Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Planigale]

The uncertainty is caused by the UK not having a plan or putting forward proposals grounded in reality. To be honest the only thing Brexiteers have had in common was that they believed in the idea that the UK should leave the EU. Problem is that everyone seems to have their own idea of what "leaving" would be so there's no coherent plan.



How is this the result of their own actions? From what I can tell Remainers have accepted that Brexit is going to happen, the question is how badly will the government cock it up.



The UK is going to leave, they've already put in their paperwork to do so. But that's not the cause of the uncertainty, regardless of you wanting it to be.

Besides, you're allowed to oppose policies outright, that's the point of a democratic society.

The other problem is that the official position of the EU is that the negotiations should not be successful. That the UK must suffer for leaving the EU. The EU is philosophically opposed to a win-win solution. The preferred EU option is an EU win - UK lose outcome.

The EU negotiating position is by definition illogical; there must be no barrier between the UK and the EU (at the Irish / UK land border); there cannot be a barrier free border between the UK and the EU. The only logical solution for the EU is a barrier free border between the UK and the EU but they cannot agree to this because it would mean the UK would not suffer from leaving the EU and the UK must be made to suffer for leaving the EU.

Without a fundamental change in the EU negotiating position I cannot see an agreed solution.

 

[The Don]

The other problem is that the official position of the EU is that the negotiations should not be successful. That the UK must suffer for leaving the EU. The EU is philosophically opposed to a win-win solution. The preferred EU option is an EU win - UK lose outcome.

The EU negotiating position is by definition illogical; there must be no barrier between the UK and the EU (at the Irish / UK land border); there cannot be a barrier free border between the UK and the EU. The only logical solution for the EU is a barrier free border between the UK and the EU but they cannot agree to this because it would mean the UK would not suffer from leaving the EU and the UK must be made to suffer for leaving the EU.

Without a fundamental change in the EU negotiating position I cannot see an agreed solution.

I disagree that the EU wants to punish the UK - OTOH the UK cannot have all the benefits of EU membership that it wants without having to do any of the other things that it doesn't. What's the point of having a club, with rules and a subscription, if another party can get all the benefits without having to be a member ?

As I understand it, the EU would be receptive to the idea of the UK having a barrier free border, so long as the UK agrees to have the same kind of conditions that other non-EU countries have - adherence to EU law, free movement of people and so forth.

The UK government doesn't want to agree to those conditions - the equivalent of wanting to continue to be able to use the Golf Club bar without paying the annual subscription or adhering to the dress code. The situation is complicated by the fact that the majority of Brexiteers voted Leave precisely because they didn't want to pay the sub and didn't want to adhere to the dress code and that from their perspective, nominally leaving the club whilst still keeping to the rules makes no sense.

 

[Pixel42]

The other problem is that the official position of the EU is that the negotiations should not be successful. That the UK must suffer for leaving the EU. The EU is philosophically opposed to a win-win solution. The preferred EU option is an EU win - UK lose outcome.

The EU negotiating position is by definition illogical; there must be no barrier between the UK and the EU (at the Irish / UK land border); there cannot be a barrier free border between the UK and the EU. The only logical solution for the EU is a barrier free border between the UK and the EU but they cannot agree to this because it would mean the UK would not suffer from leaving the EU and the UK must be made to suffer for leaving the EU.

Without a fundamental change in the EU negotiating position I cannot see an agreed solution.

Look at it from the EU's point of view: there's hardly a country in it which doesn't have its own contingent of backwards looking isolationists who are watching the current farce with interest. If Britain does end up better off, or even no worse off, they will start pushing for their own referendums and the EU will disintegrate.

The members of a club must have a better deal than non members, otherwise what's the point of the club?

I suspect the greatest contribution Britain will ever make to the success of the EU will be to demonstrate, by leaving it, what a bloody stupid thing that is to do.

 

[Klimax]

The other problem is that the official position of the EU is that the negotiations should not be successful. That the UK must suffer for leaving the EU. The EU is philosophically opposed to a win-win solution. The preferred EU option is an EU win - UK lose outcome.

The EU negotiating position is by definition illogical; there must be no barrier between the UK and the EU (at the Irish / UK land border); there cannot be a barrier free border between the UK and the EU. The only logical solution for the EU is a barrier free border between the UK and the EU but they cannot agree to this because it would mean the UK would not suffer from leaving the EU and the UK must be made to suffer for leaving the EU.

Without a fundamental change in the EU negotiating position I cannot see an agreed solution.

Terminally idiotic nonsense. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Deal with it.

 

[Klimax]

Look at it from the EU's point of view: there's hardly a country in it which doesn't have its own contingent of backwards looking isolationists who are watching the current farce with interest. If Britain does end up better off, or even no worse off, they will start pushing for their own referendums and the EU will disintegrate.

The members of a club must have a better deal than non members, otherwise what's the point of the club?

I suspect the greatest contribution Britain will ever make to the success of the EU will be to demonstrate, by leaving it, what a bloody stupid thing that is to do.

Brits are doing stellar work in that regard. Even mainstream EU-sceptic party changed rhetoric .

 

[ponderingturtle]

The other problem is that the official position of the EU is that the negotiations should not be successful. That the UK must suffer for leaving the EU. The EU is philosophically opposed to a win-win solution. The preferred EU option is an EU win - UK lose outcome.

The EU negotiating position is by definition illogical; there must be no barrier between the UK and the EU (at the Irish / UK land border);

Where is that the EU position? I thought that was the UK position to keep the good friday agreement intact. I don't think the EU as a whole really cares about it, as the only member that likely cares at all about it is Ireland.

there cannot be a barrier free border between the UK and the EU. The only logical solution for the EU is a barrier free border between the UK and the EU but they cannot agree to this because it would mean the UK would not suffer from leaving the EU and the UK must be made to suffer for leaving the EU.

Without a fundamental change in the EU negotiating position I cannot see an agreed solution.

So what is the clear position that the UK government wants? Even ignoring the whole having a cake after eating it issues that it wants things that are flatly contradictory.

 

[Strawberry]

Where is that the EU position? I thought that was the UK position to keep the good friday agreement intact. I don't think the EU as a whole really cares about it, as the only member that likely cares at all about it is Ireland.



So what is the clear position that the UK government wants? Even ignoring the whole having a cake after eating it issues that it wants things that are flatly contradictory.

That's not accurate. The EU negotiators have taken on board the stipulation that there must be no hard border on the island of Ireland. Whether that's because they really 'care' or because Ireland has veto powers over any trade deal is immaterial really. They care in the sense that that's the EU's position on the subject, not just the Irish government's - you might almost call it an EU red line.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not accurate. The EU negotiators have taken on board the stipulation that there must be no hard border on the island of Ireland. Whether that's because they really 'care' or because Ireland has veto powers over any trade deal is immaterial really. They care in the sense that that's the EU's position on the subject, not just the Irish government's - you might almost call it an EU red line.

I am just shocked anyone expects a deal to happen, clearly it is going to be a no deal hard brexit.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

To be honest the only thing Brexiteers have had in common was that they believed in the idea that the UK should leave the EU.

I don't think that even this is completely true, certainly at the highest level. I still believe Boris and Gove wanted a slim defeat in order to stage a party political coup. The actions of many other leaders of the Leave campaigns also suggests they "didn't want a victory, they just wanted to fight" as they line up foreign passports, residencies etc.

 

[Strawberry]

I am just shocked anyone expects a deal to happen, clearly it is going to be a no deal hard brexit.

I think so too, in fact I think the only way a deal could be done is to have another GE and change the maths at Westminster. Either a Labour government or a Tory government not dependent on the DUP could do a deal, but this current crowd, no.

 

[The Don]

I think so too, in fact I think the only way a deal could be done is to have another GE and change the maths at Westminster. Either a Labour government or a Tory government not dependent on the DUP could do a deal, but this current crowd, no.

Sadly, I don't think that it would make a difference in any case. There are too many hardline Brexiteers in the Conservative Party to allow any kind of deal to go through - presuming that the minimum deal is the UK continuing to have to abide by EU law, stay in the customs union, allow freedom of movement and make significant financial contributions in order to keep the border with Ireland open.

The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has also nailed its colours to the Brexit mast, despite a significant majority of Labour voters, and the vast majority of Labour MPs, supporting Remain. The kind of deal that Jeremy Corbyn would be looking for would be anathema to non-Brexit Conservatives and vice versa.

I suppose if a General Election resulted in the fundamental reshaping of the Westminster landscape then there may be a chance, but for Labour to get rid of Corbyn, they would have had to have had a bad election which means they wouldn't be in a position to take the lead which would mean that the deeply divided Conservative Party would be firmly in control. I suppose that the LibDems could win thanks to a pro-EU message but IMO a parliament of unicorns is more likely.

Hardline, no deal Brexit, a collapse of the Good Friday Agreement and a series of disastrous trade deals it is

 

[Strawberry]

Sadly, I don't think that it would make a difference in any case. There are too many hardline Brexiteers in the Conservative Party to allow any kind of deal to go through - presuming that the minimum deal is the UK continuing to have to abide by EU law, stay in the customs union, allow freedom of movement and make significant financial contributions in order to keep the border with Ireland open.

The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has also nailed its colours to the Brexit mast, despite a significant majority of Labour voters, and the vast majority of Labour MPs, supporting Remain. The kind of deal that Jeremy Corbyn would be looking for would be anathema to non-Brexit Conservatives and vice versa.

I suppose if a General Election resulted in the fundamental reshaping of the Westminster landscape then there may be a chance, but for Labour to get rid of Corbyn, they would have had to have had a bad election which means they wouldn't be in a position to take the lead which would mean that the deeply divided Conservative Party would be firmly in control. I suppose that the LibDems could win thanks to a pro-EU message but IMO a parliament of unicorns is more likely.

Hardline, no deal Brexit, a collapse of the Good Friday Agreement and a series of disastrous trade deals it is

Without the DUP there would be another compromise available - make a special deal for NI and let the rest of the UK sail off into the sunny uplands of Brexit utopia. They would have done it by now too, only for Arlene Foster phoning May at the last minute before she was about to sign up to exactly that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that even this is completely true, certainly at the highest level. I still believe Boris and Gove wanted a slim defeat in order to stage a party political coup. The actions of many other leaders of the Leave campaigns also suggests they "didn't want a victory, they just wanted to fight" as they line up foreign passports, residencies etc.

And quit in the days immediately following the result.

 

[The Don]

Without the DUP there would be another compromise available - make a special deal for NI and let the rest of the UK sail off into the sunny uplands of Brexit utopia. They would have done it by now too, only for Arlene Foster phoning May at the last minute before she was about to sign up to exactly that.

Ah yes, I had discounted that as an option because I thought that there'd be enough Conservative Brexiteers who would also consider that a move too far.

 

[Francesca R]

Oh well I have come to regard the north-south Ireland border situation as rather a good thing that will force a soft Brexit outcome. Or a honking big delay either to the treaty article 50 expiry, or to the transition period, or just you-know-like having some period after the transition period in which things continue to transition:

(i) Everyone (the EU, UK Brexiteers, UK Bremainers, All in NI) wants no customs border, or almost none, in Ireland (ii) The Tories depend on a handful of DUP MPs whose politics are in general a grade or two nastier than the Tories but whose single useful characteristic is their hardline refusal to allow an "Irish Sea" border either.

Plus two years on there is no credible Brexiteer who could run the Conservative party, just a few who would probably crash the government and make way for PM Corbyn, and they seem to know this. (Who predicted two years ago that in the next two years the leave mob would actually fail to advance any of their issues to a showdown / brink? Not me)

Plus (I think?) most of the cabinet supports a customs union in all but name (well all but half of name if it means "customs partnership"). Not to mention most of the House of Commons. Oh and most of the House of Lords, bless them.

 

[Strawberry]

Ah yes, I had discounted that as an option because I thought that there'd be enough Conservative Brexiteers who would also consider that a move too far.

I doubt it. Theresa May had already agreed to it and was just about to sign on the dotted line before a panicky phone call from Arlene Foster stopped her.

Besides, its been done before - there were border controls put in place between NI and GB at the outbreak of WW2, and before you say the war is different, those controls were left in place until 1953. If the Unionists could be told to lump it between 1945 and 1953, when they were relatively more powerful than they are today, the DUP can be told the same. Or they could be if Theresa May had a working majority without them.

I suspect the debate which is currently happening in HoC about extending abortion rights to NI is a dry run from May to see how far she can push the DUP before they risk Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street.

 

[Francesca R]

And the UK under Labour would be a soft Brexit (If a lot of other things as well)

 

[jimbob]

I doubt it. Theresa May had already agreed to it and was just about to sign on the dotted line before a panicky phone call from Arlene Foster stopped her.

Besides, its been done before - there were border controls put in place between NI and GB at the outbreak of WW2, and before you say the war is different, those controls were left in place until 1953. If the Unionists could be told to lump it between 1945 and 1953, when they were relatively more powerful than they are today, the DUP can be told the same. Or they could be if Theresa May had a working majority without them.
I suspect the debate which is currently happening in HoC about extending abortion rights to NI is a dry run from May to see how far she can push the DUP before they risk Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street.

The highlighted part is key.

Also Theresa May is terrified of confrontation with her supporters backers, when actually her weakness is a perverse strength as the tories are scared of Corbyn.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh well I have come to regard the north-south Ireland border situation as rather a good thing that will force a soft Brexit outcome. Or a honking big delay either to the treaty article 50 expiry, or to the transition period, or just you-know-like having some period after the transition period in which things continue to transition:

What kind of agreement is needed to extend article 50? It seems the easiest way to get some actual results is to have one side refuse to extend it. If it needs consensus from all EU nations then a hard no deal article 50 seems the most likely result.

 

[Francesca R]

It needs unanimity (not consensus) from all EU nations. So it's hard, but possible. Same hurdle as (for example) the EU admitting a new member, which it has obviously done several times.

At this stage the more talked about version seems to be not that, and not extending the transition period, but some kind of post-transition transition.