[awm]

Just curious what people think will happen with next month's Brexit deadline.

[Vampyr]

I think it will be missed, but it won’t matter much. More uncertainty will not stop factories and companies leaving us in droves. Leaving on the deadline would be better in one sense; at least then firms that operate or might operate here wil know where they (and we) stand.

So, while most of us hope that it will be pushed back and back and then forgotten about, it would be better if we could immediately take the hit to our economy and focus on recovery, rather than endure the slow attrition of jobs and industries, some of which we might be able to keep if we just take our medicine and get it over with.

[hrothgar]

awm, on 2019-February-25, 10:57, said:

Just curious what people think will happen with next month's Brexit deadline.

Watching this from the outside, I can't help but believe that Brexit will collapse under its own ridiculousness

Its terrible that all this idiocy has lead to so much real damage, but hopefully it won't go much further

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2019-February-25, 11:18, said:

Watching this from the outside, I can't help but believe that Brexit will collapse under its own ridiculousness

Its terrible that all this idiocy has lead to so much real damage, but hopefully it won't go much further

It should have been a lot better than it is going to be, is what you get for putting a remainer in charge of this.

I think it will happen, not sure when and in what form.

The REAL chaos will be if it rumbles on and May gets the boot either from the "Men in grey suits" or the electorate and a load of pro-remain MPs in pro-Brexit seats get deselected by their local parties.

[cherdano]

Ill-defined question. If the current deal is approved, then there will be a 2-year transition period (which can be extended), so technically the UK would leave in 2021 the earliest.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-25, 11:56, said:

It should have been a lot better than it is going to be, is what you get for putting a remainer in charge of this.

Who would you have liked to see in charge? The guy who drafted two versions of his telegraph column, one for and one against Brexit, and then published the one would more likely make him PM, sorry, read better, uhm, was more convincing?

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-February-25, 12:01, said:

Who would you have liked to see in charge? The guy who drafted two versions of his telegraph column, one for and one against Brexit, and then published the one would more likely make him PM, sorry, read better, uhm, was more convincing?

Both parties have an incredible lack of talent at the moment. And no, not Boris (or JRM), not ever.

Actually I'd probably have preferred Cameron to see it through. Even though he was a remainer, I think he would have held the government to a lot of the things May has gone back on and handled the negociations a lot better. He'd made promises and I actually think that even though he believed the decision was wrong, he'd have tried to get the whole thing to work and keep them.

Once he went, David Davis, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and not too many other in any way sensible candidates to do the negociations.

[fromageGB]

To answer the question posed, I think the deadline will cancelled (Brexit postponed). After that, I feel there will no leaving at all, and Brexit will be abandoned. In my view, this is what the remainer in charge has been aiming for all along, so she can publicly say "I tried".

Taking issue with Cyberyeti, May has not handled the negotiations well. She should have let the ministers she appointed do their job and not taken it on herself. The Brexit ministers would have succeeded in a sensible exit agreement, but once she effectively shut them out, the Conservative party - that promised to uphold the result of the referendum - should have moved to restrain her and didn't, and later failed to remove her. The initial error was Gove's greed compounded by Boris's tantrums.

The whole Westminster political scene has failed. How people can be elected on a policy and promises, then completely face the other way when actually elected, astounds me.

Edit - sorry Cyberyeti, I read your post too quickly. Maybe Cameron would have been better, maybe not. Agree with you that Davis and Leadsom are the obvious people, and Raab looks as if he could, too. Leader : Leadsom. Head negotiator : Davis.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2019-February-26, 15:02, said:

To answer the question posed, I think the deadline will cancelled (Brexit postponed). After that, I feel there will no leaving at all, and Brexit will be abandoned. In my view, this is what the remainer in charge has been aiming for all along, so she can publicly say "I tried".

Taking issue with Cyberyeti, May has not handled the negotiations well. She should have let the ministers she appointed do their job and not taken it on herself. The Brexit ministers would have succeeded in a sensible exit agreement, but once she effectively shut them out, the Conservative party - that promised to uphold the result of the referendum - should have moved to restrain her and didn't, and later failed to remove her. The initial error was Gove's greed compounded by Boris's tantrums.

The whole Westminster political scene has failed. How people can be elected on a policy and promises, then completely face the other way when actually elected, astounds me.

Edit - sorry Cyberyeti, I read your post too quickly. Maybe Cameron would have been better, maybe not. Agree with you that Davis and Leadsom are the obvious people, and Raab looks as if he could, too. Leader : Leadsom. Head negotiator : Davis.

I pretty much agree with you.

A major part of the issue was too much forelock tugging in the initial weeks. We should have said we were leaving starting from no deal in say 2020 (trigger article 50 and transitional arrangements so it all finishes cleanly at the end of the EU financial period), now let's negociate what we can agree, and we'd be much further along with much more certainty than we have now. No deal will work badly now, but could have worked then.

Also Cameron screwed up massively, he tried to make the referendum binding and once in a generation never considering he might lose, and messed up doing that badly.

[cherdano]

I disagree with part of what fromageGB wrote. The Brexit deal is too important to leave to the Brexit minister. The prime minister is the one who was elected by the MPs to head the government; I only the PM has (in theory) the authority to try to win over parliament.

But aside from that, what would a better deal look like, in your view, taking into account the EU's red lines? (No single market without free movement; no hard border in NI.)

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-February-26, 16:34, said:

I disagree with part of what fromageGB wrote. The Brexit deal is too important to leave to the Brexit minister. The prime minister is the one who was elected by the MPs to head the government; I only the PM has (in theory) the authority to try to win over parliament.

But aside from that, what would a better deal look like, in your view, taking into account the EU's red lines? (No single market without free movement; no hard border in NI.)

Well no single market I felt was a given. Whatever people voted for in the referendum, most agreed they wanted an end to freedom of movement, so that necessarily means no single market.

The Irish border has no solution atm. What I'd have done if I'd been Theresa May would have been to get Arlene Foster in a room very early on, and say to her, you want Brexit, you want no hard border, you want no border down the Irish Sea. Brexit needs no single market. What do YOU suggest, because at the moment you're asking for rainbow sh£$%ing unicorns. You need to compromise on something.

[akwoo]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-26, 17:59, said:

The Irish border has no solution atm. What I'd have done if I'd been Theresa May would have been to get Arlene Foster in a room very early on, and say to her, you want Brexit, you want no hard border, you want no border down the Irish Sea. Brexit needs no single market. What do YOU suggest, because at the moment you're asking for rainbow sh£$%ing unicorns. You need to compromise on something.

I don't think Foster has manuvering room. The average DUP voter is demanding a unicorn and a half each as their price for refraining from shooting Catholics.

Brexit will end up postponed indefinitely. The Tories will split. The next General Election will be contested by a single Leave party and a bunch of Remain parties (Corbyn's fantasy notwithstanding, the historically Labour Leave voter won't vote for an equivocating Labour Party any more than they'd vote for a solidly Remain Labour party) splitting the vote amongst themselves, meaning FPTP will elect a hard Brexit government. (That's what happened in Scotland; the SNP lost the referendum, but the result all but ensured they'd indefinitely govern Scotland with 45% of the vote.) Then Brexit will happen.

Scotland goes, and the shooting starts again in Northern Ireland.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2019-February-26, 19:30, said:

I don't think Foster has manuvering room. The average DUP voter is demanding a unicorn and a half each as their price for refraining from shooting Catholics.

Brexit will end up postponed indefinitely. The Tories will split. The next General Election will be contested by a single Leave party and a bunch of Remain parties (Corbyn's fantasy notwithstanding, the historically Labour Leave voter won't vote for an equivocating Labour Party any more than they'd vote for a solidly Remain Labour party) splitting the vote amongst themselves, meaning FPTP will elect a hard Brexit government. (That's what happened in Scotland; the SNP lost the referendum, but the result all but ensured they'd indefinitely govern Scotland with 45% of the vote.) Then Brexit will happen.

Scotland goes, and the shooting starts again in Northern Ireland.

Foster has a much bigger personal issue. Corbyn's friends in the IRA tried to kill her dad several times, she will not countenance a Labour government. Any instability that risks that can't happen, so I suspect she would at least engage in negociations.

[fromageGB]

cherdano, on 2019-February-26, 16:34, said:

I disagree with part of what fromageGB wrote. The Brexit deal is too important to leave to the Brexit minister. The prime minister is the one who was elected by the MPs to head the government; I only the PM has (in theory) the authority to try to win over parliament.

But aside from that, what would a better deal look like, in your view, taking into account the EU's red lines? (No single market without free movement; no hard border in NI.)

I didn't mean the "politics" or "management" should be left entirely to a chief negotiator, but the technical detail and the management of it are different tasks probably best suited to different people to make the best use of their respective strengths. They need to have common beliefs, which is where it went wrong at the very start.

If you are asking me, the EU are welcome to keep their red lines, and good luck to them. They need it. Until the current debacle I thought we were quite capable of running our country ourselves, and that an independent state should make it's own decisions as to laws to adopt. Ireland is a red herring, not a red line. I am sure both Eire and UK would agree - once the separation was announced - to a workable border control. It doesn't need barbed wire and machine guns when both sides want the same thing. The EU will accept a local flexibility to keep their political dream alive, as they have in other areas. I can't see Eire refusing to sell us beef and dairy. If they do, well, we will revert to other countries' trade that the EU tariffs currently deny us.

We do not need a "single market". With common quality etc standards where we think appropriate, there will be no problem with a generally tariff-free trading agreement. They might not choose to buy our higher powered appliances (for example) if that is against their regulations, but it will not affect the lesser powered. If we choose to import (or develop) genetically improved food, they do not have to follow suit.

[fromageGB]

akwoo, on 2019-February-26, 19:30, said:

.. and the shooting starts again in Northern Ireland.

What was the connection between Brexit and shooting? I missed that one.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2019-February-27, 10:09, said:

What was the connection between Brexit and shooting? I missed that one.

If the border posts go back up, it's quite likely which is why the British and Irish governments WILL stop that happening

[hrothgar]

fromageGB, on 2019-February-27, 10:09, said:

What was the connection between Brexit and shooting? I missed that one.

Here's the explanation that I heard

1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU. The Republic of Ireland will. Therefore you're going to need some kind of intrusive border between the two...

2. People don't like intrusive border's, especially when they need to cross them multiple times per day. As a result, they tend to get broken and vandalized

3. As such, you need to send people to repair, things. They often get attacked

4. Then you need to start deploying armed guards

5. Next thing you know, the guards and the locals are sniping at each other

[akwoo]

The hard border in Ireland scenario has been addressed.

If there are customs checks in the Irish Sea, then I think it's quite likely that some loyalists will take up arms to attack the infrastructure for them. The danger here isn't so much the damage they might do to the UK Customs or Armed Forces, as that, when loyalists have guns, they'll incidentally use them to shoot Catholics, which will mean republicans get guns, et c.

Customs checks in the Irish Sea could very well mean Ulster nationalism (ie make Northern Ireland an independent, Protestant only (ie ethnically cleanse the Catholics) state) gets enough support to be dangerous.

The Good Friday agreement relies on Northern Ireland being functionally part of both Eire and the UK. Brexit makes that impossible.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2019-February-27, 14:10, said:

The hard border in Ireland scenario has been addressed.

If there are customs checks in the Irish Sea, then I think it's quite likely that some loyalists will take up arms to attack the infrastructure for them. The danger here isn't so much the damage they might do to the UK Customs or Armed Forces, as that, when loyalists have guns, they'll incidentally use them to shoot Catholics, which will mean republicans get guns, et c.

Customs checks in the Irish Sea could very well mean Ulster nationalism (ie make Northern Ireland an independent, Protestant only (ie ethnically cleanse the Catholics) state) gets enough support to be dangerous.

The Good Friday agreement relies on Northern Ireland being functionally part of both Eire and the UK. Brexit makes that impossible.

Not impossible but difficult. It demands technology that is I suspect possible but largely untested for doing customs without border posts for commercial stuff. Customs checks in the Irish sea would demand Labour and Tory agreement as the DUP would rather bring down the government than accept that.

[fromageGB]

Now that Raab has thrown his hat in the ring, I hope he gets the leadership if and when May gives up. Then at least the Conservative party can start again, - but only if it purges itself of the existing members of parliament who were elected on a promise and then voted against that promise. Failing that, I think they are dead in the water.

Given where we are now, the best hope for people who believe that life would be "better" without being a vassal state is not to finally accept May's plans on the third time of asking (will there be a 4th, 5th, 6th? How many will we have before May is kicked out in December?) as is now espoused by Esther McVey (a former May rejecter), but to cancel Brexit completely. Then at a general election a party may stand that has Brexit as a key policy, and we can all start again with a new triggering of the famous article 50.