Brexit

If I'm being perfectly honest here I don't see much difference between their 'new plan' and May's Plan. Having NI vote on whether to continue the arrangement every couple years or so is an interesting one, but really it just makes the possibility of a border ultimately up to the citizens of NI.

Parliament's actions, which go against convention and precedence, and which are at odds with the wishes of the people, have the potential to cause real harm to democracy in the UK. Parliament's actions (esp the Benn surrender act) also make negotiations with the EU much more difficult.

There are very significant differences. Firstly the new proposal takes GB out of the single market, out of the customs union, and ends the authority of the ECJ in GB. May's agreement did none of these things.

The new proposal also takes NI out of the customs union. Something May's agreement never did. What the new agreement also does is transfer power re the ending of special arrangements in NI from the EU to the people of NI. This is in stark contrast to May's agreement.

Some people believe that a "hard border" could result in an increase in activity by extremists. The proposed agreement is committed to avoiding a "hard border".

Under May there was a general election in 2017 which, if anything, made the whole situation worse. There is just nothing to suggest that yet another election in 2018 would have been any different. It has only been since BJ became PM that parties and MPs have, through their words and actions, really made it known where they stand on Brexit. So, unlike before, there is now a very clear divide btw the Conservative party who are determined to honour the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history, and the other parties. You have Labour who are effectively opposed to Brexit in any form, and you have the Lib Dems who are very explicit in their opposition to the UK leaving the EU as per the wish of the people. Thus the situation now is fundamentally different to what it was when May was PM. That is why now an election makes sense.

Note - the currently agreed exit date isnt "just months" away, it's at the end of this month. Unfortunately it's now too late for an election to be held before the 31 of October. Labour saw to this, knocking back calls from the Government to support an election on no fewer than three occassions.

Except it did? It was NI who got left out in the cold with the old deal. The entire point of the original backstop being in the ocean was to specifically separate the regulatory zones of NI with the rest of the UK.



With the same solution posited previously, an electronic border. It was because the EU found that solution untenable in the first place that the backstop was created as a compromise. This new deal literally does nothing but suggest the same thing they said previously.



As I said earlier, an interesting idea, but one that ultimately means that the people of NI get to decide what the border looks like regardless of the wishes of the UK or the EU. So the UK can wax poetic about it's intentions until it crumbles to dust, it won't mean anything if NI just decide to go against their wishes.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here. Under May the EU (including Juncker and Barnier) were insistent that there would be no re-negotiation of the terrible deal that May agreed to. A deal that left the UK tied to the customs union, tied to the single market, tied to EU law and subject to the authority of the ECJ, whilst not being able to influence any decision making within the EU. And it left the UK in that position until the EU said otherwise. A great deal for the EU, a shocker for the UK. But this is what happens if you aren't prepared to walk away from negotiations. This is what happens when you signal that you will be prepared to accept a bad deal over no deal.

Then BJ became PM. At first the EU treated him the same as they treated May and insisted that the May deal was the only one available. Take it or leave it. But then we started to see some movement as it became obvious that BJ was prepared to take the UK out of the EU without a deal. Firstly the Germans stated that they would listen to any new proposals re the Irish backstop. The French and EU reiterated at this point that there would be no re-negotiation. Then the French said they would consider any new UK proposals re the backstop. Barnier still held firm, but recently Juncker has stated that he is prepared to listen to any UK proposals re the backstop. Indeed just last week he stated that he had "no erotic attachment" to the Irish backstop.

Juncker himself steps down at the end of the month and I believe he would like to be the one who prevented the UK from leaving without a deal. He has stated on a number of occasions just recently that the UK leaving without a deal would be disastrous for both the UK AND the EU.

German business groups are particularly concerned. Germany has experienced two quarters of negative growth in the past 12 months. It's economy is very reliant on exports, and the country itself has a huge trade surplus in it's dealings with the UK. Furthermore, Germany's exports are lead by their car industry. Care to guess which country is the single biggest market for German cars? Well it's not the US. Not even close. Nor is it China. The single biggest export market for German cars by a long way is the UK. It is therefore no great surprise that German car manufactures are nervous about the UK leaving without a deal. This nervousness is seen in many other German businesses.

Then we have Barnier. Many are of the belief that he wants to 'punish' the UK for leaving. That he wants to make the whole process as long, as costly and as difficult as possible to deter others who might be thinking of following the UK's lead. Many are also of the belief that Barnier still hopes that Parliament can thwart the Government and the wishes of the people, and that the UK can still be stopped from leaving at all. So whilst Junker has stated that he will look at the new British proposals it would require a major back down from Barnier for him to accept what the UK is offering.

Personally I would be surprised if the EU agreed to the new British proposals (even though they include a major concession involving NI). Hopefully BJ is serious when he states that the key points of his proposal, that include the UK (excluding NI) leaving the customs union, leaving the single market and being free of the ECJ and EU rules, are not negotiable. IF, and it's a huge IF, the EU did fundamentally agree to the new British proposals then I think it might well pass in Parliament. To my surprise the DUP support the proposal. I think the ERG could be brought on board. Now of course Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will all oppose ANY Brexit deal negotiated by the Government. However, there would be some rebel Conservatives and Labour MP's who might well support it. It would be a close run thing but I could see it happening. But first the EU will have to agree. I think Junker would like to find a way to enable the UK to leave with a deal, but I feel that Barnier would be very difficult to move. We shall wait and see.

As stated, under May's deal NI (and indeed the rest of the UK) would be trapped in the EU's customs union until the EU said otherwise. Under the new deal NI would NOT be in the EU customs union and the people of NI, and NOT the EU, would then decide when NI aligned with the rest of the UK. A huge difference.


The situation in NI is unique within the UK and I think that it's only reasonable that the people of NI have the final say on issues relating directly to their interaction with Éire.

Right. Because all the talk of political pundits and MP's from every spectrum and party were not already blasting everywhere beforehand. We needed to wait until the 11th hour in order to REALLY BE POSITIVELY SURE that the positions they held were really the positions they held, despite the fact that they made next to no effort to hide their stances.



Yes, apologies. That definitely should have read 'a month' not 'just months'

That's simply not true. Under May the Lib Dems never came out and said the would revoke article 50. Under May Labour never said they would block ANY deal put forward by the government. Under May Labour never said that they wouldnt offer another in/out referendum but rather only offer a choice btw remain and May's deal (which they had rejected 3 times). Under May tories like Hammond never said they would block the UK leaving without a deal if one couldnt be found. All of these MP's, all of these parties, made general noises about respecting the peoples vote whilst obstructing attempts to do so. The May government itself was split on how to proceed. Since BJ has come to power MP's, and Labour, the Lib Dems etc have come out of the shadows and explicitly stated what they really want. This was never clear under May. Under May they might have acted in a way designed to achieve their ultimate aim, which was, and is, to prevent the UK from leaving...but they tried hard to hide their exact positions from the public. Under BJ they have had to come out from the shadows and explicitly show, and in the case of the Lib Dems state, their opposition to any form of Brexit. Again, this is only something that has happened recently, and it has only happened because of BJ. Unlike before the Conservative party is very clear on it's position re Brexit. Ditto the other parties. This wasn't the case under May.

Inadequate border controls damage not only the UK, but also the EU. I think it only fair that both interests be represented in decisions regarding borders, don't you?

From what I recall, the requirement of the customs union was an attempt to make sure that all of the UK be treated the same in terms of the new relationships that could be forged. Otherwise, you end up with different regulatory frameworks between NI and the rest of the UK. In that respect, you could successfully argue that the people who voted to leave the EU in NI were essentially being cut out of the promise of new deals and prosperity by virtue of where they live, even though they are also UK citizens.



Whether it's reasonable or not is neither here nor there. I'm simply pointing out that doing so basically makes the UK's promise to not erect borders in NI completely meaningless, since they would no longer have the power to make that decision.

This has not just happened recently under BJ. I have been pointing this out for at least a year, and this has been going on for even longer.

Under May, just like under Johnson, the Labour and Lib Dem Parties are minority parties not part of the majority coalition, so what they say has no bearing on anything other than to dig their heels in and to act like children. It is, and always has been the majority coalition that has been the problem in this entire affair. THEY cannot decide on a course of action and it is causing gridlock in their alliance. This is a problem that they need to solve, but clearly cannot.

If the way forward requires meeting with your political opponents, then the logical outcome is compromise, not capitulation. Attempting to force capitulation in such a state results in nothing but more deadlock.



Clearly. That's why the Conservatives cannot pass anything in an HOC that they jointly control in a coalition. It's why Boris whines constantly that the government in which he and his supposed allies have a controlling stake in continue to hamper all of his efforts. It's because the Conservative Party is unified around one clear vision. Unfortunately that one clear vision seems to be self-immolation.

Who says the border controls would be inadequate? And the EU do get a say. They can simply reject the proposal. So the EU get a say, the UK get a say, and IF the proposal goes through (which I doubt) the people of NI will have a say.



NI, for a period of at least 4 years, will (in some respects) be treated differently to the rest of the UK. This is why I was a little surprised to hear the DUP support the proposal. The reality is that you simply wont ever get a deal where everyone gets what they want. Indeed, the new proposal is a significant concession by the UK government re the NI/Éire border. The really big difference btw this proposal and May's is that NI wont be a part of the customs union and can benefit from any trade deals the UK reaches with other countries. So they won't infact be "cut out of the promise of new deals and prosperity by virtue of where they live". It also means that, unlike May's deal, there is now an explicit time line re the border, and that it will be the people of NI who will have the chance to determine how long the special border measures are in place and not unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.



The UK won't be erecting any borders. Those borders are already there. What the UK government have promised to do is not introduce a 'hard border', and their latest proposal is consistent with that promise.

Actually no. It has just happened under BJ. Publicly the position of Labour and the Lib Dems has changed very significantly since BJ became PM.


Again, not true. Labour and the Lib Dems ARE a part of the MAJORITY coalition. They have more numbers sitting on their side of the House than do the government. They control Parliament. Something they never did under May. They are the reason why there is a 'zombie' Parliament at the moment. The reason why they didnt form a clear, majority coalition (with the aid of rebel Tories) earlier is because no one believed May would ever leave without a deal. They thought they could simply keep on rejecting leave proposals and forcing through extensions until they were in a position to revoke article 50 all together. But then BJ became PM and all of a sudden they were faced with a leader who appears fair dinkum in his determination to honour the people's vote, and to take the UK out of the EU without any further delays, and without a deal if necessary. This changed everything and forced remoaner MP's to publicly express (through word and action) their opposition to honouring the people's vote of 2016.


How can you say that Labour and the Lib Dems have no bearing on anything when they are the dominant parties in a majority coalition that has taken over parliament and stopped the Government from being able to govern? Surely you are familiar with the Benn Surrender Act. You think that has no bearing on anything?


Nope. The government have a very clear course of action, that being to deliver Brexit as per the wishes of over 17.4 million people. The rebel alliance also have a very clear aim, that being to defy the will of the people and stop Brexit. The parties in the rebel alliance do however advocate slightly different courses of action to achieve their aim. The simple reality is that what's causing 'gridlock' is the rebel alliance blocking every move the Government makes re their efforts to honour the people's vote of 2016.



How do you compromise when one side wants to honour the people's vote whilst the other side wants to defy it? The people voted to LEAVE the EU. The Government are trying to honour the will of the people. The rebel alliance on the other hand are committed to stopping this from happening. Not only is compromise impossible but it shouldn't be considered. The PEOPLE voted to LEAVE. In a democratic system Parliament should honour the expressed will of the people. The deadlock in Parliament is the result of a lack of losers consent. Simple as that.


I cannot for the life of me understand why you keep saying that the Conservative government are in control. Very clearly they do NOT "jointly control (Parliament) in a coalition" They are a significant minority in the House. ALL control rests with the rebel alliance. The Benn Surrender Act made that extremely clear. By the way, the Government are behind BJ and are clearly NOT hampering his efforts, nor are their 'partners' in the DUP. It's the rebel alliance that are blocking all of his Governments attempts to govern.


No. It's because the Conservative Party is unified in their determination to honour the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history.

Now you've confused me. Are we talking about May's Deal or Boris's? Because I was talking about May's in that part, and NI most definitely did not get a say in that one.



Except that regulatory alignment isn't just about production. It's also about imports, and if NI is forced to align itself with the EU, then they cannot take advantage of either production or imports changes in the rest of the UK for an indeterminate amount of time.

There is only one area in which NI benefits from this economically and that is in being allowed to follow the tariff rules of the rest of the UK. In every other capacity it is essentially no different from the EU in terms of trade.



What do you mean they're already there? The entire framework of the single market facilitates as little border infrastructure as feasibly possible. To leave it, naturally, means to diverge from that in a way that puts infrastructure there.

The default position that is decided solely by NI erects a hard border. I don't understand how it can be claimed otherwise. Saying that it gives NI a say is nice and all, but by doing so it also cuts the voices of the UK and the EU out of the discussion. Neither of them get to decide the state of the border, only NI can.