a liar, earlier}

[biggytitbo]

Well there obviously is a solution, it's just not expedient for some of the parties as they desperately want to retain the status quo. Since most of these issues are already covered by bilateral agreements between the UK and ireland that aren't anything to do with the EU, the major barrier is customs, but there is a solution to that - Richard Tuck's solution, that would work in the short term whilst a UK-EU trade deal is negotiated. The real barrier here is the self serving lack of political will amongst at least one of the parties involved.

[Howj Begg]

While biggy is screaming into the howling void of his own insanity doing blue sky thinking, here's a bulletin from the real world, courtesy of Peston:

The prime minister's plans B, C , D and E are all the same: run down the clock as close as possible to 29 March, Brexit Day, so that enough of the critics to her Brexit plan blink at the risk of either crashing out with no deal or seeing Brexit cancelled such that it passes at the last.

In two words, the Brexit strategy is "Tick Tock".

Yesterday's conference-call cabinet meeting was a masterclass in Theresa May as bulldozer and ministers "sitting back", according to one of them.

She outlined as her preferred course the only approach that stands a chance of keeping her party together, which I've been reporting on for days – namely putting all her effort into persuading the EU to amend the widely hated backstop so that it could become less toxic to her Tory Brexiter critics and Northern Ireland's 10 DUP MPs, her bulwark against total incapacity to govern.

The attraction of this approach to her is that – unlike adopting a Brexit that could woo Labour MPs to vote for her Brexit plan – it would not cleave her party in two.

The flaws are equally obvious.

First there is little prospect right now that the EU and the Republic of Ireland will move enough – as my contacts with representatives of EU27 governments make crystal clear.

Their view is that if the UK could commit to staying in the customs union forever, then the backstop could more easily be cast as a temporary bridge. But of course the PM cannot commit to such, because the moment she would do that would be the moment 100 odd of her MPs would resign from the party.

Second it is by no means clear that the PM has the votes even if all the DUP and each of the backstop sceptics were to vote with her, because there are both Brexiter and Remainer Tory MPs who hate her deal for reasons other than the backstop – most importantly that £39bn is being handed over in a divorce payment for an uncertain long-term trading and security relationship with the EU.

So we are in a place which is profoundly unsettling to business, trade unions, many British people, and even members of the PMs own government – namely there will be another government led Brexit-negotiating process that could get us nowhere nearer settling our Brexit future.

This new leg of potentially pointless process starts this afternoon, when the PM will spell out her revised route to a deal in the form of a motion, that will then be amended by backbenchers.

There will then be votes on the amendments – the important ones probably having the effect of coercing the PM to endeavour to rule out a no-deal Brexit – on Tuesday week, 29 January.

An acceleration of talks with the EU will follow, and another "meaningful" (or potentially "meaningless") vote on a tweaked version of the PMs Brexit plan in mid February.

By which point we will be a month from the due date for exiting the EU, and if parliament were to reject her deal we may be no nearer knowing how and even whether we are actually leaving the EU.

"The world is laughing at us" a minister said to me. "And for some reason the PM doesn't seem bothered".

[Buelligan]

It's absolutely incredible.  As if everything is subservient to Theresa May delivering no one's Brexit and nothing else matters at all.  It's really frightening that the leader of a country like Britain can behave openly like this and the people don't seem to notice that much.  I can confirm, everyone (not British) that I've spoken to recently about Britain and Brexit just looks astounded by it.  Embarrassed, like they saw your granny pissed and knickerless, lying in the road.  I'd be ashamed if I was the sort to have patriotic feelings.

[phantom_power]

I imagine if it were as easy as "we have had a relationship with NI for 90 years" then there wouldn't be this much fuss about it. That suggests to me it might be a bit more complicated than that

[hummingofevil]

Oh wait... I think I've got it. EU nationals (say a low-skilled Bulgarian fruit picker for example) travels to Dublin. Have no need for visa but show their passport. They then travel to Lincolnshire  via Belfast and the non-existence of a hard border because no one from the UK has ever "insisted on one".

On arrival in Lincolnshire there is plenty of fruit to be picked but no one to do it and farmers have a choice. Pay the existing local residences £15 an hour to do so in a lefty-Brexit utopia (and go bust) or give the Bulgarian a job as he's willing to do it for less.

The Bulgarian is not entitled to work in UK legally as Mr Farmer hasn't arranged the visas as the increased administration costs and pressures from supermarkets and consumers is deflating his prices.so sorry Mr Bulgarian you can't work here and all this fruit is going to have to rot.

Nope. Wrong again. The Bulgarian gets the job but unlike last year where it was minimum wage with legal protections and employer obligations it's black-market, cash in hand, expoiltative work. Wage deflation increases and it's another "benefit of Brexit to the working classes" debunked.

Still at least it will stop these people sending money back home as they will barely be able to live. One consolation for the Leavers!

[Buelligan]

You might well think that.

I imagine if it were as easy as "we have had a relationship with NI for 90 years" then there wouldn't be this much fuss about it. That suggests to me it might be a bit more complicated than that

Of the Irish people I've heard speak of it, it's like Britain's insulting them again by not appearing to have the smallest inkling of what the problem is.

[Zetetic]

Passport controls are practically less of an issue than customs and the like.

The latter opens us up to all sorts of WTO-endorsed nastiness (and undermines any serious attempts at equitable negotiation of trade agreements), unless you think that we can try to abuse the war-or-catastrophe clause without consequence as biggy suggests.

ID checks already occur on flights and semi-sporadically on ferry crossings. My partner - a British-born British resident with British citizenship - was interrogated as to her purpose last time we arrived at Liverpool from Belfast as they were travelling on a non-British passport.

[biggytitbo]

It's all complicated, nobody is arguing the situation isn't complex, but the ultimate problem is the lack of good faith amongst the negotiating parties - where's the incentive for solving the 'backstop' issue, or indeed any issues that would leave to us actually leaving, when it suits one side to make them 'unsolvable'?

Looks like now its a battle between May and her game of chicken and parliament whether they can block her. What can Corbyn do now? Multiple votes of no confidence in the hope that some remain tories will peel off?

[Zetetic]

There is no backstop issue.

We signed a peace treaty and the backstop is nothing more than an affirmation of the logical consequences of that treaty in the context of other commitments. Any other view - with respect to Jeremy - is nationalistic flim-flam for the sake of noise-making.

[Buelligan]

It's all complicated, nobody is arguing the situation isn't complex, but the ultimate problem is the lack of good faith amongst the negotiating parties - where's the incentive for solving the 'backstop' issue, or indeed any issues that would leave to us actually leaving, when it suits one side to make them 'unsolvable'?

Every time you repeat this something inside me dies.  What is your solution bigs, if it's so easy?  What is your solution in good faith?  Write it out in simple terms, so even people like me can understand or stop parroting this crap.

[Soup Dogg]

Well there obviously is a solution, it's just not expedient for some of the parties as they desperately want to retain the status quo. Since most of these issues are already covered by bilateral agreements between the UK and ireland that aren't anything to do with the EU, the major barrier is customs, but there is a solution to that - Richard Tuck's solution, that would work in the short term whilst a UK-EU trade deal is negotiated. The real barrier here is the self serving lack of political will amongst at least one of the parties involved.

Richard Tuck's 'solution' is an untested and deeply hypothetical hail mary which wouldn't even guarantee the brief respite it's meant to achieve. And even if it did, it would only kick the can down the road.

The EU is adopting the only position it can, unless it wants to fuck over Ireland. The one EU27 country which shares a land border with the UK has a delicate and hard won peace the terms and viability of which preclude the presence of a hard border. You can't square that circle by claiming an international emergency just to buy more time to strike up an agreement which... would be what, exactly? Chequers? Shall we just keep the emergency until the much vaunted technological solutions actually exist?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Tories dragging us down into the abyss

38% still agree with this

[hummingofevil]

Every time you repeat this something inside me dies.  What is your solution bigs, if it's so easy?  What is your solution in good faith?  Write it out in simple terms, so even people like me can understand or stop parroting this crap.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/michael-gove-a-fanatic-who-would-damage-peace-process-1.2710224

I think this is what he means by negotiating in good faith?

TBF, Gove might have changed his mind since then. Like people do

[Zetetic]

Apologies - a correction to my last post.

Some people believe that the peace treaty was the result of a betrayal of "this country" by a Labour government, and a surrender to terrorists, and opposing the backstop also forms part of a strategy to force the UK to abandon that peace treaty.

[Paul Calf]

Yes, that's the whole point - what's that got to do with Paul's hot take about 'how is this securing our borders'? Why would anyone advocating this as a reason for leaving the EU include Ireland anyway? Everyone acknowledges there are some very specific special circumstances existing between the UK and Ireland.

Because whatever we allow Ireland to do, we have to allow everyone to do.

Because even having one open border to the EU means we do not control that border.

[biggytitbo]

Passport controls are practically less of an issue than customs and the like.

The latter opens us up to all sorts of WTO-endorsed nastiness (and undermines any serious attempts at equitable negotiation of trade agreements), unless you think that we can try to abuse the war-or-catastrophe clause without consequence as biggy suggests.

That doesn't work when the rhetoric about us breaking the peace process and going back to bloodshed and conflict absolutely fits into the 'international emergency clause'. Either this rhetoric is true, or someone is trying to exploit the situation?


Also, the WTO, as Tuck mentions, works slowly and many countries have been in breach of its rules before without attaining some kind of pariah status. I can't imagine who would be queuing up to be the one to force us to break an internationally recognised peace treaty in any case.

[Zetetic]

"Pariah status" is your term, not mine.

The point isn't about breaking the peace treaty but about exiting the customs union in an orderly manner.

[biggytitbo]

Because whatever we allow Ireland to do, we have to allow everyone to do.

Because even having one open border to the EU means we do not control that border.

For customs yes, but as already explained the WTO provides a way around this that would work in the short term. I don't see why anything else would be affected as our arrangements on passports etc are bilateral between the UK and ireland, not the EU.

"Pariah status" is your term, not mine.

The point isn't about breaking the peace treaty but about exiting the customs union in an orderly manner.

What WTO nastiness do you have in mind then? Are you saying all parties wouldn't recognise this as a unique situation that justified some technical breaches of the rules in the short term, if that was even required? It still reads a lot more like a story of political will than rules to me. Exiting the customs union and reverting to WTO terms might cause disruptions, although both sides are now  working on contingency measures (albeit belatedly). But the idea it would cause some massive long term systemic failure is still the feverish nightmare fulfillment fantasies of ultra remainers.

[biggytitbo]

Poland has broken ranks with the rest of the EU and suggested a 5 year time limit on the 'backstop', which it says would be better for Ireland than a no deal.


Even if that was viable, would it be enough to get May's deal through the commons? I think there's a fair few tories who aren't going to vote for it under any circumstances, and all the other parties will vote against no matter what.

[Paul Calf]

Poland knows what's best for Ireland, better than Ireland does?

We all know what would be best for Ireland, for Britain and for the EU. But no-one dares to say it.

[Buelligan]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/michael-gove-a-fanatic-who-would-damage-peace-process-1.2710224

I think this is what he means by negotiating in good faith?

TBF, Gove might have changed his mind since then. Like people do

Woweee.  I didn't think it was possible for me to hate him more than I already do.  I do actually hate him, I think.

[Buelligan]

For customs yes, but as already explained the WTO provides a way around this that would work in the short term. I don't see why anything else would be affected as our arrangements on passports etc are bilateral between the UK and ireland, not the EU.

So you envisage every person travelling from Northern Ireland into mainland UK would have to have their passports examined (unlike travelling between any other two countries in the UK)?  And that would be treating NI the same as all other parts of the UK would it?

[biggytitbo]

So you envisage every person travelling from Northern Ireland into mainland UK would have to have their passports examined (unlike travelling between any other two countries in the UK)?  And that would be treating NI the same as all other parts of the UK would it?

How would it need to differ to the current CTA arrangements?

[Buelligan]

Surely the point is that is should differ. 

Isn't the point, a big point at least, of Brexit, that we control immigration, control free movement of people and control R borders?

Taking back control, isn't that what it's all about?

[Paul Calf]

She's making a statement now. Seems to consist of "My agreement is the only agreement. There is no alternative. Back my fucking deal".

https://www.rt.com/uk/449354-may-alternative-brexit-plan/

[Paul Calf]

Fuck me, she's shit. A grey, empty bag of nothing,.

[biggytitbo]

Wow, she literally has nothing new to say at all. Incredible.