Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Or they could repeal the anachronistic legislation that prohibits only Roman Catholics from taking on that role. Would be a small start in fixing their broken political system.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.

Benefit Street..

Nope. The people we're talking about here are not, for the most part, unemployed. They're working, or they're underemployed, and the reason they are suffering is becuse of static or falling real wages.

Real earnings in the UK rose steadily until the global financial crisis of 2008, at which point they took a dive which continued for several years. They then "bottomed out" for a number of years, and had just started to climb again when the Brexit referendum was held, and that put a stop to that.

What this means is, basically, is that that UK workers are frozen out of the economic recovery. They bore the brunt of the GFC, and austerity policies (and low investment, and poor training, resulting in low labour productivity) mean that they have not participated in the recovery since then. Real hourly wages in the UK are 10% below what they were 10 years ago. Of the EU countries, only Greece can match this dismal record.

An Claidheamh

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

That makes sectarianism OK?

Discrimination against Catholics only.

British high society have always confused their sectarianism with secularism.

Just like they confuse their unelected Monarch with democracy.

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

McGiver

McGiver wrote:

The factions can be summarised as follows: SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve) Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I forgot to mention that some of the Tories who offered no solution (basically pointing at WTO/crash out) mentioned words such as 'believe' and 'faith' [in Britain today endure]. Very alarming for me.

McGiver

theguzman wrote:

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

Stagnating wages on the UK and poverty as well have nothing to do with immigration, at least not directly. They are caused by poor/lack of labour market regulation, oversight and enforcement of such regulations, austerity and ultra neoliberal policies with no balances. For example lack of social compromise between employers, employees/unions and the state.

UK voluntarily allowed rather large immigration EEA and non-EEA for many years without properly managing anything. But it depends on immigration too supply its labour market.

Why there are no stagnating wages and wide scale poverty in Germany or Sweden? Because of proper regulation, social compromise and enforcement of regulations.

Anthracite

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

You've made this argument a dozen times already on Brexit threads and it has been shot down by facts every time.

seamus

Laois_Man wrote: »

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

I'm no fan of May, but to claim that the merits of the Brexit deal depend on who is presenting it, is to ignore the fact that there are some for whom no deal will ever be good enough. Churchill himself could rise from the dead and declare it the best deal in history, and there would still be the same hold-outs.

Typically, and sadly, you're right that it is the case that politicians will vote against good legislation because they don't like the person presenting it. But I don't think that's the case here. Some are looking for a unicorn, and May keeps coming back with ponies.
Some say they want a pony, but every time May comes back, they say the wanted a different coloured pony, or a taller pony, or a different gender pony. Because actually, they don't want one at all.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

Can we move away from this please? Thanks.

kuro68k

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

ancapailldorcha

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

Shelga

Slightly OT: Humphrys has taken a small break from Brexit to welcome Alison Spittle on to Today.

What is happening to the world??

intellectual dosser

robinph wrote: »

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

This is why I don't think a second referendum will happen, nor is it the best way to go about it. A surprising amount of people will be of the "just get on with it" variety and will vote against a second referendum out of protest.

If a general election were to happen, a party could campaign on, "We will cancel Brexit, but we will also go to Europe to try and resolve the issues with EU membership that caused Brexit in the first place*", and they might do well. A simple, "Cancel Brexit, pretend it never happened" plan, just won't fly IMO.

Of course, there is no party to run with that manifesto. Not one who can take a majority anyway.

*Issues which of course, don't actually exist, but the sentiment has to be there

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Soubry and Buckland tearing into each other on Sky. Thought Buckland was going to headbutt her at one stage.

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

Leroy42

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

There was a good summary on the Guardian Podcast Brexit Means Brexit about the position of EU ion regards to the backstop.

In top of the whole peace thing, and the fact that EU unity is important for the future and thus throwing Ireland under the bus won't help, the person said the major problem that the UK have when trying to argue about the backstop is that this has been agreed since 2017.

Even in the Lanchaster House speech May ruled out a land border, thus the backstop is a way to ensure that. The UK then agreed to the backstop in Dec 17, TM wrote to the EU in March 18 reiterating the UK's commitment to the backstop, and only two weeks ago the WA was agreed including the backstop.

The EU are amazed that it appears that many in the UK, and particularly the HoC seem totally surprised that it is included in the WA. They fail to see why it is their problem that nobody in the UK seems to have been paying attention.

kunst nugget

Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, was interviewed on RTÉ Radio 1 this morning and came across quite well. He seems completely exasperated by the posturings of the Brexiteers in relation to threatening to not pay the 39 billion and acknowledged how disastrous that would be for the UK. He also felt the need to apologise to the Irish over the 'Ireland should know its place' comments that have been attributed to the senior Tory party members. He's very much pushing for a second referendum.

Leroy42

And on the €39bn, what do those that call for it to be withheld think is going to happen?

That the EU will simply write it off? They will forget about?

It will be very first thing on the table in any future FTA negotiations.

On a different point, I thought the real JRM was on display for all to see yesterday. He quite ludicrous claims about payroll members of the party voting for TM and her now having to go because of convention.

He has been shown to be completely out of his depth, a man great at talking and tbf he is very capable debater and performer, but he had his shot, he led the tories up this hill and totally failed to deliver.

Everything is a vast conspiracy to him. The very fact that he stated on live national TC that the members of the Tory party will always vote based on how much they are paid rather than what is best for their constituency or the country is quite remarkable.

Zubeneschamali

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

If they crash out with no deal, riots will be the least of their worries.


Anyhow, this is England we are talking about. Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Just to correct you on a bit. There are plenty of UK politicians that acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

The fact is that there are a few, very vocal ones, that see that as a positive to getting the Brexit they desire rather than the negative we see it as.

Professor Moriarty

kunst nugget wrote: »

Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, was interviewed on RTÉ Radio 1 this morning and came across quite well. He seems completely exasperated by the posturings of the Brexiteers in relation to threatening to not pay the 39 billion and acknowledged how disastrous that would be for the UK. He also felt the need to apologise to the Irish over the 'Ireland should know its place' comments that have been attributed to the senior Tory party members. He's very much pushing for a second referendum.

Alistair Campbell was excellent on PK this morning. Tore the Brexiteers' 'argument' apart. Was scathing about May and methodically went through her performance over the past two years demonstrating how she made crucial mistakes at every step.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to correct you on a bit. There are plenty of UK politicians that acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

The fact is that there a a few, very vocal ones, that see that as a positive to getting the Brexit they desire rather than the negative we see it as.

I haven't heard or read any with a couple of notable exceptions. Who are they and when did they acknowledge and apologise for the damage being done to Ireland? I only ever hear them talk about the UK.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

And on the €39bn, what do those that call for it to be withheld think is going to happen?

That the EU will simply write it off? They will forget about?

It will be very first thing on the table in any future FTA negotiations.

On a different point, I thought the real JRM was on display for all to see yesterday. He quite ludicrous claims about payroll members of the party voting for TM and her now having to go because of convention.

He has been shown to be completely out of his depth, a man great at talking and tbf he is very capable debater and performer, but he had his shot, he led the tories up this hill and totally failed to deliver.

Everything is a vast conspiracy to him. The very fact that he stated on live national TC that the members of the Tory party will always vote based on how much they are paid rather than what is best for their constituency or the country is quite remarkable.

JRM has a distinctive style of dress. His suits and coats all look as if they were made in the 1950's. That is appropriate as it's where his understanding of the world seems to have been made too. Neither has been updated since.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

On a different point, I thought the real JRM was on display for all to see yesterday. He quite ludicrous claims about payroll members of the party voting for TM and her now having to go because of convention.

If he's going to claim that MPs are voting a particular way because they are compromised by the prospect of personal financial gain, surely the interviewer should have turned that back on JRM himself?

He can hardly claim to be financially disinterested in Brexit.

(Not that doesn't have enough brass neck to do so regardless).

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I haven't heard or read any with a couple of notable exceptions. Who are they and when did they acknowledge and apologise for the damage being done to Ireland? I only ever hear them talk about the UK.

Ah ok, you didn't mention the word apologise in the first post.

JRM has consistently talked about Ireland needing to get on board with the UK to stave of the effects on Ireland.
Dodds, Wilson and other DUPers have used it sonsistently.
Only recently Patel claimed the UK should use the threat of starvation to break Ireland's resolve.
There are plenty more.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah ok, you didn't mention the word apologise in the first post.

JRM has consistently talked about Ireland needing to get on board with the UK to stave of the effects on Ireland.
Dodds, Wilson and other DUPers have used it sonsistently.
Only recently Patel claimed the UK should use the threat of starvation to break Ireland's resolve.
There are plenty more.

I meant 'acknowledge' as in admit. There are lots of extremists in Britain who would be very happy to threaten and bully Ireland.

Leroy42

They should ask people like IDS what they would trade for the backstop (not that it is even remotely available but just to see what their plan is).

Would they be prepared to accept FoM for €39bn? If the UK want a exit from Backstop would they be prepared to agree to continued ECJ rulings?

They are never asked what they are looking for and prepared to give up. Would fishing right be worth the backstop? What about Gibraltar? How about giving that back to Spain in return for a FTA?

Water John

JRM put it badly, but Soubry put it correctly, TM lost the majority of her back benchers. We can thank Grieve and Millar that Parliament now has the option of extending Art 50 and also forcing a 2nd Ref.

monkeybutter

Jeez, the people on here need to stop losing their heads

This is how deals are done, last minute through the night nothing actually getting thrashed out in the 2 years prior to this

Then you get a **** compromise and no ones happy in the end

EU : we are not for turning

TM : I need something I can sell to Parliament

.....

rinse repeat

fudge


It's great that North is the gift that just keeps giving, the great fudge that it was in the first place, a thorn in the side that basically no one wants now

Everyone saw the last GE as being a massive mistake. It shows what a poor leader she is that she let that happen. Give the people a mandate, the people don't have a clue what they want, look at the referendum

Coming back and trying to pass that vote the other day makes her look like a fool

Just wait it out, it certainly won't be that big a disaster if they don't get a deal, which they will, the EU need the UK as much as the UK needs the EU

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

They should ask people like IDS what they would trade for the backstop (not that it is even remotely available but just to see what their plan is).

Would they be prepared to accept FoM for €39bn? If the UK want a exit from Backstop would they be prepared to agree to continued ECJ rulings?

They are never asked what they are looking for and prepared to give up. Would fishing right be worth the backstop? What about Gibraltar? How about giving that back to Spain in return for a FTA?

Here's the thing about IDS, Jacob, Boris et al. They are all hurlers on the ditch. Not one of them has put forward a credible alternative plan. Instead, they snipe from the margins (facilitated by inordinate airtime) with emotional rhetoric that dog whistles latent English nationalism. They have nothing positive to offer Britain, instead they selfishly pursue their impossible and self-indulgent fantasy as not one of them them will ever see a poor day in or out of Europe. They are despicable.

Leroy42

Another good point in the Guardian podcast was about the A50 extension/cancellation.

Legally it is possible, but the EU will want to know that it is for the chance to remain, rather than simply to buy time. So it will not be enough to simply cancel A50 within the HoC, (well technically it will but not in terms of any agreement with the EU) but for what purpose?

The HoC is nowhere near agreeing to either cancel Brexit or have a 2nd ref. And I don't see it getting there in the time left.

So any extension will probably mean the current WA is taken off the table, as it will be choice between remain or crash out.

CelticRambler

listermint wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.


Benefit Street..

My MiL has never been on benefits in her life, but she voted Leave on account of immigrants. Mind you, her daughter married an Irishman, one of her sons married a Romanian and the next married a South African ... :rolleyes:

But you only have to look at/listen to the vox pop interviews on Sky and other broadcast media for innumerable examples of middle-aged/older white English citing "immigrants" as why leaving the EU is a good idea. In their minds, every advantage of being in the EU is outweighed by "immigrants" for no reason other than, well ... "immigrants".

It makes no sense, but it's not unique to the English either: I've met many a Frenchman who refuses to let me label myself as an immigrant in France, even though I'm a non-national working in a job that could have gone to a pure-blooded Frog.

Thatnastyboy

The British have been straight up tricked into this, they got the racists out to vote as they were sick of "the darkies" coming and taking their jobs, little did they seem to know that most of the folk they have issues with come from outside the EU...

My welsh friend, who actually works in an EU funded national park - voted leave, As he figured less immigration would let him have a chance to get a better job, now his job is about to be axed, ironic, and I'd love to rub it in, but he's a good guy who was fooled by populism and soundbytes,


In reality - They've all been completely duped by the man who's Dad literally wrote the book on disaster capitalism.

(Thanks to the good folk in this thread for educating me on the Rees Mogg, although it's abhorrent behaviour - it's somewhat nice to see that there is a form of logic and reasoning for their viewpoint, otherwise it was just anarchy for the sake of it)

Zubeneschamali

monkeybutter wrote: »

Just wait it out, it certainly won't be that big a disaster if they don't get a deal, which they will, the EU need the UK as much as the UK needs the EU

They already got a deal, and since it certainly will be a colossal disaster if they leave without signing it, they are either going to sign it or they are not going to leave.

10000maniacs

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah ok, you didn't mention the word apologise in the first post.

JRM has consistently talked about Ireland needing to get on board with the UK to stave of the effects on Ireland.
Dodds, Wilson and other DUPers have used it sonsistently.
Only recently Patel claimed the UK should use the threat of starvation to break Ireland's resolve.
There are plenty more.

I love the way Moggs tone switched from passive aggressive (normal JRM) to aggressive with a Sky journalist when he realized May had survived.

FrancieBrady

10000maniacs wrote: »

I love the way Moggs tone switched from passive aggressive to aggressive with a Sky journalist when he realized May had survived.

I find it hard to believe he would have been surprised that she survived. I think his game is to keep chipping away at her until she collapses and he is certainly achieving in that respect. She has had to concede that she is stepping down which makes her a lame duck really.

First Up

monkeybutter wrote: »

Jeez, the people on here need to stop losing their heads

This is how deals are done, last minute through the night nothing actually getting thrashed out in the 2 years prior to this

Then you get a **** compromise and no ones happy in the end

EU : we are not for turning

TM : I need something I can sell to Parliament

.....

rinse repeat

fudge


It's great that North is the gift that just keeps giving, the great fudge that it was in the first place, a thorn in the side that basically no one wants now

Everyone saw the last GE as being a massive mistake. It shows what a poor leader she is that she let that happen. Give the people a mandate, the people don't have a clue what they want, look at the referendum

Coming back and trying to pass that vote the other day makes her look like a fool

Just wait it out, it certainly won't be that big a disaster if they don't get a deal, which they will, the EU need the UK as much as the UK needs the EU

Eh, the deal HAS been done. The fact that the HoC doesn't like it is the UK's problem, not the EU's.

If any midnight oil, more horse trading or compromise is needed it will be in Westminster, not Brussels. Nobody in the EU needs lose any sleep.

And the EU does NOT need the UK as much as the UK needs it. In fact most of the EU has already moved on and planned for the future. That includes the German auto industry, which the more delusional Brexiteers still expect to save their bacon.

10000maniacs

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I find it hard to believe he would have been surprised that she survived. I think his game is to keep chipping away at her until she collapses and he is certainly achieving in that respect. She has had to concede that she is stepping down which makes her a lame duck really.

I think he wanted it to be closer.

Alun

CelticRambler wrote: »

It makes no sense, but it's not unique to the English either: I've met many a Frenchman who refuses to let me label myself as an immigrant in France, even though I'm a non-national working in a job that could have gone to a pure-blooded Frog.

I used to get that all the time in the Netherlands when I pulled people up on racist comments. Apparently I was "different" somehow.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

My MiL has never been on benefits in her life, but she voted Leave on account of immigrants. Mind you, her daughter married an Irishman, one of her sons married a Romanian and the next married a South African ... :rolleyes:

But you only have to look at/listen to the vox pop interviews on Sky and other broadcast media for innumerable examples of middle-aged/older white English citing "immigrants" as why leaving the EU is a good idea. In their minds, every advantage of being in the EU is outweighed by "immigrants" for no reason other than, well ... "immigrants".

It makes no sense, but it's not unique to the English either: I've met many a Frenchman who refuses to let me label myself as an immigrant in France, even though I'm a non-national working in a job that could have gone to a pure-blooded Frog.

It does and it doesn't.

People here have been drip-fed a narrative for decades based on the unscrupulous Schrodinger's immigrant who is simultaneously here to steal both your jobs and your benefits. It was hubris on David Cameron's part to think that he could win a remain vote against this backdrop.

The evidence for EU migrants directly contradicts this narrative but it's in the interests of oligarchs, press barons, fund managers, etc to convince people to be afraid because fear virtually disables one's critical thinking faculties. Then there's the fact that there was almost no competing narrative for many people before the internet. They got everything from the papers they bought for the sports section, the TV guide or because a family member bought it and was done with it.

The vote to leave was inversely proportional with how many immigrants lived in a specific ward. London voted to stay being one of the most diverse cities in the world. Conversely, rural areas in the Southeast voted leave despite having much lower levels of immigration. Youngsters who had the advantage of having a much better pool of information to draw on decided not to vote for various reasons while those who were convinced that the EU was an attempt at a Merkel-led Fourth Reich and that they were tricked into voting for it based on it being a mere trading bloc did turn out.

I remember a friend driving me to Dover for a way out. We passed through several small towns and Vote Leave posters outstripped Britain Stronger In Europe ones by a considerable margin. A friend of my aunt's voted to leave based on there being "too many n*****s" in London. Anecdotes of course but the narrative of the rapacious foreigner has set in deep. I'm not saying that its insurmountable but I think it's important to realise just how entrenched this view is if the divisions in British society are ever to heal despite the vested interests very much trying to deepen them.

Leroy42

The German parliament certainly doesn't appear to be in the mood for renegotiation

https://twitter.com/jennyhillBBC/status/1073166886249091075

Akrasia

She's a lame duck with immunity from being challenged by her own party for 12 months.
It's a farce

I think Ian Dunt described her as 'a lame duck encased in concrete'

As we stand today we have May in power with the 'confidence' of her party but with her primary piece of policy being opposed by the entire opposition and a significant chunk of her own party.

She can't get anything done and she is running out of time to do it.

Its only a matter of time now before Labour issue a motion of no confidence in the government and try to have a general election, but I don't think the EU should allow an extension to Article 50 if Labour campaign on the platform of renegotiating the deal that the EU already consider to be negotiated.
So they'll have a choice to either campaign on offering a 2nd referendum, or campaign on withdrawing Article 50

Inquitus

Akrasia wrote: »

She's a lame duck with immunity from being challenged by her own party for 12 months.
It's a farce

I think Ian Dunt described her as 'a lame duck encased in concrete'

The thing is from an Irish perspective she's better than all the Tory alternatives as it stands, if she goes we likely get a Brexiteer, or even Brexit Extremist.

EdgeCase

Looking at the analysis this morning, there's still a huge problem with May's security of tenure. There's likely to be a parliamentary motion of no confidence when (and I don't think it's if) she comes back with assurances from the EU that won't be accepted by the ERG and DUP.

The best the EU will offer to her is some kind of words of comfort type text.

I think you're looking at a general election in January.

Leroy42

Inquitus wrote: »

The thing is from an Irish perspective she's better than all the Tory alternatives as it stands, if she goes we likely get a Brexiteer, or even Brexit Extremist.

I don't buy that. What difference would a 'true' brexiteer have made?

They are hurtling towards No deal, at the very least TM has delayed that from being the only route. The likes of Johnson etc would probably have triggered no deal at this stage.

TM has been woeful in many respects, but in terms of the actual deal that she managed to get from the EU I think she did pretty well. Apart from those decrying the backstop, I have yet to hear any cogent argument about what is wrong with the current deal (as opposed to not liking parts of it) and what changes they would realistically make.

Try harder is not really a policy.

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The German parliament certainly doesn't appear to be in the mood for renegotiation

https://twitter.com/jennyhillBBC/status/1073166886249091075

This country understands the issues of a land border dividing two parts of the same country/island. The backstop is backed up wholeheartedly by Germany. Heiko Maas reiterated this commitment yesterday on German radio.