Brexit - the next steps

[Rhiannon]

They at least voted against as a party for once. Those that voted for are just the same as Tories who voted against.

It was too little, too late though. The Lib Dems screwed up but they did have a point where they said that they were expecting yet more abstentions.

[Nearly Sane]

It was too little, too late though. The Lib Dems screwed up but they did have a point where they said that they were expecting yet more abstentions.

I knew they weren't abstaining from following twitter, why couldn't the Lib  Dem whips whose job it is to know stuff manage that? Why not vote against it anyway as leader and ex leader to show what you believe in?

[Rhiannon]

I knew they weren't abstaining from following twitter, why couldn't the Lib  Dem whips whose his it is to know stuff manage that? Why not vote against it anyway as leader and ex leader to show what you believe in?

Not going to argue with that.

[wigginhall]

Mrs May said today that 70 technical notices will be published in August and Sept, dealing with a no deal scenario, and helping businesses and households.   One wag said they haven't been written yet, so some poor sod will have his summer ruined.

But anyway, stockpiling spam, beans and cornflakes for 3 months should see you to Christmas, then move to Ireland.  What's the problem?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mrs May said today that 70 technical notices will be published in August and Sept, dealing with a no deal scenario, and helping businesses and households.   One wag said they haven't been written yet, so some poor sod will have his summer ruined.

But anyway, stockpiling spam, beans and cornflakes for 3 months should see you to Christmas, then move to Ireland.  What's the problem?

Yes it seems that to survive and justify an option that leads to Hard Brexit will demand second world war logistics, timing, social cooperation which even then couldn't dispel the hardship. The trouble is all that ended in the welfare state, labour governments, tory parties well to the left of Rees Moggism and the post war political concensus.

[wigginhall]

There is some talk that the EU are soft-peddling on the Chequers proposals, as they don't want to endanger Mrs May's govt, by being too brutal.   It's plausible, as UK elections right now would mess up negotiations, but then everything seems plausible.   Maybe we will sign a trade deal with Tierra Del Fuego.

[Nearly Sane]

May wants the EU to abandon the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to, and is lying about not having agreed to this.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border

[jeremyp]

May wants the EU to abandon the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to, and is lying about not having agreed to this.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border

I think there are only two workable solutions to the Irish border problem:

1. hard border as per our border with the rest of the EU

2. The UK stays in the EFTA,, or the customs union, at least.

The EU back stop solution is pie in the sky unless NI effectively becomes independent of the rest of the UK. While that is an option, it's not workable because of opposition to the idea from within NI itself and the UK.

I think the EU knows the back stop solution is unworkable and I think they are just putting it forward to try to highlight the realities of the situation to the British government. The lack of awareness of the government is making me really angry. Everything that's happened since the referendum has been absolutely shambolic.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there are only two workable solutions to the Irish border problem:

1. hard border as per our border with the rest of the EU

2. The UK stays in the EFTA,, or the customs union, at least.

The EU back stop solution is pie in the sky unless NI effectively becomes independent of the rest of the UK. While that is an option, it's not workable because of opposition to the idea from within NI itself and the UK.

I think the EU knows the back stop solution is unworkable and I think they are just putting it forward to try to highlight the realities of the situation to the British government. The lack of awareness of the government is making me really angry. Everything that's happened since the referendum has been absolutely shambolic.

That the backstop may be unworkable due to UK politics isn't something that changes the fact that it was signed up to by the UK govt and has now been reneged on. Either they shouldn't have agreed it, or they should stick with it.

[wigginhall]

Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit.   Either the single market, or no deal.   May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.

On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes.   I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market.  Another possibility is an emergency settlement.

Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?

[Spud]

Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit.   Either the single market, or no deal.   May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.

But that's the EU being unreasonable. The free-trade-in-goods-only part of the Chequers plan sorts the problem of the Irish border, so May can say she isn't breaking the agreement she signed up to regarding that.

On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes.   I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market.  Another possibility is an emergency settlement.

Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?

Again, the EU's responsibility, not ours.

[Spud]

On second thoughts, might the responsibility lie with the Irish themselves? (referring to both Northern and Southern Irish?)

[Spud]

I know very little about Irish history. Can I assume it revolves around religious differences (Catholic v Protestant beliefs)?

[wigginhall]

That's very funny saying that the EU are being unreasonable, for sticking with the agreements, which the UK are opting out of.

[Nearly Sane]

I know very little about Irish history. Can I assume it revolves around religious differences (Catholic v Protestant beliefs)?

Not really. It may revolve around social divides with religion as Flags of Convenience but it is not about religious belief

[Nearly Sane]

On second thoughts, might the responsibility lie with the Irish themselves? (referring to both Northern and Southern Irish?)

For what? May agreeing to something and then going back on it?

[Nearly Sane]

But that's the EU being unreasonable. The free-trade-in-goods-only part of the Chequers plan sorts the problem of the Irish border, so May can say she isn't breaking the agreement she signed up to regarding that.

Again, the EU's responsibility, not ours.

Nope, there was the agreement to have the backstop previously agreed with the EU. The Chequers agreement allowed for that but the changes out forward to the White Paper by the ERG means it doesn't work. So may agreed to something, for cabinet agreement for a form of words that worked with it, then some cabinet ministers and a few nonentities resigned, so she then accepted amendments which screwed up the agreement with the EU and The Chequers paper for that bit. So how is that the Eu's fault?

[Nearly Sane]

Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit.   Either the single market, or no deal.   May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.

On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes.   I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market.  Another possibility is an emergency settlement.

Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?

No, she concocted a deal on the Chequers paper that the EU might have gone with as even with the political difficulties of the backstop, it was still in play. The ERG amendments removed the backstop and May and the govt lied that it made no difference but have now come out saying the backstop that they agreed to is off the table.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I agree that the govt have sabotaged their own proposals, but I thought that there were noises off, that Chequers is not on for the EU.  But probably there could be a poker style last minute deal.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I agree that the govt have sabotaged their own proposals, but I thought that there were noises off, that Chequers is not on for the EU.  But probably there could be a poker style last minute deal.

Oh, there were definitely noises of but the backstop was still workable. I think the EU would have accepted some compromises and maybe had the Chequers doc 'clarified' in some ways but the ERG amendment blew apart the earlier agreement totally.

[wigginhall]

Mogg rools!

[Nearly Sane]

Saying that Lewis didn't know is arguable, but Smith did know about this and the other cases where he was refused by his own MPs. Either the PM is so incompetent that she doesn't know what is already clear, or she is lying, yet again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44897844

[Spud]

That's very funny saying that the EU are being unreasonable, for sticking with the agreements, which the UK are opting out of.

So why did we bother to try for a deal if they are so obviously going to reject what the UK wants? Why not go straight to WTO rules or accept single market etc?

No, she concocted a deal on the Chequers paper that the EU might have gone with as even with the political difficulties of the backstop, it was still in play. The ERG amendments removed the backstop and May and the govt lied that it made no difference but have now come out saying the backstop that they agreed to is off the table.

Did they agree to a customs border down the irish sea as a backstop?

[Nearly Sane]

So why did we bother to try for a deal if they are so obviously going to reject what the UK wants? Why not go straight to WTO rules or accept single market etc?

Did they agree to a customs border down the irish sea as a backstop?

No, that was the EU's preferred interpretation, but the alternative, their chosen and suggested alternative,  was that they mainrained EU tariffs until further work would be done. The ERG amendments that they agreed to following the Chequers (which spell check keeps on suggesting Cheaters for) agreement, meant that was off the table to. So now there is no backstop in the UK plan.


As to your first question driven as already pointed out this wasn't what the UK agreed to, or what the Chequers document said, why is it the EU's fault that they aren't agreeing to something that the govt itself didn't agree to fill last week?

[Nearly Sane]

My hovercraft is full of eels



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-paper-german-translation-white-chequers-deal-a8454561.html