The big Brexit thread - news, updates and discussion

[MickiQ]

How much Wensleydale were the US up for taking off our hands?

Not enough

 

[philosophical]

One way to distract and 'unite the country' might be to declare war on Luxembourg.

 

[Roadkill]

All you remoaners are so negative. Look on the bright side FFS:

 

[TopCat]

Good to see people are adjusting to life outside the EU.

 

[magneze]

They can three-quarters blockade us if they're serious enough.

What does that mean?

 

[Streathamite]

Does (3) mean invasion?

They don't have to do that. All they need to do is end passporting for the UK financial services sector, and bremove all UK tradew access to EU. Pretty much the entire UK economy, instantly crippled

 

[ska invita]

What does that mean?

I presume 'block' borders via wales, scotland and england ... less so N Ireland

 

[TopCat]

Owen Jones makes a lot of sense in this article on Brexit. Brexit is back – and Labour's dilemma has not changed | Owen Jones

 

[ska invita]

Owen Jones makes a lot of sense in this article on Brexit. Brexit is back – and Labour's dilemma has not changed | Owen Jones

Agree with the Labour bit, but less so the opening lines " The latest Tory ruse on Brexit is tediously straightforward. By talking up no deal and expressing a willingness to flout international law, the Conservatives intend to bounce Brussels into a favourable agreement while torturing their Labour opponents. "

Which suggests theres no plan for a no deal, its all just a ruse. Might be true, but I think no deal looks much the more likely option

Good explainer here on regards bluff or not:

Good morning. No border protocol, no party: that's the message from Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. She has warned that in the event the British government unpicks or walks away from measures designed to ensure the continuity of an invisible, frictionless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, there is no prospect of a US-UK trade deal being passed by Congress. That shouldn't be surprising - Robert Lighthizer, Donald Trump's trade representative, told a Congressional committee in June that there would be no point negotiating a US-UK trade deal in the event that a hard border returns to the island of Ireland. It's worth noting that, as written, the Internal Market Bill would not prevent the emergence of some new barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom - which is one reason why the European Research Group are, per Sky's Sam Coates, calling for the government to go further in banning east-to-west checks. It is far from clear as it stands that the Internal Market Bill can even pass Parliament - it will struggle to make it through the House of Lords unscathed and it is not certain that this Downing Street's parliamentary management is up to the task of repelling multiple amendments in the House of Commons. Now, if in reality Boris Johnson secretly wants a deal, he has the votes to pass one, because the choice before the opposition parties will be between Johnson's deal and no-deal. They have no leverage to improve the terms of the deal - the only button they can press is to avert no-deal by facilitating the passage of Johnson's deal, whether through abstention or active support. But does Johnson want a deal? While in Brussels, the numbers of people who think that the British government wants a deal is in sharp decline after this week's developments, at Westminster, the idea that all of this is just posturing won't die. Some Leavers still fear another betrayal - that Johnson will use the theatre of a high-stakes last-minute deal to smuggle in a swathe of concessions. And for some Conservative ministers, that it is all bluff is how they justify remaining inside the government in private. And it's possible that both those groups are right: that just as Johnson claimed that his embrace of the European Commission's original plan to just put a border in the Irish Sea was a British diplomatic triumph he will, in December, be hailing an accord that compromises on state aid and fishing as great victories against the European Union. But if you look at the detail of what the government is asking for on state aid, the fight it is opting to pick over Northern Ireland with both the European Union and the United States, is that the British government is making a virtue of reducing its wriggle room, and that Downing Street's expressed priorities can only be met through a no deal Brexit. As it stands, we have no reason not to take that seriously. The possibility that will end the new year in the grip of multiple overlapping economic, parliamentary and health crises is a real and dangerous one.

 

[Winot]

They don't have to do that. All they need to do is end passporting for the UK financial services sector, and bremove all UK tradew access to EU. Pretty much the entire UK economy, instantly crippled

Passporting is dead anyway afaik.

 

[Streathamite]

Passporting is dead anyway afaik.

I thought it was essential for the City's business?

 

[TopCat]

Barnier will huff and puff his cheeks out but it wont end in a trade war. Too much for the EU to lose.

 

[Roadkill]

Barnier will huff and puff his cheeks out but it wont end in a trade war. Too much for the EU to lose.

This is the old 'they'll blink at the last minute' line. They probably won't. They've a lot less to lose than the UK, and protecting the single market is a lot more important to them than cutting a deal. This either ends in capitulation by the UK, like last year, or 'no deal.'

 

[Flavour]

At the same time they can't let the UK take the piss, they have to make an example of / punish the UK in order to maintain the integrity of the EU. I don't think the worst case scenario (for the government) of a no deal with hard border in Ireland and sanctions against UK is all that unlikely to be honest. Will be shit for all the EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU though that's for damn sure, if the WA is torn up

 

[Streathamite]

This is the old 'they'll blink at the last minute' line. They probably won't. They've a lot less to lose than the UK, and protecting the single market is a lot more important to them than cutting a deal. This either ends in capitulation by the UK, like last year, or 'no deal.'

Spot on. The EU simply can't afford to blink - and ultimately, they don't need to. We need that deal more than they do.

 

[Winot]

I thought it was essential for the City's business?

Not sure. Not an expert. I think passporting can be replaced with equivalence, but that it’s not clear how much and for what reason the UK wants to diverge.

Brexit isn’t done: what next for financial services?

Is EU withdrawal a dangerous threat to the City of London’s pre-eminence or a chance to pursue a new economic model?

www.newstatesman.com

 

[Raheem]

But if you look at the detail of what the government is asking for on state aid, the fight it is opting to pick over Northern Ireland with both the European Union and the United States, is that the British government is making a virtue of reducing its wriggle room, and that Downing Street's expressed priorities can only be met through a no deal Brexit. As it stands, we have no reason not to take that seriously. The possibility that will end the new year in the grip of multiple overlapping economic, parliamentary and health crises is a real and dangerous one.

Think this underlined part is mistaken because Johnson has not being gradually reducing his wiggle-room. He threw it away at the start of the year. So it has been ineveitable since then that we would at some point have to get to a point where the choice is for him to climb down or for there to be no deal, which is where we are.

 

[ska invita]

Think this underlined part is mistaken because Johnson has not being gradually reducing his wiggle-room. He threw it away at the start of the year. So it has been ineveitable since then that we would at some point have to get to a point where the choice is for him to climb down or for there to be no deal, which is where we are.

that big quote was from Stephen Bush btw - I shouldve made that clear

 

[not-bono-ever]

Agree with the Labour bit, but less so the opening lines " The latest Tory ruse on Brexit is tediously straightforward. By talking up no deal and expressing a willingness to flout international law, the Conservatives intend to bounce Brussels into a favourable agreement while torturing their Labour opponents. "

Which suggests theres no plan for a no deal, its all just a ruse. Might be true, but I think no deal looks much the more likely option

Good explainer here on regards bluff or not:

Good morning. No border protocol, no party: that's the message from Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. She has warned that in the event the British government unpicks or walks away from measures designed to ensure the continuity of an invisible, frictionless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, there is no prospect of a US-UK trade deal being passed by Congress. That shouldn't be surprising - Robert Lighthizer, Donald Trump's trade representative, told a Congressional committee in June that there would be no point negotiating a US-UK trade deal in the event that a hard border returns to the island of Ireland. It's worth noting that, as written, the Internal Market Bill would not prevent the emergence of some new barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom - which is one reason why the European Research Group are, per Sky's Sam Coates, calling for the government to go further in banning east-to-west checks. It is far from clear as it stands that the Internal Market Bill can even pass Parliament - it will struggle to make it through the House of Lords unscathed and it is not certain that this Downing Street's parliamentary management is up to the task of repelling multiple amendments in the House of Commons. Now, if in reality Boris Johnson secretly wants a deal, he has the votes to pass one, because the choice before the opposition parties will be between Johnson's deal and no-deal. They have no leverage to improve the terms of the deal - the only button they can press is to avert no-deal by facilitating the passage of Johnson's deal, whether through abstention or active support. But does Johnson want a deal? While in Brussels, the numbers of people who think that the British government wants a deal is in sharp decline after this week's developments, at Westminster, the idea that all of this is just posturing won't die. Some Leavers still fear another betrayal - that Johnson will use the theatre of a high-stakes last-minute deal to smuggle in a swathe of concessions. And for some Conservative ministers, that it is all bluff is how they justify remaining inside the government in private. And it's possible that both those groups are right: that just as Johnson claimed that his embrace of the European Commission's original plan to just put a border in the Irish Sea was a British diplomatic triumph he will, in December, be hailing an accord that compromises on state aid and fishing as great victories against the European Union. But if you look at the detail of what the government is asking for on state aid, the fight it is opting to pick over Northern Ireland with both the European Union and the United States, is that the British government is making a virtue of reducing its wriggle room, and that Downing Street's expressed priorities can only be met through a no deal Brexit. As it stands, we have no reason not to take that seriously. The possibility that will end the new year in the grip of multiple overlapping economic, parliamentary and health crises is a real and dangerous one.

ERG have a new chair apparently. Things might change

 

[ska invita]

Tories can't back down now , it'll look like surrender... Can only mean no deal surely?

Deck chairs

 

[Smangus]

Given some of the reaction from tory peers this has "Johnson Mega Fuck Up" written all over it. Be interesting tobsee what happens when the bill gets to the upper house.

 

[teqniq]

Quality

 

[Raheem]

Tories can't back down now , it'll look like surrender... Can only mean no deal surely?

Not sure. It sort of mirrors the situation last year when there was no way they could accept any withdrawal agreement the EU would be likely to offer.

Depressing thing is you or I probably have a better chance of guessing where the government will go from here than anyone in the government.

 

[rubbershoes]

Let's remember that tory members would prefer NI and Scotland leaving the UK, and significant damage to the UK economy, than brexit not happening. It is a sacred cow to them. Brexit at whatever cost

 

[Raheem]

Let's remember that tory members would prefer NI and Scotland leaving the UK, and significant damage to the UK economy, than brexit not happening. It is a sacred cow to them. Brexit at whatever cost

Sure, but it's easy for them to say that beforehand.

 

[maomao]

According to the Daily Mail comments section this is going down very well with parts of the base who think Boris is standing up to Brussels.

 

[Pickman's model]

Tories can't back down now , it'll look like surrender... Can only mean no deal surely?

Deck chairs

Titanic

 

[brogdale]

Tories can't back down now , it'll look like surrender... Can only mean no deal surely?

Deck chairs

Feels like that, but you have to wonder to what extent this is Cummings attempting to compel the supra state to be seen to enforce what will be unpopular non-tariff barriers within & between nations of the UK Union. In other words, another (apparently) high stakes & very theatrical exercise in blame shifting, so that, when they cave, the vermin will blame others for what they signed up to.

 

[Streathamite]

ERG have a new chair apparently. Things might change

Nope. It's that complete dickhead bernard Jenkin

 

[Streathamite]

Tories can't back down now , it'll look like surrender... Can only mean no deal surely?

Deck chairs

If they don't, we face the utter ruin of the UK economy - and food shortages