No Deal

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, you are indeed living in interesting times.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Well, you are indeed living in interesting times.

That is a very polite and optimistic way of describing things utter chaos and confusion with a dash of bewilderment is probably closer to the truth!

[szlamany]

The U.K. brexiting

[FunkyDexter]

I like the way he tries to stand it back up again afterwards. That's a pretty good analogy for a second referendum, In my opinion. Of course, the second clip where the guys just walks up, shoves it over and keeps walking is a pretty good analogy for the Farage and the ERG.

Anyway, Bercow has finally stepped up and started enforcing government rules on not repeatedly debating the same motion. He's said that May cannot go for a third vote on her deal unless there are substantive changes. So May can no longer just run out the clock but I'm not really sure where that leaves us. So by default we still crash out on the 29th (just 10 days away now). Parliament has voted to take no deal off the table but it's not legally binding. A short extension would only really be useful if it was to allow May to push through her deal so probably isn't feasible now. A long extension to think up a completely new plan or allow a second ref could happen.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Anyway, Bercow has finally stepped up and started enforcing government rules on not repeatedly debating the same motion. He's said that May cannot go for a third vote on her deal unless there are substantive changes. So May can no longer just run out the clock but I'm not really sure where that leaves us. So by default we still crash out on the 29th (just 10 days away now). Parliament has voted to take no deal off the table but it's not legally binding. A short extension would only really be useful if it was to allow May to push through her deal so probably isn't feasible now. A long extension to think up a completely new plan or allow a second ref could happen.

Good old Bercow, May's tactic was getting ridiculous you shouldn't just be able to keep making people vote again and again on the same thing until you get the answer you want.

A long extension is likely now, yes there are some arcane procedures the government could use to try and get around the speakers ruling but i am not sure they would have the time to enact them.

Yes it possible that May might take an offer to hold another referendum to ratify her deal or stay but i am yet to be convinced. May is the main problem, she is inflexible and unwilling to pursue anything but her deal. If you wont compromise in a situation where you dont have a majority then standstill occurs and that where we have been for the last several months.

Everything depends i think on whether May realises that the window for her to be in control of things is closing, once we go down the route of a long extension i think she loses control and it only a matter of time until she is replaced as PM. That alone may push her to do something unexpected but i am not holding my breath.

If we extend than all options are again back on the table just deferred for a year or two !

[PlausiblyDamp]

Yes it possible that May might take an offer to hold another referendum to ratify her deal or stay but i am yet to be convinced. May is the main problem, she is inflexible and unwilling to pursue anything but her deal. If you wont compromise in a situation where you dont have a majority then standstill occurs and that where we have been for the last several months.

Everything depends i think on whether May realises that the window for her to be in control of things is closing, once we go down the route of a long extension i think she loses control and it only a matter of time until she is replaced as PM. That alone may push her to do something unexpected but i am not holding my breath.

If we extend than all options are again back on the table just deferred for a year or two !

I think MAy's inflexibility has been the biggest problem with how Brexit has been handled, she set out her "Red Lines" with no real thought to the reality of them being acceptable and then refused to budge from them. We barely had anything looking like a plan until very recently and then as soon as she had something it became her latest absolute thing to cling to.

I seriously doubt she is capable of doing anything unexpected, she is spending all of the time managing the warring factions in her own party, promising different (and mutually exclusive) things to different groups of people and has left herself with nowhere to turn. Unfortunately I can't see anyone wanting to take over from her and be left with all the blame so I fear we are stuck with her for now and that means we are stuck with the current stalemate. I think any movement will be driven from the EU, even if that is unfortunately "No Deal".

[FunkyDexter]

While I'm no fan of May, I'm also reluctant to put all the blame on her. Her negotiating approach has been draconian and stubborn but I struggle to think of any approach that would have worked. Partly because I can't imagine any solution that would have met with the approval of the tory party, parliament, the EU and the British public all at the same time. The solution just doesn't exist so she's left negotiating for something that nobody wants, chosen from a list of other options that nobody wants. She's been far from competent but I don't see anyone else who could have achieved more given her starting position.

I know that tends not to be a popular position because, frankly, she's a pretty horrible piece of work (her tenure at the Home Office was really hateful) and she does kinda deserve the bad karma she's getting now.

If I was to place the blame anywhere I'd say it precedes May entirely. I'd point at the hard exiters for agitating for this thing and Cameron for giving in to them. Then Cameron again for framing an incredibly nuanced and divisive decision as a binary choice in a referendum... then legging it.

Anyway, the latest word seems to be that parliament can overrule Bercow with a majority vote (I genuinely don't know if they'd manage that - but Bercow's pretty unpopular in the house so sheer spite might get it through) or, failing that, there's talk of petitioning the queen to close and re-open parliament so that we're considered to be in a different session (the precedent only precludes debating the same motion in the same session apparently). There's some truly Machiavellian manoeuvring going on right now.

Good Queen Bess to the rescue!

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Anyway, the latest word seems to be that parliament can overrule Bercow with a majority vote (I genuinely don't know if they'd manage that - but Bercow's pretty unpopular in the house so sheer spite might get it through) or, failing that, there's talk of petitioning the queen to close and re-open parliament so that we're considered to be in a different session (the precedent only precludes debating the same motion in the same session apparently). There's some truly Machiavellian manoeuvring going on right now.

Yeah but they are running out of time, closing and reopening parliament they reckon would take a minimum of 3 days and maybe more as you have to have a recess in between.

To hold a vote on whether to overrule Bercow you have to table a motion and then a vote which has to have at least one days debate so that would likely also take at least 2 days maybe more.

Also they haven't made a move to do either of these thing today and so they are going to struggle to do them this week. If they are going to prorogue parliament i think they pretty much have to do it tomorrow or not at all.

If they are going to hold a vote to overrule Bercow they would need to do that pretty soon also

It seems more likely now that May will try and use the extension of article 50 in some way to say her offering has now changed and try and get a 3rd vote through that way. I am unsure if she will be able to do that or not right now as the deal itself will not have changed, just the size of the gun she is holding to parliaments head.

Also all the talk is she still doesn't have enough votes at the moment even with DUP support and so she may not even bring a 3rd vote.

[Shaggy Hiker]

As time is getting tight, things are getting increasingly interesting.

[PlausiblyDamp]

While I'm no fan of May, I'm also reluctant to put all the blame on her. Her negotiating approach has been draconian and stubborn but I struggle to think of any approach that would have worked. Partly because I can't imagine any solution that would have met with the approval of the tory party, parliament, the EU and the British public all at the same time. The solution just doesn't exist so she's left negotiating for something that nobody wants, chosen from a list of other options that nobody wants. She's been far from competent but I don't see anyone else who could have achieved more given her starting position.

I know that tends not to be a popular position because, frankly, she's a pretty horrible piece of work (her tenure at the Home Office was really hateful) and she does kinda deserve the bad karma she's getting now.

If I was to place the blame anywhere I'd say it precedes May entirely. I'd point at the hard exiters for agitating for this thing and Cameron for giving in to them. Then Cameron again for framing an incredibly nuanced and divisive decision as a binary choice in a referendum... then legging it.

Anyway, the latest word seems to be that parliament can overrule Bercow with a majority vote (I genuinely don't know if they'd manage that - but Bercow's pretty unpopular in the house so sheer spite might get it through) or, failing that, there's talk of petitioning the queen to close and re-open parliament so that we're considered to be in a different session (the precedent only precludes debating the same motion in the same session apparently). There's some truly Machiavellian manoeuvring going on right now.

Good Queen Bess to the rescue!

I completely agree with your comments regarding Cameron on this one, the entire referendum was mishandled. It seemed to be offered solely to prevent more Tories leaving to join UKIP with absolutely no thought to what the consequences would be. Something this important should have had a supermajority requirement so a trivial few percent wouldn't have been enough to force such drastic changes through. Cameron really must carry a large portion of the blame on this one....

...however May did blindly follow his lead as soon as he sodded off and decided to make the result effectively binding after the fact so an awful lot of the mess we are in now does fall at her feet in how she initially handled things and then refused to change her approach despite the enormous problems she was causing. This includes allowing the likes of Davies, Johnson etc. to mismanage the entire process completely.

[FunkyDexter]

Oh I absolutely agree that May's miss-handled it. Here's a challenge, though: look at the political landscape and cite someone who would have handled it better. And what would "better" look like? (Fair disclosure, I've been a Lib Dem voter for about 2 decades - before that I was labour. I did actually vote labour at the last election because I felt a stronger socialist voice in all this would be a good thing - I'm still conflicted but I think that was a mistake in hindsight and I have strongly fallen out of love with Corbyn and his coterie)

Labour failed to take any position (other than a vague "we'd talk to Europe and be nice to them") until a few months ago. They're now offering a perpetual customs union, which is basically the same as May's deal if we never leave the backstop. There's no way that would have got through parliament and, given the number of labour supporters who voted leave, would have collapsed support for the party in the country.

And I really don't believe that's what they would have offered 2 years ago. Like the Tories they were in a state of panic following the referendum and queued up to declare "we'll respect the referendum". They even campaigned for the last election on that platform - though, weirdly, a large number of (mostly young and newly politicised) remainers cast their vote for labour even though labour were promising the exact opposite of what they wanted. It was only that vote plus another year of time and space that have let them get away with taking the position they have.

Then there's the remain parties, i.e. Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid etc. At least these guys have stood by their principles but it's been easy for them to do so because they don't have a dog in the hunt in the first place - with the exception SNP, I guess, who can at least claim to be representing the will of the Scots who voted strongly for remain. Plaid certainly can't make that claim as the Welsh voted overwhelmingly to leave. Nothing these guys have offered would have stood a chance of getting through the house and, for Plaid at least, it could have spelled the death of the party.

And then May could have "reached across the house". I can see the attractiveness of that view but I think it's a myth. Labour under Corbyn have not expressed any real interest in working toward a consensus. All they've done at every turn is set down their own lines in opposition to any that May set out. They're purpose has never been to reach a consensus, it has been to embarrass May and try to force another election. It's why Corbyn is still refusing to back a second referendum (though he will "leave it on the table") but continues to call for an election. So without Labour, who would she reach across to? None of the remainer parties would want to be seen to throw their hat in with her so her only option was the DUP... and apparently a cool billion wasn't enough to buy them off.

In fact the DUP's position is probably the most schizophrenic of the lot. They want to be part of the UK... and of Ireland... and the people want to remain in the EU... and the party want to leave the EU. Try squaring that circle.

From the moment that referendum result came in there was no viable option in any of this.

edit>

It seems more likely now that May will try and use the extension of article 50 in some way to say her offering has now changed and try and get a 3rd vote through that way

Yeah, sounds about right. Personally, I think she'll manage to get the vote but I doubt it'll pass.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sure, the third attempt will go down in flames. The calendar has been run down, though, so even that strategy has been shown to be hollow.

The Economist had an interesting piece that seemed reasonable, though improbable. It sounds like there may be some mechanism that, in theory, should allow members to be free of their party responsibilities. In practice, I don't believe that anybody can vote without regard to their party without the vote being completely secret. However, their proposal was pretty much predicated on free voting being an option. With that being an option, they proposed a lengthy extension during which a series of test votes be put forward to see what kind of a deal could actually make it through parliament. The thought would be that, with free voting, different coalitions would form around different proposals. After all, it certainly looks like every major party is truly split on the issue.

Once (or perhaps if) some deal emerged that could get a sufficient vote in parliament, at that point, the deal would be taken to the people as a second referendum on the question: This deal or remain.

There are a whole lot of unlikely assumptions that seem embedded in that proposal, but it still seems better than what is happening at the moment.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I did actually vote labour at the last election because I felt a stronger socialist voice in all this would be a good thing - I'm still conflicted but I think that was a mistake in hindsight and I have strongly fallen out of love with Corbyn and his coterie

Yeah i feel the same, i voted Labour at the last election (and in general to be honest) but i find Corbyn one of the most frustrating politicians and increasing i find myself unlikely to vote for a party he is leading again.

They're now offering a perpetual customs union, which is basically the same as May's deal if we never leave the backstop.

hmm not exactly and in fact his position has been so hard to pin down who can tell exactly what it is, but recently at least he seems to be moving towards a Norway type deal which would be substantially different from Mays deal.

There's no way that would have got through parliament

This is where we disagree i dont think we can tell, as if the Government where to throws its weight behind another option it changes things in parliament yes it would they would have lost the ERG and the DUP votes but there are a lot of conservatives who would vote along party lines. It is not certain by any means the a deal based upon Norway's would get through but i dont think its impossible.

and, given the number of labour supporters who voted leave, would have collapsed support for the party in the country.

Labour has far more remain voters than leave voters, there has been quiet a bit of analysis done on this by various pollsters who say that Labour has far more to lose from backing a leave position that a remain one. I would go as far as to say if Labour enables Brexit it could be decimated at the next election.

A lot was made of a lot of Labour areas voting leave but when it was broken down along part lines a majority of Labour voters in most of those areas voted remain.

I would say FD that we are both victims of our own echo chambers to some extent, i know what i hear from people is different than what you hear, in particularly from leavers who up north at least want to leave yes but immigration is the biggest issue and trade deals are barely mentioned.


Anyway it looks like May is going to ask for a Short extension, and just try and keep bring back her deal again an again which is just madness as an approach really which ever way you look at it.

If she gets just a short extension what leverage has she got on the ERG and DUP who can just look to follow her lead and wind down the clock with the holy grail of a hard brexit at the end of it.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah i feel the same...

It's a shame. He held out a lot of promise of finally having a reasonable socialist voice heading up labour. But some of the characters he's surrounded himself with are toxically combative and it feels like he's either unwilling or too weak (I suspect a bit of both) to push back. Instead they're happily encouraging any moderates to leave with a cheery "so long, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out". It's that combative nature of the hard left that pushed me away from labour back in the day.

Labour has far more remain voters than leave voters

I think that's almost certainly true. The problem is that they've got enough leave voters to be held hostage by them - same as the Tories. That's really the root of this I think. Leave/Remain splits right down the middle of both parties which means that if either offers a concrete position while the other offers a fudge they risk a huge swing away of support. Fudge is an easier sell than concrete because it tastes nice, but it's not good for building a foundation. Also the best fudge comes from Devon but I think I've overworked the metaphor at that point.

I would say FD that we are both victims of our own echo chambers to some extent

All of us. All of the time

[Shaggy Hiker]

Y'all are in trouble now! Don Jr. has spoken! I think he's the son that Trump called "the man with the worst judgement" (though I may have the wrong son, they're hard to tell apart), but he has spoken.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Y'all are in trouble now! Don Jr. has spoken!

Oh No we are doooooooooooooooooooooooooomed

[FunkyDexter]

We may have voted for Brexit, but you guys voted for Trump!

[Shaggy Hiker]

And the whole family, apparently.

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, May proposed putting off the decision till the end of June, from the sound of it. I thought the EU had explicitly stated that they would not be willing to have a short extension. Two months is certainly what I'd define as "short" for something like this, so isn't this DOA at the EU.

I'll give May one thing: She doesn't quit just because something doesn't work.

[PlausiblyDamp]

So, May proposed putting off the decision till the end of June, from the sound of it. I thought the EU had explicitly stated that they would not be willing to have a short extension. Two months is certainly what I'd define as "short" for something like this, so isn't this DOA at the EU.

I'll give May one thing: She doesn't quit just because something doesn't work.

She is certainly stubborn.

[FunkyDexter]

May proposed putting off the decision till the end of June

That's not quite accurate. She proposed an extension in the hope that it would give her time to get her deal agreed rather than to put off the decision. She was hoping it would pass on it's third (yes, third) vote which is due for next week. Actually, she wasn't really specifying what the extra time was for but, given her for, I think most of us would interpret it as "give me more time to hold "meaningful" votes until one passes.

Anyway, the EU have said they won't give a short extension unless parliament has agreed the deal - essentially they see it as an implementation period, not a decision making one. That's important because it probably represents a death knell for a second referendum. There's no way it can happen in the next week which is now pretty much a hard cliff edge. So we're probably looking at revoke or crash out in a week.

In theory there's still an option for a long extension but that's unlikely to get through the house - everybody knows that it's basically just a deferred revoke.

So the next week is going to get really fraught.

[FunkyDexter]

Bit of a change overnight. We've been given an extension into April when we'll crash out if we don't agree a deal or May if we do agree a deal. Yesterday the EU were explicitly saying they wouldn't offer that so that's a huge shift for them.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Bit of a change overnight. We've been given an extension into April when we'll crash out if we don't agree a deal or May if we do agree a deal. Yesterday the EU were explicitly saying they wouldn't offer that so that's a huge shift for them.

It seems the EU is doing the best it can when dealing with an unruly child who is threatening itself as a form of leverage, probably treating us better than we deserve.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

That's not quite accurate. She proposed an extension in the hope that it would give her time to get her deal agreed rather than to put off the decision. She was hoping it would pass on it's third (yes, third) vote which is due for next week.

Yup she is just playing for enough time to push yet another vote MV3 on her deal, considering she managed to alienate almost all MP's that she might need to get her vote through with her TV speech last night she has even less chance than before, which was already pretty slim, of getting her deal passed.

I watched both Labour & Conservative MP's last night, that might have been persuaded to back Mays deal (such as Lisa Nandy) say that after that speech where she blamed MP's for the situation we are in that there is now no way they could vote for Mays deal.

Anyway, the EU have said they won't give a short extension unless parliament has agreed the deal - essentially they see it as an implementation period, not a decision making one. That's important because it probably represents a death knell for a second referendum. There's no way it can happen in the next week which is now pretty much a hard cliff edge. So we're probably looking at revoke or crash out in a week.

Bit of a change overnight. We've been given an extension into April when we'll crash out if we don't agree a deal or May if we do agree a deal. Yesterday the EU were explicitly saying they wouldn't offer that so that's a huge shift for them.

Yeah really the EU have just been a bit stricter in what May can and cant have regarding future options. I dont see it as a huge shift they are just protecting there position, by only offering an extension until May if MV3 passes it they knew that if it fails that would leave only 2 days until we crash out, this makes it 2 weeks instead.

The EU has just taken control of the Exit date basically as May has lost control

May deal is a dead duck, instead of having a mad panic next week where everything would have to decided in 2 days, it gives parliament enough time to come behind another option.

I dont think that any option including a second referendum is ruled out by what has happened the EU just want the British Parliament to get a majority behind an option whatever that is, and anyone who can tell you what happens next clearly has a time machine as it is the most unpredictable time in British politics possibly ever.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I feel like you are worse off for these recent developments.

On the news over here, it was reported that the EU said that you have to get a plan in order by the new date (I heard mid-April, but not a firm date, though I assume there is one), or else!!! That sounds like an ultimatum, except that they said they weren't going to allow a short extension like this, and they did. Why should anybody believe them this time?

Frankly, it now seems like a game of chicken where you have inside knowledge that the other person WILL back down...except that nobody knows whether or not that inside knowledge is correct. The whole point behind a game of chicken is that you don't know what the other will do. In this case, I would expect lots of people to assume that the EU will back down, so there won't be any urgency. If they are right, that's bad. If they are wrong, that's worse.

I would say that, if the next vote on May's proposal, goes against her worse than the last vote, then that would be an indication that people are confident that the EU will not hold to mid-April.

[2kaud]

Mrs May has repeatedly stated:

1) The UK will leave the EU on 29 May.

2) No deal is better than a bad deal.

She should now keep her promises and restore trust in politicians. If she can't or won't take the UK out of the EU with or without a deal by 29 March then she should resign immediately.

As long as No Deal is off the table, the EU will string out our leaving as long as possible by keep extending the leave date (in 100 years will a new leave date still be being discussed?). This is in their interests (not ours) as it means we keep paying into the EU, follow their regulations and can't do our own trade deals. In other words - the remainers will have won - despite the referendum mandate. RIP democracy, hello bureaucratic rule!

[PlausiblyDamp]

Mrs May has repeatedly stated:

1) The UK will leave the EU on 29 May.

2) No deal is better than a bad deal.

She should now keep her promises and restore trust in politicians. If she can't or won't take the UK out of the EU with or without a deal by 29 March then she should resign immediately.

As long as No Deal is off the table, the EU will string out our leaving as long as possible by keep extending the leave date (in 100 years will a new leave date still be being discussed?). This is in their interests (not ours) as it means we keep paying into the EU, follow their regulations and can't do our own trade deals. In other words - the remainers will have won - despite the referendum mandate. RIP democracy, hello bureaucratic rule!

Unfortunately the threat of no deal would damage ourselves far more than the EU, obviously they don't want to be hurt by us crashing out but the damage we will do to them is going to be very minor to the damage we do to ourselves.

An advisory referendum result, run by the tory party for purely tory party reasons, promoted by lies and financial irregularities is hardly a solid basis for a democracy. If we leave with no deal we will suffer the costs of WTO, either 0% tarrifs and being flooded with cheap imports or massively increased tarrifs and an increase in prices.

Something as complex as leaving the EU should never have been a simple binary vote, article 50 should never have been triggered before we had some idea of what the end result would be, the process should never have been run by a single party for their own needs, and it certainly should have been run by people more competent than the like of Davies, Raab etc.

Just because TM stated we will leave on the 29th and that no deal is better than a bad deal means nothing, she has also claimed a no deal is worse than her bad deal, she has claimed there wouldn't be a GE and then called one, she will quite frankly do and say anything to whoever she is dealing with at the time and then change her attitude immediately.

[2kaud]

Just because TM stated we will leave on the 29th and that no deal is better than a bad deal means nothing, she has also claimed a no deal is worse than her bad deal, she has claimed there wouldn't be a GE and then called one, she will quite frankly do and say anything to whoever she is dealing with at the time and then change her attitude immediately.

IMO that's why she has to go now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

In favor of who? The bench seems to be kind of barren. There are a few good folks, but it isn't clear that any of them could get a majority of support AND do something useful in the time remaining. You'd be as likely to end up with Boris...and then we'd only be able to debate who's hair is worse (at least ours is orange).

I don't think the EU would be happy with 0% tariffs. As long as there's no hard border in Ireland, that would make for a smugglers paradise: Bring things into Ireland for free, and move them into the EU for free. It would be a heck of a boon for Ireland, for a time, but it wouldn't be sustainable.

[PlausiblyDamp]

In favor of who? The bench seems to be kind of barren. There are a few good folks, but it isn't clear that any of them could get a majority of support AND do something useful in the time remaining. You'd be as likely to end up with Boris...and then we'd only be able to debate who's hair is worse (at least ours is orange).

I don't think the EU would be happy with 0% tariffs. As long as there's no hard border in Ireland, that would make for a smugglers paradise: Bring things into Ireland for free, and move them into the EU for free. It would be a heck of a boon for Ireland, for a time, but it wouldn't be sustainable.

Almost from the start the politicians running Brexit seem to have been utter denial about how important the Irish border would be, the only land border between the UK and the EU was obviously going to be an issue for smugglers, illegal immigration and so on but people just pretended it wouldn't be an issue... I think this is another thing that went into the category of "The EU needs us more than we need them" and it was almost taken for granted that the EU would capitulate on this one.

If we do crash out onto WTO terms then until we can negotiate some actual trade agreements we are fairly limited regarding tariffs - we are legally obliged to offer the same tariffs to everyone in the world we haven't made a specific trade arrangement with. I am not entirely sure how this is an improvement over the EU rules we so hate but we also seem to be pretending that things like the WTO don't have rules. Or something. Quite frankly I am losing track of all the alleged loopholes and legal nonsense that seems to being throw around these days.

I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to step into her shoes, the position is nothing more than a poisoned chalice and whoever gets the job will be hated for whatever they do next.

[FunkyDexter]

Unfortunately the threat of no deal would damage ourselves far more than the EU

That's true but it's the only bargaining chip we've got. I can understand the temptation to take no deal off the table but you'd be a fool to do so. While it's on their we have an element of an asymmetric but, none the less, material MAD defence. Take it off and the EU can do what it likes.

In favor of who?

Bring on Vince

illegal immigration

The Irish border has nothing to do with illegal immigration because Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with people crossing borders. Freedom of movement is to do with eligibility to citizens rights in a country. The camps are not going to move from Calais to Cavan because the English Channel will continue to exist and will continue to present exactly the same obstacle it does now - and the illegality, and therefore policing, of the crossing would not change. Indeed, for illegal immigrants to use Ireland as a gateway they'd be embarking on a crossing from Brest to Cork which would be considerably further and more perilous than the one from Calais to Dover.

Smuggling of good is more of an issue but nowhere near as much of one as is being presented. 1. There's very little impetus to do it because the logistical costs of rerouting your transit van full of cheap fags through Ireland would more than the cost of paying the tariff and 2. Only a fraction of customs policing is actually carried out at the border anyway. Customs policing is carried out in bonded warehouses and through enough internal policing deterrent to make it non-cost effective for anyone to carry it out at scale.

The questions around the Irish border are a political bargaining chip, nothing more. The only risk an Irish border introduces is that it brings with it a sense of "otherness" between the North and South which the separatist and unionist extremists could try and exploit. But the people of Ireland have no appetite for a return to the troubles. In the 70s and 80s there was a great deal of public support for the extremists, these days they're regarded as thugs and criminals. It's possible that the extremists could take the public with them again but it would take disastrous handling of the situation by Stormont and the British Government for that to happen. It would require something on the scale of the executions following the Easter Uprising or another Bloody Sunday.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

She should now keep her promises and restore trust in politicians. If she can't or won't take the UK out of the EU with or without a deal by 29 March then she should resign immediately.

Since when have Politicians always kept there promises? the date we leave the EU is not in Mays hands, it never was, and i am amazed that you can think it is as simple as that.

If May were to say for instance she is going to go far a hard brexit, half her cabinet would resign, the government would no longer have a functioning majority with the DUP and it would not be able to get its business through parliament. In this case Parliament would take control and could do anything up to and including revoking article 50 to stop this course of action.

If May were to go for a Softer brexit she loses the ERG votes and she would have to do a deal with Labour to get it through, something so far she has been unwilling to do.


As much as i would be happy to see May resign, it would not solve the current impasse and there would not be enough time for anyone else to take charge, May would remain caretaker PM, unless you had a long extension (which would allow a leadership challenge or general election) which you are against.

As long as No Deal is off the table, the EU will string out our leaving as long as possible by keep extending the leave date (in 100 years will a new leave date still be being discussed?). This is in their interests (not ours) as it means we keep paying into the EU, follow their regulations and can't do our own trade deals. In other words - the remainers will have won - despite the referendum mandate. RIP democracy, hello bureaucratic rule!

This idea that the threat of No Deal is some how a negotiating position is crazy, the idea that all we need to do is keep threatening to leave and at the last minute the EU would change its position on the backstop fundamentally misunderstands the cost and benefit of it to the EU.

They will not back down on it as to do so would make the deal much much worse for them to the point that its not worth having.

A lot of people seem to think that the EU will avoid a hard brexit at any cost but that is not the case.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Unfortunately the threat of no deal would damage ourselves far more than the EU

That's true but it's the only bargaining chip we've got. I can understand the temptation to take no deal off the table but you'd be a fool to do so. While it's on their we have an element of an asymmetric but, none the less, material MAD defence. Take it off and the EU can do what it likes.

I know a lot of people think this but it fundamentally misunderstands the EU position on this, when your main bargaining position is "I will hurt myself and while it will hurt me more it will also hurt you" you know your position is weak.

The EU knows it and they also are not prepared to avoid us hurting ourselves at any cost even if there is some pain for them. You could argue about the point at which the cost outweighs the benefits to the EU and again i would repeat the backstop is that point.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I feel like you are worse off for these recent developments.

Depends on who you mean by you, if you mean Theresa May then i would say yes she is worse off, but it doesn't really change much for the rest of us.

On the news over here, it was reported that the EU said that you have to get a plan in order by the new date (I heard mid-April, but not a firm date, though I assume there is one), or else!!! That sounds like an ultimatum, except that they said they weren't going to allow a short extension like this, and they did. Why should anybody believe them this time?

Not exactly the EU never said we could not have a short extension just that we had to have a clear plan of what we wanted to do with a short extension in order for them to grant it.

What the EU has said to May is get your vote through Parliament and we will give you an extension into the month of May in order to to get all legislation through in time, but dont get it through and your exit date is now 12th April unless you agree something else. They have in effect taken control of the Exit date.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The questions around the Irish border are a political bargaining chip, nothing more.

This is the one area where i feel we disagree most FD, if you talk with anyone who is from Northern Ireland you get an entirely different perspective on this. The troubles were not that long ago to those who lived through them and lost family members in them and putting a hard border back in place has many legitimately worried about a return to sectarian conflict.

Many people seem to be saying either we don't believe those times will ever return in Northern Ireland in which case i think they are naive or misinformed, or they are comfortable with a risk of a return to conflict in Northern Ireland as a side effect of us getting our deal through.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well....I guess it should be an interesting week.

[FunkyDexter]

if you talk with anyone who is from Northern Ireland you get an entirely different perspective on this

My family is Irish (my name's Declan which is kinda a clue). We're predominantly from Eire (Limerick) but I have cousins and friends from all over, including the North, and I'm old enough to remember the troubles although I myself was living in England.

Ireland is a VERY different place now to what it was in the 80s (which was when I was a teen and engaged enough to understand it) and it's populated with very different people. Back then it was a small minority who were actually engaged in the violence but pretty much everyone knew someone who was. And everyone would quietly offer shelter and support to the men. Everyone from Eire viscerally hated anyone from the North and vice versa.

Nobody I know shows sympathies any more and all are ready to vocally condemn any form of para-militarism. My younger cousins don't even really register that history anymore because they have no experience of it. They have friends across the border. They've married across the border and had kids who don't particularly recognise themselves as Eire or Northern, they're just Irish.

Believe me, I'm not trivialising anything and I don't want to see a return to the troubles. Nobody does. That's the point. A hard border almost certainly will see the likes of the new IRA and whatever new unionist paramilitary organisation sprouts up trying to take advantage (they've already claimed a couple of failed letter bombs) but the people of Ireland view those men very differently now; they will not follow or support them.

Anyway, lots of drama last night with 3 (I think) cabinet resignations. Haven't had time to process it yet though.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Believe me, I'm not trivialising anything and I don't want to see a return to the troubles. Nobody does.

but the people of Ireland view those men very differently now; they will not follow or support them.

Ok i do believe you although again i have a few friends from Northern Ireland and family friends of my Dads from the older generation and they are all very worried about what a hard border would do to the piece process as in effect the Good Friday agreement would be broken.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Anyway, lots of drama last night with 3 (I think) cabinet resignations. Haven't had time to process it yet though.

Yeah its all very strange, Indicative votes are going to go ahead but we don't know on what options yet and the PM has already come out and said if for instance a Custom Union or second ref was chosen by Parliament she would not be held by the vote as its not in the Conservative manifesto and so would ignore the will of parliament.

May is continuing with the my deal or no deal threats/policy and still not entertaining anything else, it all very frustrating to watch.

Whether there is a mechanism for Parliament to force the PM to a different path is not yet really clear and i suspect we will have another week or 2 of this, it seems like we have to be staring down the abyss and about to fall in to take an alternative path.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Yeah its all very strange, Indicative votes are going to go ahead but we don't know on what options yet and the PM has already come out and said if for instance a Custom Union or second ref was chosen by Parliament she would not be held by the vote as its not in the Conservative manifesto and so would ignore the will of parliament.

May is continuing with the my deal or no deal threats/policy and still not entertaining anything else, it all very frustrating to watch.

Whether there is a mechanism for Parliament to force the PM to a different path is not yet really clear and i suspect we will have another week or 2 of this, it seems like we have to be staring down the abyss and about to fall in to take an alternative path.

I don't think I have ever witnessed a PM so determined to stick to a doomed plan before, if nothing else it certainly shows just how broken UK politics is at the moment.