UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope, not really. You know what the backstop mechanism is, and why it is there? If you did, you know why there couldn't be an escape mechanism. But then again, you also pretend to have voted remain.

 

Being unable to leave the backstop without the EU's permission is a big sticking point for many. I'm not sure what your point is.
 

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think this sounds relatively realistic. 

1) The problem is I don't see what deal could ever be agreed upon, I don't know what the EU could give that would be signed off on by all sides. There seems to be so much disagreement. Having a solid escape mechanism from the backstop would have to be the most obvious thing to include.

2) I'm thinking more that this is the most likely scenario. But then what is the question. There is no deal to vote on vs no deal. If its no deal vs remain and remain loses... then what?! 

On 1, I definitely don't think there is any.  I blame May for a lot of things, but failing to negotiate a better deal isn't one of them.  Dr. Strange can run 14 million scenarios and find there still isn't one. 

On 2, yes, hashing out the question will be contentious, but it's nothing compared to the problems currently facing the country.  And if the UK votes No Deal then you do it.  At that point you just have to hope that you (and all the experts) are wrong about how bad everything is going to be.

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This may come to pass, but there's a lot of fear from Leave-voting constituency MPs that voting for a second referendum would be seen as a betrayal (especially if Remain then won, but not from those constituencies) and they'd get booted out at the next election anyway.

That's fair, that is a problem.  A skilled politician might be able to survive that (at least it seems an easier sell than either No deal or revoking Article 50).  But expecting effective politicking is too much these days.  It's almost as if MPs have set up the scaffold for themselves and are just waiting for the drop.

[Denvek]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Being unable to leave the backstop without the EU's permission is a big sticking point for many. I'm not sure what your point is.
 

The whole point of the backstop is that it's the absolute minimum necessary for the UK to meet its treaty obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving the backstop without the EU agreeing that what we're leaving it for is also "good enough" means the government's probably violating an international treaty, and that's just asking for Trouble.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Being unable to leave the backstop without the EU's permission is a big sticking point for many. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, that you and your fellow Brexiters don't really understand the reasons (or do not care for them) for the backstop being there. If you did, you know why there can't be an exit mechanism. It's just contradictory to the backstop mechanism itself.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Denvek said:

The whole point of the backstop is that it's the absolute minimum necessary for the UK to meet its treaty obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving the backstop without the EU agreeing that what we're leaving it for is also "good enough" means the government's probably violating an international treaty, and that's just asking for Trouble.

Surely it would only be illegal to leave that treaty if it says in the treaty that the UK could not leave without permission of the EU. If the treaty allows a timed exit or guarantee the EU wouldn't veto it then it can't be illegal?

 

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

My point is, that you and your fellow Brexiters don't really understand the reasons (or do not care for them) for the backstop being there. If you did, you know why there can't be an exit mechanism. It's just contradictory to the backstop mechanism itself.

It isn't about the reasons for the backstop, the difficulty is being a position where the UK is forever trapped in a position the EU can keep them in which is advantageous to one side with no way to get out. 

[Chaircat Meow]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Being unable to leave the backstop without the EU's permission is a big sticking point for many. I'm not sure what your point is.
 

I think the backstop itself is irrelevant. A backstop like provision is a necessary condition of the UK getting any trade deal, even if we got an exit deal without a backstop, as Ireland has a veto on all trade deals, as an EU member state. 

Let us say the EU did not include provisions for Ireland in the withdrawal treaty. Ok, so the ERG gets behind the deal and it passes and the UK goes into the transition period. Then you have to negotiate a trade deal and Ireland has a VETO. Ireland would veto any trade deal which did not replicate the current backstop provisions for N. Ireland, as no Irish government would survive the fallout if they failed to do so. So backstop or no backstop the UK would be faced with an open border in Ireland, and all it entails (i.e. full-UK membership of EU customs union, bits of the SM, or checks in the Irish Sea) if it wanted anything else than no deal.

[Denvek]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Surely it would only be illegal to leave that treaty if it says in the treaty that the UK could not leave without permission of the EU. If the treaty allows a timed exit or guarantee the EU wouldn't veto it then it can't be illegal?

 

It isn't about the reasons for the backstop, the difficulty is being a position where the UK is forever trapped in a position the EU can keep them in which is advantageous to one side with no way to get out. 

The treaty I'm talking about is the Good Friday Agreement, not whatever withdrawal treaty may happen. Anything that closes the Irish border violates that treaty, and while it is technically legal for countries to walk away from treaties if they want to, leaving that one unilaterally will have consequences no one wants. I'm aware that most British people, myself included, generally don't give a monkey's about Northern Ireland, I would prefer that the government was smart enough to realise that The Troubles starting up again would be bad.

As for being "trapped" in the backstop, there's several ways out of it, the two ends being keeping the UK in the customs union at one end, and putting the customs border in the Irish sea (or even the actual border if a border poll happens and the nationalists win) at the other. And I'd bet that as soon as there's a government that doesn't need Northern Irish support to stay in power, one of those things will happen very quickly.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It isn't about the reasons for the backstop, the difficulty is being a position where the UK is forever trapped in a position the EU can keep them in which is advantageous to one side with no way to get out. 

Yep, it's all about Britain's freedom, not about its obligations and treaties it's singed. Have our cake and eat it. Spoken like a true Brexiter.

Who gives a damn a bout stuff likesay the Good Friday Agreement.

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Surely it would only be illegal to leave that treaty if it says in the treaty that the UK could not leave without permission of the EU. If the treaty allows a timed exit or guarantee the EU wouldn't veto it then it can't be illegal?

Surely you see the problem with signing up to contract which one side can declare void on a whim, or at least with regards to the bits it doesn't like. Afterall, the backstop is there to keep the GFA in place (namely no hard border on the Irish Island), which Brexiters across the board have called obsolete (be them red kippers like Hoey, or idiots like Johnson, or the DUP (who have never really been that fond of it in the first place)).

The British Goverment had the chance to come up with a workable alternative to the backstop, which it couldn't. Apart from some fantasy technologies that do not exist. If they were that confident of technologies being there in the near future, surely there would be no problem with the backstop being there as an insurance policy, no?

 

 

[williamjm]

46 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The result just logjams Parliament. So May's deal is dead, the EU won't renegotiate but we can't have a No-Deal situation, so Article 50 will be revoked or extended and then what? Complete paralysis until 2022? That seems untenable.

There is a small chance that May might lose tomorrow night's result, but it would require several Tory MPs to rebel or not show up, and I can't see any Conservative, even the most ardent hard-Brexiter or Remainer, wanting to risk Corbyn getting into power.

I think you're probably right, although it's possible some of them might think it was in the long-term best interests of the Tory party to have an election and let Corbyn have to deal with the mess of Brexit.

Another thing that probably won't happen is Rees-Mogg and his gang voting down the Government and founding their own party (let's call it NUkip) to fight the election under a manifesto about delivering the Brexit that they say they want. If they had the courage of their convictions and really believed the country backed their position then that would be a way out of this impasse, but I suspect they're not quite delusional enough to think it would work.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Surely you see the problem with signing up to contract which one side can declare void on a whim

And you can't see the problem of signing up to a contract that is impossible to leave without the other side saying so, especially when they hold you in an advantageous position and it benefits them to keep you in?

Quote

The British Goverment had the chance to come up with a workable alternative to the backstop, which it couldn't. Apart from some fantasy technologies that do not exist. If they were that confident of technologies being there in the near future, surely there would be no problem with the backstop being there as an insurance policy, no?

Yes I still don't understand why they aren't pushing the technology point, because those technologies are far from fantasy, in fact are quite simple from what I can see and already exists between Norway and Sweden. AFAIK there doesn't really need to be any physical infrastructure on the border at all. That there already is a border between Ireland and NI and that our two countries are not perfectly aligned on currency, tax and VAT, and which seems to be policed without physical infrastructure suggests it cannot be as hard as is stated. But I don't know why that avenue seems to have been exhausted.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Yes I still don't understand why they aren't pushing the technology point, because those technologies are far from fantasy, in fact are quite simple from what I can see and already exists between Norway and Sweden.

Yes, they are. No, they don't.

I know we had this link some threads ago, already. So, apologies to those who have seen it already.

Or look at this one, it's shorter.

You see there actually being infrastructure at the border? Yes, that's not what was promised. You can argue, that's what the backstop wants for teh Irish sea (what the DUP is throwing a tantrum about), but not for the actual Irish border.

Wanna try again?

[ljkeane]

54 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

My point is, that you and your fellow Brexiters don't really understand the reasons (or do not care for them) for the backstop being there. If you did, you know why there can't be an exit mechanism. It's just contradictory to the backstop mechanism itself.

Well I'd note that future Parliaments can't be bound by the decisions of the current Parliament so, whether there's an exit mechanism or not, it's not really 'legally binding' as such anyway.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, ljkeane said:

Well I'd note that future Parliaments can't be bound by the decisions of the current Parliament so, whether there's an exit mechanism or not, it's not really 'legally binding' as such anyway.

 

Technically speaking, yes, kinda.

In practical terms, you don't go there. You expect itnernational treaties to be binding for decades, and not to be pulled by the next goverment. So usually those are binding in practice.

[DMC]

I think May should resign under the conditions the media agrees to stop making May Day/Mayhem puns.  A compromise we can all get behind.

[The Anti-Targ]

50 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yep, it's all about Britain's freedom, not about its obligations and treaties it's singed. Have our cake and eat it. Spoken like a true Brexiter.

 

 

 

An eerily prescient Fruedian slip? Though up in flames may be more accurate than singed when the history books are written.

[Jen'ari]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

I think you're probably right, although it's possible some of them might think it was in the long-term best interests of the Tory party to have an election and let Corbyn have to deal with the mess of Brexit.

Another thing that probably won't happen is Rees-Mogg and his gang voting down the Government and founding their own party (let's call it NUkip) to fight the election under a manifesto about delivering the Brexit that they say they want. If they had the courage of their convictions and really believed the country backed their position then that would be a way out of this impasse, but I suspect they're not quite delusional enough to think it would work.

To be fair though it’s equally unlikely that  Corbyn would be able to form a government if there was an election either, the result would most likely still be a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party.

For the record I think both main parties are equally as inept as each other at the moment, I’ve never heard of a situation where parliament has been at such an impasse. How May can carry on is beyond me, the only way I can see this going is another referendum.

[Zorral]

It's astounding how nothing gets Theresa May outta there. Nothing.  Many are opining that not even this will remove her from the office, because, well, really, nobody else wants anybody else at all.  So she lurches along, her mummy rags always unraveling but never coming to an end of the rags.

What pieces of dysfunction are the UK and USA!

[The Anti-Targ]

Loads of people want to be PM, just not right now.

Question: does parliament need to vote for a no deal Brexit or does it just happen when the day arrives if nothing is done to stop it?

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Loads of people want to be PM, just not right now.

Question: does parliament need to vote for a no deal Brexit or does it just happen when the day arrives if nothing is done to stop it?

The latter.

On May hanging on, I am reminded of the line about Ramsay MacDonald: "the greatest living master of falling without hurting himself."

[ants]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Loads of people want to be PM, just not right now.

Question: does parliament need to vote for a no deal Brexit or does it just happen when the day arrives if nothing is done to stop it?

Didn't they pass a bit of legislation last week meaning there can't be a no deal brexit (without further legislation)?