Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Laois_Man

tuxy wrote: »

Does anyone that isn't a UKIP voter believe that the UK can go no deal on Brexit, have no border or tariffs under WTO between the UK and Ireland and also offer that same no tariffs to every other trading partner because of the non discrimination rule?

Of course not!

Incidentally there are only 7 small countries in the world where the EU, including Britain, trades on WTO rules without supplementary bilateral agreements - which would all have to be re-agreed by the UK if leaving on WTO terms - leading to short and medium term chaos! These are the important little details that the likes of UKIP either don't know, or conveniently forget to mention

seamus

tuxy wrote: »

Does anyone that isn't a UKIP voter believe that the UK can go no deal on Brexit, have no border or tariffs under WTO between the UK and Ireland and also offer that same no tariffs to every other trading partner because of the non discrimination rule?

Most people don't understand it. They don't understand why you can't just leave it alone and not put a border up. And it's not an "Ireland is part of the UK" ignorance, more of a "look, it's grand, we all agree to just let stuff cross the border, and everything is hunky dory".

It's just one of the many things that made Brexit far too complex an issue to put to referendum.

Even if the UK said, "fvck it, no borders, no tariffs for anyone", the EU can't. Which means that the UK is flooded with zero tariff imports, but will have everything they attempt to export out, subjected to full tariffing. Economic armageddon.

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And some real politik from a German newspaper:

"...even if both sides want to remain friends, in the negotiations over Brexit they can be nothing but opponents. And regardless of how complex the discussions might be, at the core it’s a banal fact: the EU needs to ensure that no one is tempted to imitate Brexit. It cannot allow an exit from the EU to be something worthwhile. This is responsible politics. One might also say: self-protection ... and when held up against the confusion in London the union cuts quite a good figure."

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Well if they haven't made sufficient plans for no-deal and there is no way to get a deal renegotiated, what other options are there? Now what he said may not be comfortable to hear but it doesn't mean it is wrong for Brexiters.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Yeah. Let's remember that the UK decided to leave. Let's remember also that they triggered Article 50 without a plan of any sort. And they arbitrarily set red lines prior to negotiation. Let's remember that they can't agree amongst themselves as to what they want. If it's news to them that the EU couldn't let them leave on better terms than remaining then they are truly stupid. If those who voted leave want to blame the EU for their leaving, then they are deluding themselves.

Also, Leo's suggestion is obviously meant to be helpful. If that is deliberately twisted then that's the fault of those who twist his words. Enough of the tiptoeing around the likes of Mogg.

20silkcut

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. Let's remember that the UK decided to leave. Let's remember also that they triggered Article 50 without a plan of any sort. And they arbitrarily set red lines prior to negotiation. Let's remember that they can't agree amongst themselves as to what they want. If it's news to them that the EU couldn't let them leave on better terms than remaining then they are truly stupid. If those who voted leave want to blame the EU for their leaving, then they are deluding themselves.

Also, Leo's suggestion is obviously meant to be helpful. If that is deliberately twisted then that's the fault of those who twist his words. Enough of the tiptoeing around the likes of Mogg.

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Enzokk

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Thank goodness all of the above is a minority view in the UK so you would assume that the adults in the room will get together to avoid the chaos. Then again, when you assume you make an....

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Thank goodness all of the above is a minority view in the UK so you would assume that the adults in the room will get together to avoid the chaos. Then again, when you assume you make an....

It would be easier to herd cats.

kowtow

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

To hold a referendum with an option to remain but without an option to leave on WTO terms (or no-deal) seems to me a difficult position to defend even if one agrees with the principle of a second referendum.

If it comes to a second referendum, in addition to the new slogan ("Tell them AGAIN") the statements and behavior of EU leaders including Leo in past weeks will form a major part of the message of the Leave campaign.

Kermit.de.frog

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

To hold a referendum with an option to remain but without an option to leave on WTO terms (or no-deal) seems to me a difficult position to defend even if one agrees with the principle of a second referendum.

If it comes to a second referendum, in addition to the new slogan ("Tell them AGAIN") the statements and behavior of EU leaders including Leo in past weeks will form a major part of the message of the Leave campaign.

And if the British people choose to believe lies again then that's their problem.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Did he tell them what to do?

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

You have the option to buy take-away food this evening for dinner. Is that me telling you what you should eat or telling you what options you have?

blanch152

Why have we two threads on the go?

Laois_Man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Did he tell them what to do?

No he didn't - He merely stated what their possible choices were for achieveing more time for the UK to decide what the hell it wants and on the matter of revoking or delaying article 50 said "If they don't wish to, I understand that and we will continue to work towards the ratification of the deal we've made"

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Once again Kermit makes assumptions that are not true. Earlier today with had some nonsense from a Daily Express article which was absolute.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

No he didn't - He merely stated what their possible choices were for achieveing more time for the UK to decide what the hell it wants and on the matter of revoking or delaying article 50 said "If they don't wish to, I understand that and we will continue to work towards the ratification of the deal we've made"

Exactly. If it's okay for Merkel, Macron and Rutte to offer opinions (opinions that are much more forceful), then it's okay for our Taoiseach to make helpful suggestions when questioned by a reporter.

Laois_Man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. If it's okay for Merkel, Macron and Rutte to offer opinions (opinions that are much more forceful), then it's okay for our Taoiseach to make helpful suggestions when questioned by a reporter.

The problem is, Sky News keep playing it, but since the interview went live, they haven't played the full context of the statement once since.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

The problem is, Sky News keep playing it, but since the interview went live, they haven't played the full context of the statement once since.

Indeed. But at what stage do we stop tiptoeing around these liars? It's like being in a room with a three year old throwing constant tantrums. At some stage you have to say enough is enough.

kuro68k

None of it matters because May won't get anything meaningful out of the EU now. The vote on the deal will be lost, it's just a question of when.

She must be hoping something will happen to help her, desperately clinging on, all the time taking us closer to a hard brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Here's what Leo said:

It was a very good meeting, it was an opportunity for all of us to put forward ideas that might work, things that might be considered. It really wouldn’t be helpful to go into that sort of detail.
[The threat of a no-deal Brexit] can be withdrawn at any point by the UK should they chose to revoke article 50 or, if that’s a step too far, to extend it to allow us more time, and to allow Britain more time. That’s certainly an option, but my preferred option is to ratify the deal we have.
I don’t think we could agree to anything that would change the content to the treaty, the content to the withdrawal agreement. What we can say is the backstop is not on the table. It needs to be there for a reason.


It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

prawnsambo

blanch152 wrote: »

Why have we two threads on the go?

This one should be closed. Getting close to the thread limit. New thread is open.

briany

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Let's not go nuts, here. Northern Ireland has enjoyed two decades of peace and growing prosperity since the GFA, making it a region that tourists and businesses no longer shy away from investing in. Is this not something that the normal people of NI wish very much to protect and continue? If the DUP messes with that; if they're seen to revel in a backslide to violence and polarisation, then their regressive attitude may cost them their position as the voice of NI Unionism.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

The absolute rotter.

See, the brexiteers were right. They can't even leave without the EU trying to be all helpful. Take back our right to not have to listen to anyone but ourselves!

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

This was true in 2016, and may still be true now (in the sense that in a further referendum "Remain" might still not attract a 50% vote.

But, in a rich irony, of the various options that are avalable or suggested - Remain, no-deal Brexit, Norway+, renegotiated Brexit under a different Tory, renegotiated Brexit under Labour, etc. - remain is probably the most popular. In a full menu referendum it would not secure a majority but it would probably secure more votes than any other option.

In this situation the only way to generate a majority for any option is to eliminate some options, and simply deny people the possibility of voting for them by not having them on the ballot paper. For example, some suggest a referendum between no-deal Brexit and May's deal brexit, forcing the electorate to choose one of these even though "remain" is almost certainly more popular than either of them. This is hard to defend on democratic grounds. It would also have the bizarre result that the form of Brexit that the UK would pursue would in fact be chosen by Remainers.

You could run a ranked-choice referendum in which you offered the full menu and invited voters to rank the options according to preference. You would them progressively elminate the least popular option and redistribute the votes for that option according to the next preference until one option secured more than 50% of the vote. This would be the option commanding the broadest assent across the electorate. In theory this is impeccably democratic, produces a certain result and does not split the leaver vote by offering a multiplicity of leave options but only one remain option. Unfortunately its a system which the British rejected in a referendum a few years back for their parliamentary elections, so they would probably view it with grave suspicion. It also invites voters to express a much more sophisticated and nuanced choide thant they are normally allowed to, and this could cause much confusion, and suspicion over the validity of the mandate obtained.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's what Leo said:

It was a very good meeting, it was an opportunity for all of us to put forward ideas that might work, things that might be considered. It really wouldn’t be helpful to go into that sort of detail.
[The threat of a no-deal Brexit] can be withdrawn at any point by the UK should they chose to revoke article 50 or, if that’s a step too far, to extend it to allow us more time, and to allow Britain more time. That’s certainly an option, but my preferred option is to ratify the deal we have.
I don’t think we could agree to anything that would change the content to the treaty, the content to the withdrawal agreement. What we can say is the backstop is not on the table. It needs to be there for a reason.


It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

I think Leo and Simon have proven themselves as very capable politicians and diplomats in the last few years

But obviously from a Brexiteer's point of view - those uppity Paddies should know their place...

MrMusician18

Former commission president Barrosso made a few interesting tweets imploring flexibility from the EU wrt the backstop tonight.

I wonder what the game is here, is he putting feelers out, voicing genuine concern from those within the commission who have no voice, or just an irrelevant opining out aloud of a has been?

Laois_Man

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Former commission president Barrosso made a few interesting tweets imploring flexibility from the EU wrt the backstop tonight.

I wonder what the game is here, is he putting feelers out, voicing genuine concern from those within the commission who have no voice, or just an irrelevant opining out aloud of a has been?

Irrelevant!

All EU member states have to sign up to it - and Ireland won't!

funkey_monkey

So what does every consider to be Irelands payback to the EU for this support?
Will payback be required?

briany

funkey_monkey wrote: »

So what does every consider to be Irelands payback to the EU for this support?
Will payback be required?

Sure, if you believe the EU to be the geo-political equivalent of Don Corleone.

ancapailldorcha

funkey_monkey wrote: »

So what does every consider to be Irelands payback to the EU for this support?
Will payback be required?

Why would payback be required? The EU is a union. It's in the entity's name. Unions are supposed to represent their members. Ireland pays its dues and gets the benefits.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could run a ranked-choice referendum in which you offered the full menu and invited voters to rank the options according to preference. You would them progressively elminate the least popular option and redistribute the votes for that option according to the next preference until one option secured more than 50% of the vote. This would be the option commanding the broadest assent across the electorate. In theory this is impeccably democratic, produces a certain result and does not split the leaver vote by offering a multiplicity of leave options but only one remain option. Unfortunately its a system which the British rejected in a referendum a few years back for their parliamentary elections, so they would probably view it with grave suspicion. It also invites voters to express a much more sophisticated and nuanced choide thant they are normally allowed to, and this could cause much confusion, and suspicion over the validity of the mandate obtained.

You'd need an equal number of options that are remain or remain + as there are leave and leave + or it would just weight the results to guaranteeing a leave, assuming people who tick remain 1 would then tick Mays deal 2.

Personally I wouldn't be ticking any of the leave options in such a poll as it just gives it legitimacy I don't think it deserves. I would be very conflicted on if I'd actually vote in a hard brexit/ Mays deal poll if those were the only options. As far as I'm concerned it really wouldn't matter which of those options as they are both unaceptable.

If there was a choice of No deal, Mays deal, remain, remain and join schengen/ Euro then it would be a fairer poll that people could actually have 2nd preference choices counting on without having to have it go to waste.

20silkcut

briany wrote: »

Let's not go nuts, here. Northern Ireland has enjoyed two decades of peace and growing prosperity since the GFA, making it a region that tourists and businesses no longer shy away from investing in. Is this not something that the normal people of NI wish very much to protect and continue? If the DUP messes with that; if they're seen to revel in a backslide to violence and polarisation, then their regressive attitude may cost them their position as the voice of NI Unionism.

The only logic to hard brexiteer/DUP stance is nihilistic chaos. They hate what their countries have become and are happy enough to pull the whole thing down.

Professor Moriarty

20silkcut wrote: »

The only logic to hard brexiteer/DUP stance is nihilistic chaos. They hate what their countries have become and are happy enough to pull the whole thing down.

Despite the fact that the DUP campaigned for Brexit, if I were a DUP party strategist I would begin to consider the possibility that Remain is best option to guarantee that NI stays fully in the UK.

Kermit.de.frog

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Former commission president Barrosso made a few interesting tweets imploring flexibility from the EU wrt the backstop tonight.

He has taken the concillatory angle since the Brexit vote.

However, can't imagine Irish officials being happy with his interjections at this time specifically. He obviously would still have some influence.

This is precisely what Bertie Ahern warned the Irish govt not to do - i.e don't let this go to the wire.

briany

20silkcut wrote: »

The only logic to hard brexiteer/DUP stance is nihilistic chaos. They hate what their countries have become and are happy enough to pull the whole thing down.

I suppose they're free to try and do that, but their efforts will see push back from the people of Northern Ireland, from both backgrounds, who in no way wish to see Northern Ireland regress. The DUP's drive is largely ideological and this was illustrated by Arlene Foster's recent meeting with NI business leaders over May's proposed deal and her becoming annoyed that said business leaders were actually in favour of it. I think that if the DUP push too hard for their fantasies, reality will push back, and perhaps hard enough to render them a marginal voice of Unionism alongside the TUV.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He has taken the concillatory angle since the Brexit vote.

However, can't imagine Irish officials being happy with his interjections at this time specifically. He obviously would still have some influence.

This is precisely what Bertie Ahern warned the Irish govt not to do - i.e don't let this go to the wire.

Some of the replies to him are something else:

https://twitter.com/LurganSpade/status/1073263067763523585

https://twitter.com/DaveMalcolm11/status/1073272522525868037

EdgeCase

I just saw an attempt on Sky News to draw a comparison between the Catalan independence movement and Brexit.

I'm pretty sure the EU hasn't threatened to arrest Brexit leaders or sent in hardcore police. Nobody is in exile or anything remotely like what has happened to the Catalan independence movement.

They actually recognized the Brexit referendum result before the British Government even triggered Article 50.

All they're looking for is a sane plan to disentangle the two.

fly_agaric

EdgeCase wrote: »

I just saw an attempt on Sky News to draw a comparison between the Catalan independence movement and Brexit.

Could be apt, but not in the way they think.
Both selfish and ignorant (+ pointless?) political crusades pushed forward by lying politicians??

A Dub in Glasgo

fly_agaric wrote: »

Could be apt, but not in the way they think.
Both selfish and ignorant (+ pointless?) political crusades pushed forward by lying politicians??

Nah, don't think so

nice_guy80

I think the Scottish indepence movement is similar to the Catalan movement

Both being blocked by the courts of their federal state

Sand

20silkcut wrote: »

The only logic to hard brexiteer/DUP stance is nihilistic chaos. They hate what their countries have become and are happy enough to pull the whole thing down.

I think that is a large part of the vote by 17.4 million for Brexit - a deep dissatisfaction with the UK, and the apparent powerlessness of their political elite to correct course. Brexit offered a way to 'break out'.

But it would be a mistake to confuse the voters with the ERG who have hijacked that vote. The ERG are not sentimental or nostalgic for 1950s Britain: they would despise the government controls and economic planning of that era. They do not respect any British institution which impedes the hardest possible Brexit. They have extremely radical aims - an almost anarchic Singapore-on-Thames. They're not looking to the past, they are exploiting the opportunity to implement their vision of the future. Chaos suits them.

Rjd2

Even though I am not a fan of Leo, its hilarious how some of the right wing media in the UK have tried to portray him as some out of volatile, aggressive unreasonable Irish nationalist. :pac:

A Dub in Glasgo

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think the Scottish indepence movement is similar to the Catalan movement

Both being blocked by the courts of their federal state

The Scottish independence referendum is being blocked by the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament has already given the thumbs up to allow the Scottish Government to request the referendum although Sturgeon is waiting for the outcome of the farce that is also known as Brexit before putting it to the Tories. The Tories, of course, have so far said 'No!'

serfboard

Sand wrote: »

The ERG are not sentimental or nostalgic for 1950s Britain: they would despise the government controls and economic planning of that era. They do not respect any British institution which impedes the hardest possible Brexit. They have extremely radical aims - an almost anarchic Singapore-on-Thames. They're not looking to the past, they are exploiting the opportunity to implement their vision of the future. Chaos suits them.

That’s why I think it’s ironic when these people refer to themselves as “Conservative”. They don’t want to “Conserve” anything - they are fundamentalist radicals who want to destroy the welfare state, remove all workers rights and privatise public services (including the NHS), all the while giving tax breaks to (offshore) billionaires.

Junkyard Tom

The weird fetishization of the vote of 'the British people' persists via David Davis on BBCQT. The Brexit referendum was a simple binary question for an incredibly complex process if leave won - anyone who lionises the wisdom of the public on Brexit is either a liar or an idiot.

Enzokk

Seems like May had a good meeting once again.

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1073364321370038273

tuxy

Is she still under the impression that the EU is bluffing and will agree to things behind closed doors that they have publicly announced is impossible. What's the deal with constantly having meetings with heads of state of EU countries and trying to go over the head of EU council leaders.

I guess secret meetings and lies to the public is all the Tories know.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

You'd need an equal number of options that are remain or remain + as there are leave and leave + or it would just weight the results to guaranteeing a leave, assuming people who tick remain 1 would then tick Mays deal 2.

What remain voters put as their number 2 choice is irrelevant and can have no influence on the result unless and until "remain" has been eliminated. Remain voters no. 2 preferences won't even be counted, never mind given effect to, until this has happened.

Enzokk

tuxy wrote: »

Is she still under the impression that the EU is bluffing and will agree to things behind closed doors that they have publicly announced is impossible. What's the deal with constantly having meetings with heads of state of EU countries and trying to go over the head of EU council leaders.

I guess secret meetings and lies to the public is all the Tories know.

Who knows her plan but it really seems like it went badly once again for her.


https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1073355947966427136

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1073358059131551750

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1073360217453326337

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1073363766484615169