Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Angry bird

Linking Brexiteers with Russian money and influence. Logic doesn't work, so throw mud. A happy bonus, but not essential, that it be true. Farage the Russian stooge, destroys him far more effectively.

demfad

Enzokk wrote: »

Might explain the "political sensitivities"given by the Met as to why they hadn't investigated the evidence that the Electoral Commission gave to them in May and July when they concluded their investigations.

If this is true then while I don't think she is involved with the campaign and where the money came from, she at the very least abdicated her responsibility (again) to investigate a foreign threat to the country. That is just another low in the career of Theresa May, if true.

Her two closest advisors were high up in the official Vote Leave campaign which was headed by Gove and Johnson. With Banks connection to Farage and Bannon/Mercers the idea that Official Leave they did not use Cambridge Analytica/AIQ and Vote Leave did is negligible.

You have thus likely situation: ALL the Leave campaigns poured majority of monies into an obscure Canadian firm which we now know is Canadian Cambridge Analytica. This firm was not searchable on Google before the referendum. We have Aaron banks meeting several times with the Russian ambassador who is being investigated as a conduit between the Kremlin and Trump campaign. We have Cambridge Analytica being under direct Special Counsel investigation for coordinating with Russia. The Election Commission believes the £8million Banks out into Brexit was not his own.

This is the scandal:
A large proportion of the money that went into Brexit was Russian.
This money went to a big data company that coordinated with the Russian state to win Brexit. The majority of Official vote leave money went to this firm also.
Thus was covered up at the highest level of UK government.
I believe if someone asked Theresa May if she also pulled an intelluhence requested investigation into Russian interference, the truthful answer must be yes.

All of this...all of it....made possible by.... Facebook.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fash is correct. An Act of Parliament committing the UK to keep the border open could be repealed at will.

The best guarantee of an open border that you can get is to give the UK something it really, really wants in return for a commitment to keep the border open. That way, if the UK closes the border, it does so at great cost to itself.

This is why demanding that the UK give a unilateral commitment to keep the border open is a stupid strategy. Even if the UK were to agree, it could later walk away from that commitment at virtually no cost to itself.

Current strategy is, in the short to medium term, to offer the UK a withdrawal agreement and a transition period in return for an open border commitment. The UK really wants and needs both of these things. So its a good strategy, so far as it goes.

But it doesn't go very far. In a few years, after the transition period has expired, and after the UK has had the bulk of whatever benefits it gets from the withdrawal agreement, there's not much to hold the UK to its open-border promise. They lose little by walking away from it at that point.

Which is why the long-term strategy is to negotiate a future relationship agreement with the UK which (a) provides continuing benefits to the UK, and (b) delivers an open border. That way, the UK will continue to be in the position that it will lose something valuable to it if it walks away from the open border.

And note where Ireland's interests lie in this. The more generous the future relationship agreement is to the UK, the better for us, because the greater the cost to the UK of introducing a hard border and so losing the future relationship agreement. So, assuming there is a withdrawal agreement, when the parties move on to negotiate the future relationship expect us to be warm advocates of British interests, and a strong supporter of the UK's desire for generous and easy terms.

I'd add that I've always believed that the best thing for the EU to do, is to keep the UK as close as possible making it easy for re-entry at a later date. Roaming charges and passport queues will be enough of a squeeze on the ingerlish, as it will actually openly personally inconvenience them. As generation brexit thankfully wither away, there will inevitably at some point be a pro EU leadership (might be a generation away, but it'll happen sure as swings and roundabouts).
Whether they would be allowed back in could be decided by the EU on EU terms.
Driving them away, whilst Imo correct now absolutely, may not be the best long term move. Fortunately, I think the EU are kinder, more forward thinking and more pragmatic than the current rabble in the UK parliament. Wouldn't be hard mind.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fash is correct. An Act of Parliament committing the UK to keep the border open could be repealed at will.

The best guarantee of an open border that you can get is to give the UK something it really, really wants in return for a commitment to keep the border open. That way, if the UK closes the border, it does so at great cost to itself.

This is why demanding that the UK give a unilateral commitment to keep the border open is a stupid strategy. Even if the UK were to agree, it could later walk away from that commitment at virtually no cost to itself.

Current strategy is, in the short to medium term, to offer the UK a withdrawal agreement and a transition period in return for an open border commitment. The UK really wants and needs both of these things. So its a good strategy, so far as it goes.

But it doesn't go very far. In a few years, after the transition period has expired, and after the UK has had the bulk of whatever benefits it gets from the withdrawal agreement, there's not much to hold the UK to its open-border promise. They lose little by walking away from it at that point.

Which is why the long-term strategy is to negotiate a future relationship agreement with the UK which (a) provides continuing benefits to the UK, and (b) delivers an open border. That way, the UK will continue to be in the position that it will lose something valuable to it if it walks away from the open border.

And note where Ireland's interests lie in this. The more generous the future relationship agreement is to the UK, the better for us, because the greater the cost to the UK of introducing a hard border and so losing the future relationship agreement. So, assuming there is a withdrawal agreement, when the parties move on to negotiate the future relationship expect us to be warm advocates of British interests, and a strong supporter of the UK's desire for generous and easy terms.

I'd add that I've always believed that the best thing for the EU to do, is to keep the UK as close as possible making it easy for re-entry at a later date. Roaming charges and passport queues will be enough of a squeeze on the ingerlish, as it will actually openly personally inconvenience them. As generation brexit thankfully wither away, there will inevitably at some point be a pro EU leadership (might be a generation away, but it'll happen sure as swings and roundabouts).
Whether they would be allowed back in could be decided by the EU on EU terms.
Driving them away, whilst Imo correct now absolutely, may not be the best long term move. Fortunately, I think the EU are kinder, more forward thinking and more pragmatic than the current rabble in the UK parliament. Wouldn't be hard mind.

Professor Moriarty

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1058007548203331585

well there ya go

That's brightened up my day!

Anthracite

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1058007548203331585

well there ya go

Good thing he has friends in high places.

Dyr

flatty wrote: »

I'd add that I've always believed that the best thing for the EU to do, is to keep the UK as close as possible making it easy for re-entry at a later date. Roaming charges and passport queues will be enough of a squeeze on the ingerlish, as it will actually openly personally inconvenience them. As generation brexit thankfully wither away, there will inevitably at some point be a pro EU leadership (might be a generation away, but it'll happen sure as swings and roundabouts).
Whether they would be allowed back in could be decided by the EU on EU terms.
Driving them away, whilst Imo correct now absolutely, may not be the best long term move. Fortunately, I think the EU are kinder, more forward thinking and more pragmatic than the current rabble in the UK parliament. Wouldn't be hard mind.

It's a mistake to think that a few hard winters will see off anti EU sentiment in the UK, it's been around since the 70's. The EU needs to make a decision if the UK is worth the disruption they cause. I reckon the Germans, French, Dutch might use this as an opportunity to steal the UKs lunch money, trade wise.

Kermit.de.frog

I note the Brexiteer press keep wheeling out NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER David Trimble as a key man for their arguments.

Ok let's break that down.

The only reason Trimble was given that was because John Hume was getting it and they felt they needed a unionist for parity - and he is the only one that they could find without looking totally ridiculous.

In no other parallel universe would Trimble have recieved a gong like that.

But that's what they are reduced to flogging.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I note the Brexiteer press keep wheeling out NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER David Trimble as a key man for their arguments.

Ok let's break that down.

The only reason Trimble was given that was because John Hume was getting it and they felt they needed a unionist for parity - and he is the only one that they could find without looking totally ridiculous.

In no other parallel universe would Trimble have recieved a gong like that.

But that's what they are reduced to flogging.

Id have given it to paisley before trimble.

charlie14

fash wrote: »

But even if the UK introduced legislation, that would not constitute a "cast iron guarantee" - they could simply amend the legislation 2 days later. What is the difference between between doing that and what they have done on their undertaking?
The only way to get the type of "cast iron guarantee" you are talking about, is if they dissolved the UK and, surrendered to the jurisdiction of another EU country - thus permanently preventing them from revoking their undertaking.
Now how likely were they to do that?
Anything else is, I would suggest, your own over reading of the term " cast iron guarantee" (which in any case seems to have been written on some form of wood pulp based paper and not any form of metal - cast or forged).

You may have missed the point I was making that if the U.K. had been pressurised into introducing legislation based on the December agreement, (rather than the subsequent amendment to the U.K. Customs Bill that made it illegal for N.I. to be outside of the U.K. customs territories), when we had the stated backing of our E.U. partners that their would be no movement to Phase 2 of talks, we would not be now going into the 11th. hour with pressure coming our way from the majority of said partners too accept an E.U.-wide digital tax.


I would agree with you that, not alone the term "cast iron guarantee" but also "politically bullet proof" as used by our government were based on very flimsy material.

Rather than me "over reading", when I attempted to point that out as far back as December that I believed many here were "over reading" I was very much shouted down by same who apparently were off the opinion that it was of "metal - cast or forged"

An Ciarraioch

Politico article on the state of Anglo-Irish relations:

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-brexit-burned-uk-irish-friendship-theresa-may-leo-varadkar/

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

when I attempted to point that out as far back as December that I believed many here were "over reading" I was very much shouted down by same who apparently were off the opinion that it was of "metal - cast or forged"

We are not shouting you down - we are just pointing out that you were wrong in December and you are still wrong. Anything the UK passed into law last December could simply be amended or repealed by Parliament at any time since. It would have made no difference whatever to the current situation.

The important point for us from phase 1 was that the UK and EU sides agreed that the WA will include a backstop. And despite the brexiteers wailing, that is still true. If there is a WA, it will include the backstop. The only way the UK can avoid the backstop is to crash out in March, which would, to put it mildly, be very expensive for them.

flatty

judeboy101 wrote: »

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I note the Brexiteer press keep wheeling out NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER David Trimble as a key man for their arguments.

Ok let's break that down.

The only reason Trimble was given that was because John Hume was getting it and they felt they needed a unionist for parity - and he is the only one that they could find without looking totally ridiculous.

In no other parallel universe would Trimble have recieved a gong like that.

But that's what they are reduced to flogging.

Id have given it to paisley before trimble.

Steady on there.

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Politico article on the state of Anglo-Irish relations:

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-brexit-burned-uk-irish-friendship-theresa-may-leo-varadkar/

I wouldn't be too depressed longterm. The Brexiteers will probably end up totally discredited, depart the stage and relations will rapidly improve again.

Nate--IRL--

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Politico article on the state of Anglo-Irish relations:

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-brexit-burned-uk-irish-friendship-theresa-may-leo-varadkar/

I like the lead out....

An editor of one Irish newspaper put it even more bluntly. “I don’t give a **** about Brexit, good luck to you. But just don’t **** us over. If that border goes up, I’m telling you there will be hell.”

Nate

Snickers Man

RobMc59 wrote: »

Russia would love NATO to collapse and the EU to fracture,thats why they`re pumping so much money into fake news and propaganda via russia today and sputnik news.

I quite agree.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you possibly need to read up on the history of Europe and WW2 as quite a large amount of your post is factually incorrect.

Whose? Mine? Factually incorrect? Where?

EdgeCase

The Germans aren’t that worried. They export mostly highly branded, highly sought after products like renowned car brands and machinery and so on.

If you’re going to buy a Merc or an Audi, you’re going to buy a Merc or an Audi. You’re not going to buy a Geely Yuanjing or something because the price of a German car went up a bit.

Not only that but the British are notoriously price insensitive. So in a lot of cases I think the cost of living in the UK will just go up and people will continue to seek out the same familiar products regardless. Even Irish agriculture probably has little to worry about in that regard, I can’t see the British suddenly rushing out to buy Brazilian cheese.

Kermit.de.frog

I notice Raab visited two ports in NI today and not the actual land border.

Bit of a hint there perhaps?

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Politico article on the state of Anglo-Irish relations:

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-brexit-burned-uk-irish-friendship-theresa-may-leo-varadkar/

That's a very well written article.

Tell me how

Another interesting newspaper article. This one from the 'failing' New York Times.

New York Times on Northern Ireland

Article is written by an Northern Irishman who grew up in a protestant area.

For the theocrats at the core of the D.U.P. leadership, this is a threat to the political self-defense of Protestants against, as Ian Paisley used to put it, the Papal Antichrist. Hence, the D.U.P. obstructs gay marriage, abortion rights and Irish language rights. The party and its Loyalist base are waging a cultural war to defend “Britishness.” They’ll spoil a deal with the European Union, even if the Good Friday Agreement must be rewritten or collapses.

Loyalists, faced with a threat to the Union, would put up a fight. The paramilitaries still exist. But in the pebbledash, gray concrete, rained-on estates of Northern Ireland, Unionism is slowly dying. And with it, an idea of Britain.

Mc Love

His visit and his itinerary is very strange!

Hurrache

Two very good articles.

Kermit.de.frog

According to Arlene Foster...

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058382190256549889

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

According to Arlene Foster...

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058382190256549889

I'll wait to see what Barnier says.

Mc Love

Come on Michel tell the truth - thats what everyone is waiting for.

Kermit.de.frog

Looks like they seemed unsure?

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1058376391870349314

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

According to Arlene Foster...

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058382190256549889

If Arlene is happy, id be worried.

listermint

judeboy101 wrote: »

If Arlene is happy, id be worried.

Arlene is never happy, she will switch a smile in minutes.

Kermit.de.frog

judeboy101 wrote: »

If Arlene is happy, id be worried.

Somehow I get the impression they won't be happy this day next week!

EdgeCase

What concerns me is that Arlene is relatively reasonable and pragmatic compared to the rest of the DUP. She's also, very unusually both from and representing a border region of Northern Ireland. She's also not really part of that Free Presbyterian theocracy. Arlene, at least according to anything I've read about her, is a member of the Church of Ireland.

Getting a deal with Arlene is one thing, getting that deal past the DUP's hardcore is another thing entirely.