Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[killer b]

Ironically, I think that's preciely what will happen, although why you think that would be something to celebrate I don't know.

It won't be - whatever the feelings are in parliament, there's close to 50% of the country are more or less full on brexit ultras. The Tories would be utterly crushed and Labour hugely damaged if they 'called bullshit'.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe someone should start a 'fantasy Brexit scenarios' thread so we can attempt to remain focused on reality on this one

fantasy brexit, like fantasy football, where you have to pick your cabinet only instead of avoiding players from the same club you avoid politicians from the same school

 

[sleaterkinney]

This is what exercises the DUP so much. Evidently didn't think of that when they jumped in to support brexit. wtf did they think would happen? The idea of being on the same side as Sinn Fein in anything was clearly too much to bear.

The DUP would be quite happy to have a border back.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It won't be - whatever the feelings are in parliament, there's close to 50% of the country are more or less full on brexit ultras. The Tories would be utterly crushed and Labour hugely damaged if they 'called bullshit'.

And if they call bullshit jointly? A bill is presented to parliament to rescind A50 and it passes with cross-party support. Who is damaged more by that? Because in a way it's the comparative damage that matters electorally, no? Tories very very damaged versus Labour just very damaged leaves Labour ahead by one degree of 'very'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The DUP would be quite happy to have a border back.

Yes I know. But they surely realised that wasn't going to happen. Or maybe they didn't. They're hard to fathom at times.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It won't be - whatever the feelings are in parliament, there's close to 50% of the country are more or less full on brexit ultras. The Tories would be utterly crushed and Labour hugely damaged if they 'called bullshit'.

I'm not saying there won't be anger. But if May resigns in February, and a new govt comes to power, what are they gonna do? May's Deal? No Deal? Not viable. They will choose No Brexit and they will say sorry May fucked it up we had to do this in the national interest.

In the article I linked to above both Soubry and Nicky Morgan made it perfectly clear they don't give a fuck about the unity of the Tory Party and they are speaking on behalf of other Remain Tories who are staying quiet for now. As for how interested many Labour MP's are in the unity of the Labour Party, well, I think we've done that to death over the last 3 and a half years.

 

[SpackleFrog]

And if they call bullshit jointly? A bill is presented to parliament to rescind A50 and it passes with cross-party support. Who is damaged more by that? Because in a way it's the comparative damage that matters electorally, no? Tories very very damaged versus Labour just very damaged leaves Labour ahead by one degree of 'very'.

I love how right at the end of this process me and LBJ are suddenly agreeing so much

He's absolutely right. It's the brand that gets damaged relative to the other brand.

 

[SpackleFrog]

fantasy brexit, like fantasy football, where you have to pick your cabinet only instead of avoiding players from the same club you avoid politicians from the same school

Imagine if you had Johnson as Captain this game week. You'd be disappointed with his points haul!

 

[killer b]

Where's that fantasy brexit thread again?

 

[killer b]

nod along all you like to things that aren't going to happen lads.

 

[SpackleFrog]

nod along all you like to things that aren't going to happen lads.

If you don't agree fair enough. But can you tell me something more likely?

 

[killer b]

Some form of norway-ish brexit pushed through by whoever is in power next year, probably after extending A50 is my best guess.

 

[Pickman's model]

it's a peep over the cliff of no deal followed by remain

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

May's deal gets the boot, she resigns, whoever takes over looks over the cliff then pulls A50/gets a lengthy extension from the EU "in the national interest", the can gets kicked further down the road, meanwhile a convenient war somewhere lets everyone look the other way.

 

[Wilf]

You misunderstand the ambition of the ruling class comrade! They want to cancel Brexit not just minimise it.

We seem to be at a point where we've shifted from political economy to a ball zipping round a pinball table. For about the full 2 years after the brexit vote you could see state theory in operation, with different bits of capital publicly and privately playing the great game over brexit. We now seem to be in a situation where events, timescales and crude politico-self interest has taken over. The multinationals, manufacturers and banks must still be wittering on, but the government is distracted, doing it's multi-level okey cokey, rats in a sack, prisoners dilemma.

 

[killer b]

Here's my reasoning fwiw - the chart below is from the yougov MRP poll (20,000 people responded so it should be reliable in it's findings). It's asking about May's deal, but I think the figures would be pretty similar for most other forms of negotiated soft brexit.

While the population is more or less 50/50 split over remain/leave, the leavers will support leave by whatever method: deal if that's what there is, or no deal if necessary.

A substantial number of remainers would go for the deal though, if it were a choice between deal or no deal.

The weak point is the remainers, a substantial number of whom will do whatever is necessary to avoid no deal - so in the end, that's the way the deadlock will break. Because no-one else is budging.

 

[andysays]

Interesting development following previous posts addressing the issue of whether the Irish govt were attempting to tell the UK govt and people that they couldn't have Brexit.

Irish premier wants 'enduring assurance'

Leo Varadkar, the Irish premier (taoiseach), said he expects Theresa May's assurances on the backstop to be honoured. "What we want is an enduring assurance that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, no matter what the circumstances. That is an assurance the UK government gave us over a year ago. The withdrawal agreement puts that into law and now we would like to see that agreement ratified."

He suggested Britain could lift the threat of a no-deal Brexit by suspending, or ending, the Article 50 withdrawal process. "It is absolutely within the gift of the United Kingdom to take no deal off the table if they wish to," he added.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting development following previous posts addressing the issue of whether the Irish govt were attempting to tell the UK govt and people that they couldn't have Brexit.

Irish premier wants 'enduring assurance'

What point are you trying to make here? The Irish pm's primary concern is to remove any risk of a hard border appearing on the island of Ireland. That's a very fundamental thing. Let's be very clear about this, given the history of Ireland, the imposition of a hard border across it by the UK would be an act of imperialism. So yes, why not tell an ex-imperialist power that used to rule the whole of Ireland and has clung on to one gerrymandered corner of it that they can't do that?

 

[kabbes]

Currently, goods, people and services cross the NI/RoI border seamlessly.
This open border is one of the key parts of the Good Friday Agreement.
After Brexit Day, the future trade negotiations begin.
The nature of the Irish border will be part of those negotiations.
In case those negotiations break down, a "plan B" must be ready, and legally enforceable, to maintain that open border.
This "backstop" is part of the Withdrawl Agreement, and it effectively keeps NI in the customs unions and subject to many EU laws, indefinitely.
Brexiteers don't like this because it's Not Full Brexit.
The DUP don't like this because it's Not A United Kingdom.
The EU sees it as a fundamental part of the Withdrawl Agreement and will not budge.

Stalemate.

Stalemate except for the fact that in the absence of a deal, it’s not the Brexiteers and DUP that don’t get their way, it’s the EU. That’s what I don’t understand about the EU’s intransigence — for a body that is supposedly prioritising the needs of the Irish citizens above all else, they are fucking cavalier about the fact the hardest border of all is about to be erected as a default option in the absence of a deal. It’s almost like they don’t actually give a fuck about Irish residents after all.

 

[kabbes]

What point are you trying to make here? The Irish pm's primary concern is to remove any risk of a hard border appearing on the island of Ireland. That's a very fundamental thing. Let's be very clear about this, given the history of Ireland, the imposition of a hard border across it by the UK would be an act of imperialism. So yes, why not tell an ex-imperialist power that used to rule the whole of Ireland and has clung on to one gerrymandered corner of it that they can't do that?

It’s quite a stretch to say that the hard border across it will be imposed by the UK. The UK clearly has no desire to do any such thing. If anybody is imposing the border, it is international trade bodies such as the WTO and, specifically, the EU.

 

[andysays]

What point are you trying to make here? The Irish pm's primary concern is to remove any risk of a hard border appearing on the island of Ireland. That's a very fundamental thing. Let's be very clear about this, given the history of Ireland, the imposition of a hard border across it by the UK would be an act of imperialism. So yes, why not tell an ex-imperialist power that used to rule the whole of Ireland and has clung on to one gerrymandered corner of it that they can't do that?

If the reporting is correct, he's not just saying that (which I have no problem with), he's suggesting that the UK govt should lift the threat of a no-deal Brexit by suspending, or ending, the Article 50 withdrawal process.

In other words, it is the govt of one nation attempting to tell the govt of another how it should conduct its affairs. When this was discussed recently by (I think) kabbes and Lupa, I don't think it had been said quite so explicitly, but it certainly seems to be pretty explicit now...

 

[kabbes]

If the reporting is correct, he's not just saying that (which I have no problem with), he's suggesting that the UK govt should lift the threat of a no-deal Brexit by suspending, or ending, the Article 50 withdrawal process.

In other words, it is the govt of one nation attempting to tell the govt of another how it should conduct its affairs. When this was discussed recently by (I think) kabbes and Lupa, I don't think it had been said quite so explicitly, but it certainly seems to be pretty explicit now...

And at a personal, visceral level, it is exactly this kind of belief on the behalf of the EU and EU nations that they have the right to tell another sovereign state what they should (or even must) do that has pushed me from remain to leave. My impulse is, “fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me”.

 

[killer b]

Re: Ireland, this article I read this morning in the Irish indie is relevant (and interesting). Dunno how prevelent this view is over there tho.

Dan O'Brien: 'The backstop demand could end up bringing about that which it was designed to prevent' - Independent.ie

 

[kabbes]

And yes, I am aware of the irony of a UK citizen (ie me) getting bent out of shape at the idea of being told what to do by another country given the inglorious history of the UK’s meddling in the affairs of other nations.

 

[kabbes]

Re: Ireland, this article I read this morning in the Irish indie is relevant (and interesting). Dunno how prevelent this view is over there tho.

Dan O'Brien: 'The backstop demand could end up bringing about that which it was designed to prevent' - Independent.ie

A good article. We have a tendency to just concentrate on our own failures of negotiation, but the kick in the balls swings from both feet.

 

[teuchter]

the kick in the balls swings from both feet.

Trying to work out how this works.

 

[andysays]

In other news

Meaningful vote in January, says Number 10

MPs will not be asked to vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal before the end of this year, Downing Street has said. A Number 10 spokeswoman told reporters: "The 'meaningful vote' will not be brought to Parliament before Christmas." The spokeswoman said the vote - which was scheduled for Tuesday this week but postponed by the prime minister after she accepted she would lose heavily - will come "as soon as possible in January". The government has committed to holding it before 21 January.

 

[kabbes]

Trying to work out how this works.

It involves tripping up and falling flat on your face.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Some form of norway-ish brexit pushed through by whoever is in power next year, probably after extending A50 is my best guess.

Exactly, I agree, but the easiest way to get that is a cross party govt no?

 

[Raheem]

Here's my reasoning fwiw - the chart below is from the yougov MRP poll (20,000 people responded so it should be reliable in it's findings). It's asking about May's deal, but I think the figures would be pretty similar for most other forms of negotiated soft brexit.

While the population is more or less 50/50 split over remain/leave, the leavers will support leave by whatever method: deal if that's what there is, or no deal if necessary.

A substantial number of remainers would go for the deal though, if it were a choice between deal or no deal.

The weak point is the remainers, a substantial number of whom will do whatever is necessary to avoid no deal - so in the end, that's the way the deadlock will break. Because no-one else is budging.

Think this is a slightly faulty reading of the data, because it is based on participants being asked to rank the options. But we're very unlikely to get that model of referendum. The same YouGov survey also did binary choices, in which case remain wins with a reasonable margin against the deal.