Brexit

[Que]

We'll block trade deal if Brexit imperils open Irish border, say US politicians

OOPS..... 

So.... no NI backstop = no deal with EU = no deal with US?

Q

[André]

I read today's The Guardian but missed that article. Thanks for bringing it to attention. Trade deals are extremely complicated to start with, and the ☘️ contingent in Congress is a powerful force. A deal with no backstop would be DOA in Congress.

[The new erato]

So the only option left is a United Ireland inside the EU? The Empire dwindles, day by day. As for United.........

[Irons]

So the only option left is a United Ireland inside the EU? The Empire dwindles, day by day. As for United.........

Will not happen. Would result in a civil war. In the case of Scotland there is a possibility.

[vandermolen]

In my mind I keep coming back to the Mount Everest 1996 disaster analogy, where the obsession with reaching the summit regardless of timing and weather considerations, lead to catastrophe. For Johnson and those who agree with him, the obsession with 'Brexit 'do or die' on 31st October has become an obsessive end in itself regardless of the increasingly obvious disastrous consequences for the UK. Read the chapter 'Goal Crazy' in Oliver Burkeman's excellent book 'The Antidote' for an analysis of this particular mindset which, in my experience,  is common in education too (all that matters is results - doesn't matter how they are achieved). By ignoring the process and focusing on the goal the government is, in my view, just digging a bigger and bigger hole to jump into and yes, the break up of the UK is a real possibility - although I don't like the idea I can totally understand why Scotland and N. Ireland do not want to be forced out of the EU, when their populations voted largely for Remain.

[Florestan]

Will not happen. Would result in a civil war.

So, the fear of civil war is allegedly a deterrent for Irish nationalists, who will not make any move in case of a hard Brexit. Then why shouldn't it give Johnson pause to think again if he really wants a hard Brexit which coukld very well issue in a civil war?

And anyway, a civil war has been going on for years in Northern Ireland, so it would be hardly a surprising news or situation.

[Irons]

So, the fear of civil war is allegedly a deterrent for Irish nationalists, who will not make any move in case of a hard Brexit. Then why shouldn't it give Johnson pause to think again if he really wants a hard Brexit which coukld very well issue in a civil war?

And anyway, a civil war has been going on for years in Northern Ireland, so it would be hardly a surprising news or situation.

It takes two sides to make a war. The DUP are supporting the Tories in Parliament with their wafer-thin majority. No British government would sanction a United Ireland unless the people of Northern Ireland wanted it and the chance of that is zero.

Does Johnson want a hard Brexit? I think not but he has to appear to want it. It has been announced today that the Government are spending billions to prepare for a hard Brexit. Money well spent if it nudges Brussels to show some willingness to negotiate. 

[North Star]

It has been announced today that the Government are spending billions to prepare for a hard Brexit. Money well spent if it nudges Brussels to show some willingness to negotiate.

That's a big 'if'. 

[Que]

Will not happen. Would result in a civil war. In the case of Scotland there is a possibility.

What's put on the table by the EU is the plan to keep NI in the customs union with the EU and in partial regulatory alignment with the single market on key economic sectors. This would retain the status quo between the two parts of the island as much as possible. This would also keep a referendum on reunification ("border poll") at bay, and hopefully preserve the peace.
Sounds a lot better than Boris' Brexiteers have come up with....

Note that the DUP is not in favour of a hard Brexit.
But they want to have their cake and eat it  and oppose a customs border in the Irish Sea as well.
Unfortunately, if the UK wants to sever its ties with the EU - and by consequence Ireland - something has to give...

Does Johnson want a hard Brexit? I think not but he has to appear to want it. It has been announced today that the Government are spending billions to prepare for a hard Brexit. Money well spent if it nudges Brussels to show some willingness to negotiate. 

Boris thinks the EU is going to blink first. But it won't...
Why? Because after Brexit the UK loses all its leverage, while the EU will still be holding the same cards it holds now.
The conditions for a future trade deal will be the same as they are for the withdrawal agreement: 1)   a guarantee for retaining the status quo between NI and the Irish Republic ("backstop), 2) protection of the rights of EU citizens, 3) financial settlement.

BTW If the the US Congress will also support the backstop as a condition for a future trade deal, the EU refusal to scrap it will become a non-issue. Without a trade deal with either the US or the EU, the UK will commit economic suicide...

Q

[Florestan]

It takes two sides to make a war. The DUP are supporting the Tories in Parliament with their wafer-thin majority. No British government would sanction a United Ireland unless the people of Northern Ireland wanted it and the chance of that is zero.

What the people of NI clearly wanted was to remain in the EU. Looks like the British government takes their wishes into account only when they align with its own.

Does Johnson want a hard Brexit? I think not but he has to appear to want it. It has been announced today that the Government are spending billions to prepare for a hard Brexit. Money well spent if it nudges Brussels to show some willingness to negotiate.

Once again, you make it sound as if it's EU's fault for the current lack of agreement. That's not fair.

[Irons]

What the people of NI clearly wanted was to remain in the EU. Looks like the British government takes their wishes into account only when they align with its own.

Once again, you make it sound as if it's EU's fault for the current lack of agreement. That's not fair.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which voted to leave. Where do you stop? Surrey voted remain and Kent voted leave. So Surrey stays in?

I think I am fair. A hard Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen and not just for the UK. I read today that no deal Brexit will result in recession for Germany resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. The EU are intransigent in their approach to negotiations. As I have already said I fully understand their hard-line approach there is very good reasons for it. I just get the feeling, partly due to May being a soft touch, that they began to enjoy it. Thatcher would have bashed them around the head with her handbag and all would be sorted.

[Que]

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which voted to leave. Where do you stop? Surrey voted remain and Kent voted leave. So Surrey stays in?

So... The UK is a Union of what? Surrey and Kent? 
I hope you recognise that Northern Ireland does not only have a distinct identity but is also in a very different circumstances from the rest of the UK, and it has a seperate legal position.

I think I am fair. A hard Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen and not just for the UK. I read today that no deal Brexit will result in recession for Germany resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. The EU are intransigent in their approach to negotiations. As I have already said I fully understand their hard-line approach there is very good reasons for it. I just get the feeling, partly due to May being a soft touch, that they began to enjoy it. Thatcher would have bashed them around the head with her handbag and all would be sorted.

I refer you to my comments above.
It is is a mistake to confuse the leverage on the international stage that the UK had as a major member state of the EU, with the superpower status the British Empire once enjoyed. Outside of the EU, the UK is a medium sized economically non-aligned Western country. A large Switzerland with nuclear weapons, so to speak...but without the trade deal with the EU.

Thatcher wouldn't have left the EU....
She used the UK's position within the EU to the UK's advantage. She would have played her cards well instead of throwing them away.

Q

[Herman]

I just get the feeling, partly due to May being a soft touch, that they began to enjoy it. Thatcher would have bashed them around the head with her handbag and all would be sorted.

That feeling doesn't make much sense. The difference with Thatcher would have been that the Iron Lady would have gotten the Tory Party in line. Now that is out of the question. The Tory Party is a bungling clown car full of idiots. Just look at the Rees-Mogg's list of do's and don'ts. These are hundred percent unserious people who don't give a f*ck about their country's prosperity and peace. They have fat foreign bank accounts.

The EU leadership has spent a good part of the last three years negotiating with the UK Brexiteers and it's impossible. During the opening ceremony Farage makes a show of disrespect for the EU Parliament but he's been raking in MEP fees for twenty years. Bak in Westminster MPs have been unable to make up their mind about Brexit either.

It's very unfortunate that Labour does not have a good leader either, which makes for more disaster. It looks like the EU has given up on Britain. The UK has had a disproportionate say in EU affairs for decades and, partly due to Rupert Murdoch's agitation via the media, they are still unhappy. So maybe they should leave and wreck the UK, because chances are Scotland will up and leave too. And then Trump can turn England into a golf course.

[vandermolen]

So... The UK is a Union of what? Surrey and Kent? 
I hope you recognise that Northern Ireland does not only have a distinct identity but is also in a very different circumstances from the rest of the UK, and it has a seperate legal position.

I refer you to my comments above.
It is is a mistake to confuse the leverage on the international stage that the UK had as a major member state of the EU, with the superpower status the British Empire once enjoyed. Outside of the EU, the UK is a medium sized economically non-aligned Western country. A large Switzerland with nuclear weapons, so to speak...but without the trade deal with the EU.

Thatcher wouldn't have left the EU....
She used the UK's position within the EU to the UK's advantage. She would have played her cards well instead of throwing them away.

Q

Thatcher would never have held a referendum either. She was totally opposed to them as was Clement Attlee, the great Labour leader after the Second World War. They both, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, thought them incompatible with British constitutional practice.

[Herman]

Thatcher would never have held a referendum either.

Right, that for starters.

[Irons]

During the opening ceremony Farage makes a show of disrespect for the EU Parliament but he's been raking in MEP fees for twenty years.

Yes, a disgrace. The pro-European British MEPs were clad in yellow T shirts with B------- to Brexit printed on the back. I despair.

[vandermolen]

Yes, a disgrace. The pro-European British MEPs were clad in yellow T shirts with B------- to Brexit printed on the back. I despair.

Yes, what an idiot.

[Florestan]

So... The UK is a Union of what? Surrey and Kent? 
I hope you recognise that Northern Ireland does not only have a distinct identity but is also in a very different circumstances from the rest of the UK, and it has a seperate legal position.

This.

It is is a mistake to confuse the leverage on the international stage that the UK had as a major member state of the EU, with the superpower status the British Empire once enjoyed. Outside of the EU, the UK is a medium sized economically non-aligned Western country. A large Switzerland with nuclear weapons, so to speak...but without the trade deal with the EU.

This.

Thatcher wouldn't have left the EU....
She used the UK's position within the EU to the UK's advantage. She would have played her cards well instead of throwing them away.

This.

Thatcher would never have held a referendum either. She was totally opposed to them as was Clement Attlee, the great Labour leader after the Second World War. They both, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, thought them incompatible with British constitutional practice.

And this as well.

[Que]

So, the latest development is a discussion on whether Boris Johnson can now just  run down the clock till Brexit - as reportedly stated by Dominic Cummings - or that  a Parliamentary majority still has means to prevent that:

Brexit: Still time to block no-deal on 31 October, Dominic Grieve says  (BBC)

Even if Johnson gets a vote of no confidence right after Parliament is back in session, there is almost no time left for elections before the Brexit deadline of the 31th of October. Johnson will want to have them after, so he can take back all the votes from Farage and his Brexit Party. He needs those votes for a parliamentary majority. But... formally HM the Queen has to decide on the date of the elections.

Others claim there are still options... though they look complicated and risky to me...
Replace Johnson by a government of national unity... Can't see that happening, and Johnson needs to step down as PM immediately... which he seems not bound to do constitutionally.

The only other option I can see is Parliament forcing Johnson's hand by force of law.
How?  Complicated and risky.... Like I said before: this has "constitutional crisis" written all over it....

Q

[vandermolen]

The UK could theoretically rejoin the EU at some future date.