Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Better to wait? For what?

I think they expect to wake up one morning and find the whole Brexit thing is gone and never happened. I can't think of what else they could possibly mean.

[Josquius]

I forsee a awesomely awful no man's land of shadowrunesque insanity in Northern Ireland. They really are setting it up to be a smugglers haven.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Better to wait? For what?

King Arthur!!!

[Maladict]

The long-term future of the Irish border will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland through a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont after four years, and then a further four or eight years later.

I don't get this part. NI gets to decide if the system works, and if they don't like it, then what?

[celedhring]

The long-term future of the Irish border will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland through a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont after four years, and then a further four or eight years later.

I don't get this part. NI gets to decide if the system works, and if they don't like it, then what?

They get the border back, I presume.

[Sheilbh]

Better to wait? For what?

Two thoughts.

If there's enough votes to pass a deal, there'll probably be enough votes to defeat a referendum amendment.

If a deal passes on Saturday, then the Benn Act falls away and Johnson doesn't have to seek an extension. If a deal passes narrowly with ERG support, the ERG can then act as wreckers on all the Withdrawal Agreement legislation that will need to be rushed through (because the default is, again, no deal on 31 October). Arguably that would be the point of most leverage for a referendum? Johnson may need more votes than the Tories and ex-Tories plus some defectors and is faced with a choice of doing a deal on condition of a referendum, or going into no deal.

So is it just me or this really is a better deal for the UK than the previous one? It's largely the same content, sure, but much more wishy-washy, and I think if it gets enacted it will be an open wound on the integrity of the Single Market.

To be honest there are some changes, but I've always thought the integrity of the Single Market stuff is sort of nonsense in relation to Northern Ireland. The wider UK, I agree it's a very large concern. But intra-Ireland trade is about €5billion a year - it's less than 1% of the wider UK-EU trade. Given that I've always suspected that provided there are some controls there's a deal to be done in some way.

It is possible that Northern Ireland becomes the Hong Kong of the EU (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for a one of the poorest regions in Western Europe and a post-conflict society), but it does strike me as very unlikely. Ultimately Johnson has broadly conceded Northern Ireland (with some deviations) for the intent of the rest of the UK being able to diverge more.

I think what a few Irish journalists said about May's deal is also true of this. It's not a million miles away from the 1921 Irish Free State Treaty (if you're a Brexiteer). The price, broadly, is Northern Ireland. Brexiteers should see it like the Michael Collins line, "in my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it".

[Richard Hakluyt]

The long-term future of the Irish border will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland through a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont after four years, and then a further four or eight years later.

I don't get this part. NI gets to decide if the system works, and if they don't like it, then what?

It is a bit weird is it not.

However; it is three years since Stormont sat. If they ever sit again then it will be a representative body (lots of SF etc) and not just the DUP; such a body would almost certainly want to keep Ireland free of internal borders.

Still a risk though, surprised the EU will chance it.

[Sheilbh]

The long-term future of the Irish border will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland through a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont after four years, and then a further four or eight years later.

I don't get this part. NI gets to decide if the system works, and if they don't like it, then what?

So my understanding is the MLAs (Stormont MPs) will have a vote whether Stormont is meeting or not - it's currently suspended.

Stormont gets to decide, after four years, if they want to opt-out (or not) of continued regulatory alignment with Europe. If they vote to opt-out there's a two year cooling off period/negotiation for all parties to find alternative arrangements that meet the GFA and no border. If the parties fail then it's a no deal, hard border situation.

However, if Stormont collapses or is suspended in that time (because they can't work on a power-sharing, cross-community, consensual basis) then the backstop continues. Then basically Stormont gets another vote four or eight years later (four if the vote is on a simple majority basis - which is bad for the Unionists on Brexit; eight if it's on a cross-community basis which, on Brexit, is good for the Unionists). This is fraught and difficult and there are a big risks - so Sinn Fein could, in theory just collapse Stormont during the cooling off period, also as Matthew O'Toole's pointed out it relies on the non-sectarian Alliance Party continuing to do well because, even in 2017 the Unionists had a simple majority.

Edit: Sorry - apparently collapsing Stormont doesn't cause the backstop to continue. Basically Westminster (and I assume the Dail) will organise another vote of MLAs.

[ulmont]

 


https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1184779166576795648

Also, this summary of differences between the Johnson deal and May deal could be useful:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/17/how-is-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-different-from-theresa-may

[Sheilbh]

It is worth saying that the further we go from the EU, the worse the deal will be economically. But that's what Brexiteers want. They want to move further away so they can do separate trade agreements and diverge on regulations. So that Economist headline is true, but it's also the point of what the government's been trying to do.

Latest best guess from the FT is very tight

[Admiral Yi]

Do Labouur and SNP really want to take the blame for no deal?

[Sheilbh]

If this deal isn't approved the Benn Act kicks in and the government has to seek an extension.

The SNP don't want any deal. They want a second referendum and Remain.

Labour will never vote for a Tory deal. Not least because it would be a huge political win for Johnson and probably lead to a big Tory majority. So it would be a Tory government negotiating the "future relationship" which includes alignment with European regulations on employment and the environment which is Labour's priority.

[Grey Fox]

The Sinn Fein MPs will really continue to abstain on this!?

[Sheilbh]

The Sinn Fein MPs will really continue to abstain on this!?

Sinn Fein are Republicans, who consider themselves Irish citizens and that Westminster should have no say whatsoever in their politics. They are elected not to take their seats and they never will.

Edit: Worth saying they don't get elected, but there are still parties in the South who campaign on the basis that they will not take their seats in the "partitionist Parliament" in Dublin. Sinn Fein used to not take their seats in Parliament or the Dail.

[Grey Fox]

I should not be surprised by this other British insanity, but I am.