Brexit discussion thread IV

jimmycrackcorm

Leroy42 wrote:

I really believe at this point that anything other than a hard brexit is a waste of time. I am now looking for hard brexit, my whole life has been spent with the UK being in the EU, I can see no justification for that changing. But wishing it doesn't make it so. Clearly the UK is deeply divided on this issue, and as such there is no hope for the EU to ever make a deal that will be long lasting of possibly even accepted by the UK.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a hard brexit is a necessity for both sides. The Brits want out regardless of the consequences. The EU needs to just give them the list of acceptable models such as Norway etc. Any sweet deal otherwise will mark the end of the EU. Imagine the Germans thinking, why should they not just do the same?

A hard brexit would cause a lot of pain, not least to us, but we should be adapting to the reality and take advantage of our access to the SM and reduce our exposure to the UK.

trellheim wrote:

They did include the backstop in the Great Withdrawal Bill. Solving the border will not have easy answers * ( no s***t sherlock)

I regard the border and NI as more a British problem than an EU one. Even with a hard brexit, the UK still has to validate the GFA.

First Up

breatheme wrote: »

Or maybe if he had come out in favour of Remain, they could've won.

Very possibly.

I know of some young, bright (but not very politically aware) Londoners who voted for Brexit for the simple and only reason that they liked him.

Water John

Sadly, many didn't see through him. With his hair carefully tousled before he comes out the door. A bloody fraud and as Andrew Marr said to him, a nasty piece of goods. His failure to empathise with the death of Dawn Sturgess, indicates well where his priorities lie.

Leroy42

One other issue that the EU needs to be very careful about is not being seen to give in just because of the size of the UK economy.

It sounds reasonable and logical, but what is to then stop the likes of Germany of threatening to leave if, for example, the Irish don't agree to tax harmonisation.

ancapailldorcha

cml387 wrote: »

I think his Euroscepticism was deeply felt. As mentioned in another post, he did have a an alternative message written for the remain argument but that was mainly written to convince himself.

As for the Vote Leave campaign, Gove and Alan Cummings were the evil geniuses behind the 350M, I doubt Boris in his heart believed it, but still, if you think a casue is just you don't cavill at some of the tactics employed.

I don't say he is a paragon of virtue, but there are far, far worse still in place.

It probably was sincere. I've read both of his Telegraph articles and the Leave won certainly has the passion behind it.

Boris still climbed atop the bus and deliberately misled the public. That's the reason that so many hate him.

An Ciarraioch

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

knew what they voted for alright :rolleyes:

VinLieger

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

It wouldn't be possible could it that Brexit is possibly too complicated to fit into a binary question?

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

It sounds reasonable and logical, but what is to then stop the likes of Germany of threatening to leave if, for example, the Irish don't agree to tax harmonisation.

Common sense and a firm grasp of the blindingly obvious could be two reasons....

Rjd2

breatheme wrote: »

Or maybe if he had come out in favour of Remain, they could've won.

Remain would have certainly have won in such a scenario. Ignore the echo chambers of twitter, at that time he was arguably the most popular politician in the UK so he converting to leave was huge. The likes of Gove, Leadsom, and Farage don't have close to the appeal to the public that Johnson had back then.

Yesterday turned out okish for May, 2 divisive leavers in top places gone and replaced by hassle free loyalist remainers. She stared down the extremists and knows well they don't have the numbers to replace her.

trellheim

Yesterdays Hansard . 95 PMQs re Brexit and the Chequers wp


Everyone should have a read

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/DFF149CD-3762-4293-82A3-ED03A0BA48D5/LeavingTheEU

An Ciarraioch

Robert Peston thinks there could be a Corn Laws style Tory split:

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2100466520278082/

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, it seems the White Paper will be published on Thursday, after all.

VinLieger

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Robert Peston thinks there could be a Corn Laws style Tory split:

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2100466520278082/

Such a split is inevitable, if they had lost the referendum by a similar margin they would have eventually split when Cameron who would still have been leader and fulfilled his promise to them refused to run another which they would deffinitely have called for. Even if the result had been 60-70% remain some portion would have still undoubtedly split.

FrancieBrady

Did anyone hear Jeffery Donaldson on Pat Kenny this AM. As usual you are listening and screaming at the radio for the host to ask something you want to know. Maybe those here can answer my question.

JD was saying that an Irish sea solution would mean ripping up the GFA because in effect it changes the tenets of the agreement.

Putting the fact that the DUP never signed up to the GFA aside, surely if the EU (which includes the Irish Gov) and the UK reach an agreement then the GFA can be amended to reflect this as it has been amended a number of times already and then seek to ratify that amendment with the majority of the parties in the north.

Will the DUP not signing up to it originally and their claiming that they didn't agree to a language act come back to bite them in the proverbial?

dfx-

Rjd2 wrote: »

Remain would have certainly have won in such a scenario. Ignore the echo chambers of twitter, at that time he was arguably the most popular politician in the UK so he converting to leave was huge. The likes of Gove, Leadsom, and Farage don't have close to the appeal to the public that Johnson had back then.

Yesterday turned out okish for May, 2 divisive leavers in top places gone and replaced by hassle free loyalist remainers. She stared down the extremists and knows well they don't have the numbers to replace her.

I don't think he especially care who won if it's true he wrote a pro-Remain article at the same time he made his decision to back Leave.

It was a judgement call for power in the Conservative Party as it seems most of his decisions are. I don't think he thought they would win, but it would place him in direct competition with Cameron and look like the only choice for the next leader.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did anyone hear Jeffery Donaldson on Pat Kenny this AM. As usual you are listening and screaming at the radio for the host to ask something you want to know. Maybe those here can answer my question.

JD was saying that an Irish sea solution would mean ripping up the GFA because in effect it changes the tenets of the agreement.

Putting the fact that the DUP never signed up to the GFA aside, surely if the EU (which includes the Irish Gov) and the UK reach an agreement then the GFA can be amended to reflect this as it has been amended a number of times already and then seek to ratify that amendment with the majority of the parties in the north.

Will the DUP not signing up to it originally and their claiming that they didn't agree to a language act come back to bite them in the proverbial?

Implementing the backstop does not affect the GFA, the DUP are just trying to subvert concerns over the GFA to suit their own agenda. The GFA merely requires that NI stay part of the UK politically unless and until a referendum allows for it to join a United Ireland.

The backstop is merely an economic border, not a political one. NI would remain constitutionally part of the Uk even if it remained in the Single Market and Customs Union while the rest of the UK left.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Implementing the backstop does not affect the GFA, the DUP are just trying to subvert concerns over the GFA to suit their own agenda. The GFA merely requires that NI stay part of the UK politically unless and until a referendum allows for it to join a United Ireland.

The backstop is merely an economic border, not a political one. NI would remain constitutionally part of the Uk even if it remained in the Single Market and Customs Union while the rest of the UK left.

Also, their is already a border with NI and GB and it concerns agricultural products and phyto-sanitary controls. There is also an All-Island electricity market.

steddyeddy

Jesus the New York Times really rip into Boris. Rightfully so in my view. They also have a pop at the leave group in general.

LONDON — For the second time in three years, Boris Johnson, a politician whose ambition and superficial charm far outstrip his ability, judgment or principles, is destabilizing the British government and threatening the country’s future.

On Monday, Mr. Johnson, in protest against Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans for Brexit, resigned from his post as foreign secretary. Now Mrs. May’s authority, longevity and ability to deliver a Brexit without causing an economic crisis are in question. But further political paralysis seems certain.

Britain is in this mess principally because the Brexiteers — led largely by Mr. Johnson — sold the country a series of lies in the lead up to the June 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union. They did so because neither Mr. Johnson nor his fellow leader of the Leave campaign, Michael Gove, intended, wanted or expected to win.

At the start of 2016, Mr. Johnson was perhaps the most popular politician in Britain. Supporters and fans mobbed him at train stations and traffic lights; pollsters and pundits thought he could reach the parts of the country that other Conservatives could never touch. But he was also driven and insecure, so desperate to guarantee he would be the next prime minister that he cynically abandoned his own previous positions on the European Union in order to try to secure support from his party’s Euroskeptic right wing.

Because Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gove were confident that the Leave campaign was a hopeless cause, they were free to make ridiculous claims that they had no expectation of ever having to fulfill. They said that Brexit would make Britain both richer and more independent, with more money for the National Health Service, much greater control of immigration and continued friction-free trade with Europe.
Every earnest warning from the other side — about how any Brexit would damage trade, business and jobs — was dismissed airily by the Brexiteers. There were no costs or downsides in this vision of the future.

This casual dishonesty has had devastating consequences.

In the two years since the Leave campaign unexpectedly won, nobody, from the prime minister to Mr. Johnson to the Labour Party, has been able to come up with a plan for exiting the European Union that can satisfy both a majority in Parliament and the expectant public. Why? Because fulfilling the false promises peddled by Mr. Johnson during the campaign is impossible.

The gulf between the easy, prosperous, productive Brexit that its voters are impatiently expecting, and the grim, complicated cost of disentangling economies that have been intertwined for decades has poisoned and paralyzed British politics.

The Conservatives’ leaders cannot admit to the electorate that they were deceived without splitting the party. And instead of apologizing for misleading voters, Mr. Johnson and the other Brexiteers have doubled down, taking refuge in optimistic slogans and vapid promises, refusing to believe the increasingly agitated evidence from hospitals, airlines, farmers, supermarkets and factories that a hard Brexit will damage them all.

Last week, Mrs. May finally attempted to force a recognition of reality on her divided cabinet by coming up with a compromise; a partial Brexit that allows goods free access in and out of Europe at the cost of accepting many European rules. It was an imperfect plan, but still it provided, finally, a starting point for negotiations with Brussels.

For three days, that compromise held, until the first political delusionist, the Brexit Secretary David Davis, broke free, still claiming that in some magical future Britain could get almost everything it wanted, if only the country would just stand by its demands.
Petrified of being outflanked, Mr. Johnson followed suit, bringing with him the implicit threat that he could lead a rebellion against the government that other hardline Brexiteers will follow. It is a desperate move by a man who has lost almost all the credibility he had three years ago.
All of Mr. Johnson’s weaknesses have been exposed: his lazy reluctance to do detail, his preference for bluster over thinking, his contempt for business. The campaign was meant to secure his future; instead, in damaging the country, he fears he has wrecked his own future, too. As one of his allies told me last month: “He knows that the verdict of history is about to come down on him — and bury him.”

Mr. Johnson seems to believe that this is his last chance to become prime minister: After his resignation this week, he hopes to be reborn as a rebel who will lead the party. But more likely is that he will once again create political chaos without delivering what he wants.

Two years ago, the side effect of Mr. Johnson’s ambitious maneuvering was to split the country and risk the prosperity and security of all Britons for decades. Now, just as a fragile basis for negotiation emerges, his selfish drive for vindication, attention and admiration threatens that, too.
It is petrifying that the deliberate deceptions and wild ego of one man can so mislead a nation. (Americans know all about that.) One insider told me that Mrs. May was prepared for Mr. Johnson’s defection, and will outflank him, persuading wavering Conservatives that the time for fantasy has passed.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jesus the New York Times really rip into Boris. Rightfully so in my view. They also have a pop at the leave group in general.

Excellent article. Johnson toasted May's deal on Friday night and resigned because he couldn't stomach the deal on Monday. Shallow, elitist and incompetent ambition in a nutshell.

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent article. Johnson toasted May's deal on Friday night and resigned because he couldn't stomach the deal on Monday. Shallow, elitist and incompetent ambition in a nutshell.

In fairness, we have all been at weekend office parties where we promise some fugly the moon and stars because all your friends were doing it too and then regreted it Monday when you see her with the beer goggles off.

Professor Moriarty

judeboy101 wrote: »

In fairness, we have all been at weekend office parties where we promise some fugly the moon and stars because all your friends were doing it too and then regreted it Monday when you see her with the beer goggles off.

You weren't foreign secretary of Britain at the time. Or am I being presumptuous?

listermint

judeboy101 wrote: »

In fairness, we have all been at weekend office parties where we promise some fugly the moon and stars because all your friends were doing it too and then regreted it Monday when you see her with the beer goggles off.

Erm??

This is not a weekend office party, its the future of an entire nation.

Should'nt be so glib. Boris is a detestable individual and exemplifies a typical tory.

judeboy101

So we have to be flexible now?

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0710/977567-brexit-cabinet/

Leroy42

judeboy101 wrote: »

Future of an entire nation? That's a wee bit melodramatic.

Which bit? The future, it is certainly dealing with that.

Entire nation? well this isn't just about Cornwall or Dorset.

Is it the ' of an' that you think is overplayed?

judeboy101

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which bit? The future, it is certainly dealing with that.

Entire nation? well this isn't just about Cornwall or Dorset.

Is it the ' of an' that you think is overplayed?

Because the day after it crashes out, it will still be the UK, trading under wto rules just like loads of other countries do. No apocalypse, no rivers of blood, just average everyday boring Brits. Blitz mentality will kick in and they will do just fine.

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

Because the day after it crashes out, it will still be the UK, trading under wto rules just like loads of other countries do. No apocalypse, no rivers of blood, just average everyday boring Brits. Blitz mentality will kick in and they will do just fine.

Blitz mentality will magically nullify the massive customs queues that will happen with a hard brexit that they needed to start preparing and planning for last year and still have done nothing on?

charlie14

VinLieger wrote: »

Blitz mentality will magically nullify the massive customs queues that will happen with a hard brexit that they needed to start preparing and planning for last year and still have done nothing on?

The British invented queuing. They love a nice orderly queue. Even if it is over a cliff.

Sam Russell

judeboy101 wrote: »

Because the day after it crashes out, it will still be the UK, trading under wto rules just like loads of other countries do. No apocalypse, no rivers of blood, just average everyday boring Brits. Blitz mentality will kick in and they will do just fine.

I suppose the Blitz mentality will help with the lack of planes flying overhead.

The WTO rules will require loads of customs declarations that they have not had to deal with for twenty years. Yea, Blitz mentality will help with that.

The 'fresh' food products rotting in the back of trucks waiting for days at Calais trying to get on a ferry. Yea, Blitz mentality will help with that as well.

I do not think there are many still alive that actually experienced the 'Blitz' first hand, (they would be well over 80 by now) so mentality is perhaps the wrong word for it - perhaps myth might be more accurate. If the V2 bombs had gone on a few weeks more, the spirit would have evaporated, and Londoners would have been looking for serious relief.

It will not be pretty.

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

Because the day after it crashes out, it will still be the UK, trading under wto rules just like loads of other countries do. No apocalypse, no rivers of blood, just average everyday boring Brits. Blitz mentality will kick in and they will do just fine.

Sure, no flights in or out of the country for an indefinate period of time will hardily be noticed.