Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HelenaExMachina

UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also don't think a time limited backstop is a great solution, but it is a solution which could prevent No Deal, because let's all be honest, the backstop in its current form will never get through parliament. 

It would give us time to put 'alternative arrangements' in place whilst also not allowing the EU to unilaterally decide whether the UK can leave the Backstop or not. It would also put a deadline on that decision and focus minds on making it happen. 

What the EU should be worrying about is preventing no deal, because of its damage to Ireland, which apparently is its main concern here. 

I’m sorry if you didn’t mean it HOI, but that is some pretty disingenuous shit right there. It sounds pretty, but it’s pretty much saying the UK should be allowed to fuck over the EU. 

As soon as any deal has a time limit AND the EU doesn’t have control over ending it is a farce. This would give the UK the best of both worlds- trade deals with other nations on non-EU terms and then be able to ship goods through the border into the EU. Pretty much ending the EU’s trade controls. 

There is no incentive at all for the UK to do anything, they can just wind down the clock.  They’d just twiddle their thumbs until the time delay ends and they get the arrangements of their dreams.  

The EU isn’t going to commit suicide to save ROI from no deal. They’ll rightly tell you to fuck off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ants said:

I’m sorry if you didn’t mean it HOI, but that is some pretty disingenuous shit right there.

Again, I'm not fan of the time limit and it doesn't really work. Even Boris doesn't seem to want it.But I don't see it as any worse than the backstop itself, because lets just look at some of the things you've said:

Quote

EU doesn’t have control over ending it is a farce.

Britain would have no control over the ending of the backstop in its current form potentially. Does that make the backstop a farce? It's the main reason it keeps get voting down. Only being allowed to leave the EU on the EU's say so is not acceptable to anybody.

Quote

There is no incentive at all for the UK to do anything,

There is no incentive for the EU to agree to let the UK out if they didn't want to. You could argue that the EU doesn't want us hanging around stinking the place out, or that good faith means that'd be unlikely to lock us in. But the potential is still there and it would be daft to put yourself in such a position.

Quote

get the arrangements of their dreams.  

Having the UK locked in unable to escape, forcing deals and rules that don't suit Britain upon it would be a dream to anyone who wanted to punish the UK, and there are certainly some who would wish to do so.

So why would the EU agree to a time limited backstop? They probably wouldn't. Its not a good deal for them, but the backstop in its current form is not a good deal for the UK either and nobody is going to agree to it (outside of May of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ants said:

The EU isn’t going to commit suicide to save ROI from no deal. They’ll rightly tell you to fuck off. 

The EU has so far behaved like the adults in the room.  I hope for the UK's sake they continue that behavior.  They are also conscious that a refusal to negotiate without preconditions will be spun by the no-deal Brexiteers as justification to the British public for no-deal.  

There are legal formulations to prevent the outcome you identify.  For example, the backstop could continue indefinitely unless the UK and Ireland agree alternative arrangements that meet the EU's approval.  Any such compromise would be inelegant but potentially workable.  The problem with these compromises is not legal drafting, it is that they require good faith and trust between the parties - which has been diminishing rapidly on the EU side and never really existed for the Brexiteers. 

On a separate topic: it's really striking to read in the papers today that the no-deal Brexiteers have said that the EU is refusing to offer concessions because it wants to see if Parliament will stop a no-deal Brexit.  On the one hand it's unsurprising that they would make this argument of convenience which is impossible to disprove without defeating efforts to stop no-deal Brexit.  But it's just horseshit to run out the clock. 

This run-out-the clock strategy is what Tories tried it last time. Theresa May tried to force a choice between her deal and no-deal Brexit. The ERG tried it to achieve no-deal Brexit.  The real difference between then and now is political: any rebel Tory MP knows deselection is virtually guaranteed if they oppose the government and the DUP has not said they will oppose a no-deal Brexit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU position is the security of the single market. With Britain positioning itself to let any old shit in from the United States, Africa and China, they need to protect single market access from substandard goods even more than they have previously. The British position is to simply let stuff across the existing border without any checks, allowing substandard and potentially unsafe material to flood into the EU using Britain as a back door.

It's also a strange one because it means people can enter Britain using the Irish/Northern Irish border as a back door, including undocumented workers and people involved in people trafficking. I believe these were the things that Brexit was partially meant to address, so I have no idea why suddenly no-one on the Brexit side has a problem with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Having the UK locked in unable to escape, forcing deals and rules that don't suit Britain upon it would be a dream to anyone who wanted to punish the UK, and there are certainly some who would wish to do so.

That typical resort of the Brexiters - that everything is the fault of the evil EU wanting to punish them.

Just to make it clear again: an open border between NI and Ireland is an open border between the UK and the EU. The EU cannot possibly allow such an open border to exist unless it has guarantees, of which the most obvious possibility is that the UK agrees to remain in regulatory harmony for as long as the border remains open.

Though of course the UK is only locked in for so long as it wants to keep the border open. Unfortunate that the Tories are relying on the support of the DUP. And about that pesky Good Friday agreement. After all a closed border is exactly what the hard Brexiters are supposed to want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here have any good analysis (or links to) about what happen in terms of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement if no deal Brexit happens? I've searched for information, but much seems to be about the backstop and that seems unlikely to happen as it would require passing May's deal, and other information has contradicted each other, been clearly biased or behind paywalls my local library doesn't have access to online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dornishpen said:

Does anyone here have any good analysis (or links to) about what happen in terms of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement if no deal Brexit happens? I've searched for information, but much seems to be about the backstop and that seems unlikely to happen as it would require passing May's deal, and other information has contradicted each other, been clearly biased or behind paywalls my local library doesn't have access to online.

If No Deal happens, then the World Trade Organisation and the EU will require there to be a physical border between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for customs checks. Britain can declare open borders with the EU, but only if it does the same for all other WTO members as well (i.e. pretty much every other country on Earth), which will cause the EU and the Irish government to have to install border checking infrastructure off their own back, to stop outside goods entering the EU via the back door.

There's also the fact - which Brexiters seem to have forgotten - that the EU and its member states are also WTO members and can cause issues for us there if we are seen as shirking our duties on the border issue.

If, by action or inaction, the UK allows a physical border to come into existence, it will put the UK in material breach of the Good Friday Agreement, causing massive political problems in Northern Ireland between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (and the rest of the EU). It may push the EU and RoI to demand that Britain hold a referendum on the future status of Northern Ireland, since the results of the previous referendum (to ratify the GFA) would no longer apply. If Britain refused, that would likely act as a spur to a resumption of violence. Of course, if Britain agreed that would also likely act as a spur to violence from the other side.

One problem with that is that Spain, of course, is angrily shooting down any suggestion of regional referendums on the basis of independence for obvious reasons, although they might be able to spin this as a different situation because of the UK's obligations under the Good Friday Agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this avoidance of tax avoidance requirements really the main reason Brexiteers are so determined to leave with no deal on 31 Oct?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If, by action or inaction, the UK allows a physical border to come into existence, it will put the UK in material breach of the Good Friday Agreement, causing massive political problems in Northern Ireland between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (and the rest of the EU). It may push the EU and RoI to demand that Britain hold a referendum on the future status of Northern Ireland, since the results of the previous referendum (to ratify the GFA) would no longer apply. If Britain refused, that would likely act as a spur to a resumption of violence. Of course, if Britain agreed that would also likely act as a spur to violence from the other side.

Thank you for that. So it seems that no deal brexit leads to violence no matter how it exactly plays out. I've been wondering about that. It's seemed to me from what I've read that the hardline brexiters either aren't considering or don't care about what may happen in NI as a result of all of this, or maybe they consider it an acceptable casualty which is pretty callous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are the 7 ways to avoid no deal listed from most likely to least likely. But the way the video goes, it's more like a list from unlikely to unthinkable.

Can't someone just find a clause somewhere that says you can't leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, and when a leave deadline is reached without a WA you don't simply leave the EU, the leave just becomes pending and it happens on the day that a WA is put in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Again, I'm not fan of the time limit and it doesn't really work. Even Boris doesn't seem to want it.But I don't see it as any worse than the backstop itself, because lets just look at some of the things you've said:

Ok

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Britain would have no control over the ending of the backstop in its current form potentially. Does that make the backstop a farce? It's the main reason it keeps get voting down. Only being allowed to leave the EU on the EU's say so is not acceptable to anybody.

Um, no, that makes it a feature.  Look, you have to remember that the entire treaty is to help out the UK.  You're getting access to the EU's common market.  One of the largest market's in the entire world.  They're just getting access to the UK.  They're doing you a favour, not the other way around.  They are also the ones with the higher standards.  So of course they are, and should be, the arbiter of who gets access to their market and the controls to stop illegal smuggling or abuse of the system.  

The fact the UK doesn't like that and keeps voting it down is because the Torries are delusional.

And the last line is rubbish.  The backstop isn't the EU saying anyone leaving has to leave on the EU terms.  It is the EU saying that if you want to continue to have access to our common market, you need to be able to guarantee that you're meeting our standards.  The UK is free to leave without a treaty, its free to put in a hard border (which will happen with no-deal brexit).  But if they want access and they want no hard border, then the backstop is what they have to have.  

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There is no incentive for the EU to agree to let the UK out if they didn't want to. You could argue that the EU doesn't want us hanging around stinking the place out, or that good faith means that'd be unlikely to lock us in. But the potential is still there and it would be daft to put yourself in such a position.

Having the UK locked in unable to escape, forcing deals and rules that don't suit Britain upon it would be a dream to anyone who wanted to punish the UK, and there are certainly some who would wish to do so.

There is no neutral third party.  One of either the UK or the EU has to be the arbiter of if the conditions is met.  A time limit simply means it defaults to an unacceptable position for the EU, so of course that is out.  Saying put a time limit on it is saying the EU has to come up with a solution to stop the UK getting access to their common market.

The UK whining that its the EU making the decision and not the UK as to when it ends is just the UK (and you) not recognising who is more powerful, the UK not recognising who has behaved more like an adult, or the UK not admitting that prior treaties (the Good Friday agreements) have weight. 

I'm also not sure why on earth you think the EU would force the UK to stay in if a real solution is found.  Half the point of the EU is its hard to get into.  Its a closed shop without membership or a trade deal.  Having someone constantly whining they're not being allowed to leave wouldn't be good for anyone.  

If the UK is really desperate to have no backstop, it can put in a hard border tomorrow.  Or simply put in that at any time the UK has the right to put in a hard border or a border on the Irish sea.  Both of which would work with the backstop, but would just make explicit what is already implicit. 

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So why would the EU agree to a time limited backstop? They probably wouldn't. Its not a good deal for them, but the backstop in its current form is not a good deal for the UK either and nobody is going to agree to it (outside of May of course).

Of course they won't, its a terrible idea for them.  But the current backstop is VERY good for the UK, because it allows them to access the EU common market AND keep to the terms of the Good Friday agreement.  If the UK wants to have no backstop, it can do that tomorrow.  It would just need to put in a hard border, or a border in the Irish Sea. 

They don't do this, because the backstop is better for them than those.  The Torries just won't admit that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what the backstop is thanks. I also understand that it’s a state that nobody should want to come into being. We don’t want to be in a situation where the backstop kicks in and neither should the EU.

An important feature of the backstop is that it should be temporary until we move to another agreement. That’s all well and good but the whole reason it doesn’t get through parliament is because it potentially isn’t temporary. That’s why May kept going back for assurances and legal letters that make it clear how we can leave the backstop. She never really managed to get that and so her deal bombed 3 times.

The backstop is fine as a transition state, I’d be happy with it. But as a long term status it is terrible, truly awful. It means you have all the disadvantages of being in the EU whilst simultaneously losing many of the advantages. Nobody in their right mind would accept Britain being caught up in the backstop for too long.

So until there is a way to exit the EU that doesn’t just rely on the ‘good faith’ of the very people you are trying to negotiate with then the backstop is doomed. There is also a very clear incentive to show the world that leaving the EU is a bad idea and Britain’s ambitions to being more global and independent would properly wreck that myth.

Quote

Half the point of the EU is its hard to get into. 

Btw did you not notice the EUs massive over expansion into Eastern Europe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I understand what the backstop is thanks. I also understand that it’s a state that nobody should want to come into being. We don’t want to be in a situation where the backstop kicks in and neither should the EU.

An important feature of the backstop is that it should be temporary until we move to another agreement. That’s all well and good but the whole reason it doesn’t get through parliament is because it potentially isn’t temporary. That’s why May kept going back for assurances and legal letters that make it clear how we can leave the backstop. She never really managed to get that and so her deal bombed 3 times.

The backstop is fine as a transition state, I’d be happy with it. But as a long term status it is terrible, truly awful. It means you have all the disadvantages of being in the EU whilst simultaneously losing many of the advantages. Nobody in their right mind would accept Britain being caught up in the backstop for too long.

So until there is a way to exit the EU that doesn’t just rely on the ‘good faith’ of the very people you are trying to negotiate with then the backstop is doomed. There is also a very clear incentive to show the world that leaving the EU is a bad idea and Britain’s ambitions to being more global and independent would properly wreck that myth.

Btw did you not notice the EUs massive over expansion into Eastern Europe?

TBH,  there are inconveniences in the backstop for the EU as well as the UK.  The UK would have access to the single market without making large budgetary contributions, or accepting freedom of movement.  Both sides would have had an incentive to negotiate a final agreement that was different.  It's a pity that the Commons was so hostile to the Withdrawal Agreement, which I thought reasonably fair overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, dornishpen said:

Does anyone here have any good analysis (or links to) about what happen in terms of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement if no deal Brexit happens? 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-exit-avoiding-a-hard-border-in-northern-ireland-in-a-no-deal-scenario?utm_source=75ce3cb7-9434-4ce8-b32a-eb1b874adb30&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate&utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=5bb24437f7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_13_07_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-5bb24437f7-190352297

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is this avoidance of tax avoidance requirements really the main reason Brexiteers are so determined to leave with no deal on 31 Oct?

No. It isn't.

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

TBH,  there are inconveniences in the backstop for the EU as well as the UK.  The UK would have access to the single market without making large budgetary contributions, or accepting freedom of movement.  Both sides would have had an incentive to negotiate a final agreement that was different.  It's a pity that the Commons was so hostile to the Withdrawal Agreement, which I thought reasonably fair overall.

There are inconveniences for the EU, but it's not symmetrical. The UK being prevented from creating trade deals outside the EU whilst still being subject to EU laws and regulations (that they have little to no say in) is a much bigger 'inconvenience', and puts the UK into a very poor position when discussing the future relationship with the EU. Why would ROI want anything that isn't the backstop?  And its not even touching on the numerous issues around NI and its decoupling from the rest of the UK's laws. Again the WA is probably ok on a temporary basis, its problem is making sure that it is just that, temporary. 


 

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/14/first-ads-banned-for-contravening-gender-stereotyping-rules

In other news, it's now illegal to have an advert that shows women can be mothers, because its a harmful gender stereotype. Please explain that to my wife. 

She however would definitely recognise the bumbling dad stereotype! 

It is quite amusing the ASA banning adverts that are seemingly going out of their way to be inclusive and progressive, yet seemingly just aren't being progressive enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/14/first-ads-banned-for-contravening-gender-stereotyping-rules

In other news, it's now illegal to have an advert that shows women can be mothers, because its a harmful gender stereotype. Please explain that to my wife. 

She however would definitely recognise the bumbling dad stereotype! 

It is quite amusing the ASA banning adverts that are seemingly going out of their way to be inclusive and progressive, yet seemingly just aren't being progressive enough. 

The ASA is a completely humourless body.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That’s a generous way of saying it

I remember they banned an advert for gin, which ran along the lines of "My doctor says I should reduce my calories.  A glass of gin has fewer calories than a banana.  Thanks Doc."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two significant pieces of news: 

1. 21 Tory MPs led by Hammond have put their names on a letter urging the Prime Minister to agree a deal as he repeatedly promised to attempt to do: link

2.  Johnson has in turn accused Tory MPs and EU of "collaboration" and suggested the failure of the EU to offer amendments to the withdrawal agreement is because the EU "think Brexit can be blocked in Parliament": link

Note the outrageous lie ("collaboration") followed by the equally dishonest explanation for the EU's alleged intransigence. 

In office, Johnson continues as a fully signed up adherent to the Trumpian war on truth.   

Since these allegations will not achieve anything with the EU or with the MPs in question it is worth asking oneself why he is making them.  The answer is that his strategy depends on polarization (reduce the debate to Brexiteers v. Remainers) and the embrace of propaganda over truth (the EU are deliberately screwing the UK because they want to stop us for leaving/punish us for wanting us to leave).  

Even if Parliament blocks no-deal, I am pessimistic this polarization and propaganda will not be rewarded in the election that will follow shortly thereafter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There are inconveniences for the EU, but it's not symmetrical.

Because the relationship is asymmetrical? Just look at the size of the two economies should make that pretty obvious. 

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So until there is a way to exit the EU that doesn’t just rely on the ‘good faith’ of the very people you are trying to negotiate with then the backstop is doomed. There is also a very clear incentive to show the world that leaving the EU is a bad idea and Britain’s ambitions to being more global and independent would properly wreck that myth.

Talking about myth wrecking... The EU negotiations are a first taste what being more global and indepent actually means. You want to be independent (on your own) and thus negotiate as a smaller economy with big trading blocks and then you cry about the deals being asymmetrical in nature...

I can't wait to see what wonderful deal independent Britain is going to strike with the benevolent with their America First ex-colony. It will of course be balanced and not feel like a colonoscopy. 

But seriously, make up your mind. Either make it about the UK standing tall and independent or whine about the big boys negotiating unfavourable deals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×