Brexit Explained

[steepholm]

The current state of the Brexit negotiations are complicated, but also very simple. In short, the DUP is in favour of these three policies:

a) Maintain integrity with the rest of the UK

b) Leave the customs union

c) Keep an open border with ROI

It's easy to get any two of these, but impossible to have all three without a contradiction. Which will be renounced? (Or rather, since this is a matter of diplomacy, which can most easily be dressed up in vague and ambiguous language to look like its opposite?)

I've no idea what was Mrs May on, thinking she could sacrifice a) when she's at the end of Arlene Foster's leash. b) is impossible for her too, because she's also on the leash of her own right wing.

Ergo, she will sacrifice c).

But no! Because the Irish government will veto further talks in that case.

But actually yes! Because ROI will be under pressure from the other member states, who want a deal, and will also be aware that if there is no deal a hard border will come into existence by default in 2019.

Also, c) is the most amenable to being dressed in vague and ambiguous language. Once phase 2 talks begin, the Irish lose their veto, and Mrs May (if she's still in office) will begin to backtrack by degrees. They don't call Albion perfidious for nothing - but actually, in this case it's the Tory party, who will sacrifice not only their own country to stay in power but also their neighbours'.

Comments

[cmcmck]

Don't get me going on this!

[calimac]

Are you sure? The articles I've been reading, mostly from Andrew Ducker's blog, analyzing this say that the rest of the EU supports the Irish government in opposition to a hard border. They want the UK to abandon b) and take up a Norway-like role, or abandoning a) would be no skin off their teeth, and in fact please the Irish slightly since it would tie NI more closely to the Republic.

Also there's the fact that there never really was a hard border, as in pre-EEC days it leaked smugglers like a sieve. But one could use that fact to argue either position.

[steepholm]

"Sure" would be a huge exaggeration. In fact I'm probably wrong, but this is the way I see it at the moment.

May can't take up a Norway-style role, in my view, and keep her job - her right-wing won't wear it. Nor can she defy the DUP, who would pass a motion of no confidence and force an election before they let her separate NI from the rest of the UK.

No one wants a hard border, but I don't see that May has any choice, if she remains Prime Minister, but to edge towards one. (Perhaps the EU will indeed back Dublin to the hilt - but the EU is not generally an organisation to put the interests of individual nations against those of the EU as a whole, as we saw with Greece.) However, that "if she remains Prime Minister" is a big "if". I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there's another election within the next six months. Labour have been making noises today more loudly than before about putting the customs union and single market back on the table. I'd put even money on that being where we eventually end up, but not under Theresa May.

[jadelennox]

She's in an unwinnable situation, and she knows it -- and so do the rest of the Tories, or some of those mofos would have challenged her for the leadership. She's the only person willing to get the shit backlash that's going to happen whatever they decide, because people have fallen for completely impossible promises and whoever is standing at the front is going to take the blame.

I keep waiting for May to just say "In the immortal words of David Cameron, you complete tossers, peace out."

[calimac]

I know that May can't accept a Norway-style role, but my point wasn't about what May wants. It's what the EU wants.

What the EU wants, the Brexiters won't accept, and what the Brexiters want, the EU won't accept. This has been true all along. Complete impass, and it'll probably end up with something that nobody wants. Unless the British government caves and cancels Brexit, which it now appears they can do, it'll exit without any agreement, but there won't be a hard border, which would require both the UK and the ROI to create border fences and customs stations, which neither wants to do. Instead, it'll be chaos.

[steepholm]

Unless the British government caves and cancels Brexit, which it now appears they can do, it'll exit without any agreement, but there won't be a hard border, which would require both the UK and the ROI to create border fences and customs stations, which neither wants to do.

Neither wants to do it, but the ROI will be obliged by treaty to do it, since it's a signatory to EU commitments to maintain a secure border with non-EU states (where no special arrangement to the contrary has been agreed). At least, that's my understanding. I've not read the treaties, any more than Mrs May has.

[calimac]

Well, that's not acceptable to them. So then I was wrong: not only can none of the previously listed options happen, but this one can't happen either. No possible courses of action can possibly happen.

[steepholm]

Clearly Francis Fukuyama was just 25 years too early.

[calimac]

Here's some articles supporting the point:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/brexit-talks-get-even-stupider-than-ever/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/ireland-may-make-hard-brexit-impossible.html

Note titles: "even stupider", "impossible"

[jadelennox]

Yeah, the impression I'm getting is that, given the rise of nationalism in Europe, it's in the EU's best interest to not allow the Tories to save any face on fake compromises at all, plus a hard border will leak like a sieve which is bad for business, and it will leak guns like a sieve because it will reignite the troubles.

[steepholm]

I can see that in one sense it's in the EU's interests to have the UK fall on its arse, pour encourager les autres and all that - which to be honest the Tories are already seeing to quite nicely. On the other hand, the UK is a big export market, security and military partner, etc., so it's definitely not in the EU's interest to have us end up a basket case.

Fwiw, my impression is that in Europe the tide of nationalism is receding, probably dating from Le Pen's defeat - but I may be being over-optimistic.

[jadelennox]

Conversation from family whatsapp chat yesterday basically resolved they want the Troubles back.

Me:
Christ are the DUP completely off the rails???

Choices in reality-based thinking: 1. Northern Ireland is treated differently; 2. No deal, which is not good for the UK; 3. Collapse of the coalition government, general election, and the end of the DUP's brief moment in the sun; or 4. Hard border, and return of the troubles.

Maybe they are thinking 5. Britain gets Ireland? Ireland gets NI?

What on earth is their endgame? How on earth do they think hard brexit + soft border + no special treatment for NI is a solvable equation??!!?

[Ed: There were a lot of angry gifs in the original rant]

Sister:

You think you get the only religious nut jobs willing to sacrifice everything in their entire country for a tiny worldview???

Me:

But what is their endgame? Our religious nutjobs have in endgame. Republic of Gilead 4eva.

Sister:

Pissing off Catholics?

Me:

"Life was way more exciting when my dad nearly got murdered and my school bus was bombed. Now I have to worry about things like my mortgage."?

Sister:

They do say that, though, don't they. That it's hard to adjust to normalcy after war.

[steepholm]

"Life was way more exciting when my dad nearly got murdered and my school bus was bombed. Now I have to worry about things like my mortgage."

The lack of recognition that there's a contradiction at the heart of the unionist position is really weird; but the Tories are saner only in the sense that they'll sacrifice any principle if it means holding on to office.