Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Laois_Man

seamus wrote: »

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.

Except I didn't make any such claim. I said a decent PM who had kept a 20+ point opinion poll lead on the day the election was called, and not let it whittle down to a 3 point lead by election day, would have seen such a lead translate to a majority of approx. 110 in parliament (the reason she called the snap election in the first place), and which is why it would have been far easier to get something thru the house of commons. Not because Teresa May was the one presenting it.

intellectual dosser

Akrasia wrote: »

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

This is where I get confused - what are Labour waiting for?

If they wait until the new year, or even closer to March 29th then the electorate will tar them with the same brush as the Tories for wasting time and being completely impotent.

Laois_Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.

The funny thing about Farage is, behind it all - he wants to remain - or at least remain half in as per the current WA. He has made a career out of protesting against this stuff. He is already openly drawing up plans to form a new party to contest the European elections this coming May in the event that the UK are still in. If they get a hard Brexit, what would he do with himself for the rest of his life (besides go into hiding if things get really really bad)?

hill16bhoy

Gavin Esler made a good point on the Sean O'Rourke Show on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

If people think a second referendum will be "divisive", how divisive would it be that a deal that few want is pushed through by a zombie Prime Minister in charge of a total shambles of a government?

How divisive would a no deal Brexit be?

How divisive would economic chaos and massive job losses be?

How divisive was the referendum in the first place?

Remember, the Brexiteers are the people who pushed to introduce division in the first place.

Their "solutions" are the most divisive of all.

But there is no solution which will not be massively divisive.

I wouldn't normally give any praise to Margaret Thatcher, but she does deserve praise for opposing the introduction of the concept of a referendum in British politics in 1975, because she foresaw that a referendum such as this one could lead to chaos.

That genie is out of the bottle now, however. The least worst solution there is now, is to hold a second referendum which overturns the result of the first.

Laois_Man

Infini wrote: »

There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.

No, what she actually said was she won't contest the next scheduled General Election which is in 2022

She's being sly and underhanded again - she knows there isn't a snowballs hope in hell of this Government lasting til 2022!

flatty

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.

Well she knows one paddy at least.

hill16bhoy

EdgeCase wrote: »

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.

But with a Corbyn government, it's basically a case of pass the parcel, given that Corbyn's stated strategy is the same unicorns in the sky stuff that May is currently carrying out by looking for a renegotiation of the deal.

Unless Corbyn can be persuaded by the vast bulk of opinion within his party that a second referendum is needed, what changes?

And what happens if an election produces a similar result to 2017, because it could easily do so?

Inquitus

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Gavin Esler made a good point on the Sean O'Rourke Show on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

If people think a second referendum will be "divisive", how divisive would it be that a deal that few want is pushed through by a zombie Prime Minister in charge of a total shambles of a government?

How divisive would a no deal Brexit be?

How divisive would economic chaos and massive job losses be?

How divisive was the referendum in the first place?

Remember, the Brexiteers are the people who pushed to introduce division in the first place.

Their "solutions" are the most divisive of all.

But there is no solution which will not be massively divisive.

I wouldn't normally give any praise to Margaret Thatcher, but she does deserve praise for opposing the introduction of the concept of a referendum in British politics in 1975, because she foresaw that a referendum such as this one could lead to chaos.

That genie is out of the bottle now, however. The least worst solution there is now, is to hold a second referendum which overturns the result of the first.

You make a good point, all of the available options are divisive, which is why a 2nd referendum should not be ruled out on that basis. I think its the best way forward, but it could be a crap shoot.

Charles Babbage

seamus wrote: »

Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969

Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid.

It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over".

These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.

The most recent poll in Scotland shows 47% if Brexit is cancelled, 53% for independence if Brexit goes ahead with deal and 57% if there is no deal. I'd say that London will further aggravate Scotland in the next 6 months.

flatty

Infini wrote: »

There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.

She actually said she didn't intend to, not won't. Michael D used not standing for a second term as a major plank in his election campaign, and still noone raised an eyebrow when surprise surprise he changed his mind.

hill16bhoy

Inquitus wrote: »

You make a good point, all of the available options are divisive, which is why a 2nd referendum should not be ruled out on that basis. I think its the best way forward, but it could be a crap shoot.

It would be massively divisive.

And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again.

But at least the question would be more defined than before.

And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess.

Nothing else does.

hill16bhoy

flatty wrote: »

She actually said she didn't intend to, not won't. Michael D used not standing for a second term as a major plank in his election campaign, and still noone raised an eyebrow when surprise surprise he changed his mind.

Yeah but Michael D. wasn't leading a party and was contesting a position which has no power.

Realistically, there's no way May could possibly last beyond 2021 at the very latest.

Tell me how

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It would be massively divisive.

And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again.

But at least the question would be more defined than before.

And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess.

Nothing else does.

There is a lot more evidence which would refute the claims originally made such as "The day after Brexit we hold all the cards", "Negotiating trade deals will be the easiest thing in the world", "£350M per week can go to the NHS", "We will be talking directly with Berlin, not Brussels" and so on.

There is a deal on the table, there can be no pipe dreams of what might be under the rainbow.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

New thread open for business:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108871795#post108871795

This thread will remain open for the next 24 hours or so to continue with the last few disccussions. To start the new thread, it would be great if people can give a summary of their views to date to get the ball rolling over there!

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

Water John wrote: »

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.

Article 50 can only be extended with with the consent of the EU so even if they wanted to it is not clear if this will happen. Parliament can vote for anything but with regards to article 50 there has to be agreement with the EU for most things, other than cancelling it.

seamus wrote: »

Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969

Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid.

It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over".

These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.

The SNP is playing this very well it seems. They have learned from their earlier mistake in 2017 of pushing too much for another independence referendum. They seem to know the path the UK is on will mean the people in Scotland will push for it as much as they want it.

briany

Laois_Man wrote: »

If they get a hard Brexit, what would he do with himself for the rest of his life (besides go into hiding if things get really really bad)?

Well, he can do many things. He can learn Indian cooking, how to dance the tango, write a memoir, sail around the Cape of Good Hope, finally watch The Wire, eat a chicken kiev *in* Kiev, learn the cello, gain and lose 200 pounds, manage a Sunday league football team, set the time on the VCR, set the time on the microwave, talk long luxurious morning walks, feed the ducks, go to concerts, go to movies, play Brain Training on the Nintendo DS, learn to fly a 747, keep some coturnix quail, darn socks, online shopping, an Open University course, give blood, charity work, be a shopping centre Santa, woodworking, computer programming, and brewing beer.

Anything that keeps him busy and off TV, really.

Wheres Me Jumper?

i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

Thatnastyboy

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

The folk who's homes & businesses straddle the border might have something to say about it being 'overblown', and I wager they do REALLY care.

Ted_YNWA

Enzokk wrote:

Article 50 can only be extended with with the consent of the EU so even if they wanted to it is not clear if this will happen. Parliament can vote for anything but with regards to article 50 there has to be agreement with the EU for most things, other than cancelling it.

The first thing the EU will ask is "Why, what do you want the time for." if extension is ask. TM would need to provide a clear plan for what the time will be used for, not vague waffle.

Faffing around like the past 2+ years is the most likely result.

DOCARCH

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

Naive to think that the only people who cross the border are on cheap booze trips!

Aside from business, and people who live/work either side of the border, there are families whose kids go to school the other side of the border.

Passport checks on the way to school/work may be a little inconvenient.

joe40

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

Thousands of people cross the border everyday, I'm one of them. I don't think there will be a return to violence of the scale witnessed before but border infrastructure will be attacked/damaged.
It will be destabilising and an extremely regressive step in light of the advances of GFA.

Remember the DUP never supported the GFA, they did not take part in the negotiations. They would love to see a physical border again

Wheres Me Jumper?

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

The folk who's homes & businesses straddle the border might have something to say about it being 'overblown', and I wager they do REALLY care.

don't get me wrong, i have little or no sympathy for the Tories.
they never even considered little old Ireland indeed historically this has always been the case/

but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!

RobMc59

DOCARCH wrote: »

Naive to think that the only people who cross the border are on cheap booze trips!

Aside from business, and people who live/work either side of the border, there are families whose kids go to school the other side of the border.

Passport checks on the way to school/work may be a little inconvenient.

I understand it's an off topic question (apologies) but can kids from either side of the border go cross border and how difficult would this be?

Muscles Schultz

Can this be locked/merged ????

tuxy

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!

But it's not about a few farmers dodging tax it's about the GFA and a possible return to the troubles. Brexit will make people who are poor in NI even poorer and that combined with sections of the GFA being ignored has a chance of starting things off again.

Wheres Me Jumper?

joe40 wrote: »

Thousands of people cross the border everyday, I'm one of them. I don't think there will be a return to violence of the scale witnessed before but border infrastructure will be attacked/damaged.
It will be destabilising and an extremely regressive step in light of the advances of GFA.

Remember the DUP never supported the GFA, they did not take part in the negotiations. They would love to see a physical border again

as i suspected the reason many on the border are so adamant is they do not want the DUP to be seen to "get one over" on the nationalists.

this is more about tribal NI politics than what's best for these 2 islands & the EU.

briany

If a hard border goes up, and the UK's economic policy gradually drifts away from that of the EU's such that it becomes this laissez-faire tax haven that some experts have opined it could then the smuggling opportunities across the border will be absolute 90. And you can put up all the posts you like and fly drones in the air with LIDAR equipped. It wouldn't matter - with 300 or so crossings, the historical porousness of the border means that it'll still be a knockout. It'll be quite the game, in fact.

cml387

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Can this be locked/merged ????

This is the continuation thread. The previous one has reached near 10000 and must be closed or else bad things happen.

Muscles Schultz

cml387 wrote: »

This is the continuation thread. The previous one has reached near 10000 and must be closed or else bad things happen.

Other way round dude

Enzokk

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

don't get me wrong, i have little or no sympathy for the Tories.
they never even considered little old Ireland indeed historically this has always been the case/

but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!

Let us see what Chief Constable of the PSNI has to say on this exact issue,

The PSNI Chief Constable has accused some Westminster politicians of failing to understand the dangers of terrorism in Northern Ireland post -Brexit.

In an interview in the Sunday Times, George Hamilton warns that the government is failing to prepare for the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the peace and security in NI.

He said that he is not getting the information and clarity needed.

Mr Hamilton said that some Westminster politicians view NI as "peripheral".

"There's a feeling that as regards the Troubles and the conflict, Northern Ireland is sorted and we don't need to worry about it, when actually we're working flat out 24/7 to keep a lid on it," he said.

Mr Hamilton issued a similar warning when he appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in June.

'Concern for the Irish border'
In the Sunday Times interview, he said that any physical infrastructure or border officials following the UK's withdrawal from the European Union would become targets for dissident republicans and require police protection.

"The purpose for which those checking points and [Irish] border controls would be put in place would become less and less relevant because they would move away from issues of trade or movement of people to old-fashioned security on a national frontier," he said.

"That was done during the period of the Troubles rather unsuccessfully, and was sadly the subject of attacks and many lives lost."

Asked if the government understood Brexit's potential consequences for Northern Ireland, Mr Hamilton said: "I'm not sure all of them do.

"I have a concern some may see issues to do with the Irish border as literally peripheral, not just geographically but in terms of impact."

PSNI chief warning over post-Brexit threat

So the issue of the border is not overblown, if anything not enough attention has still not been paid to it. To be honest I prefer not to worry about my personal safety when on the island due to terrorists.