Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Although a UI is preferable it's unlikely people will vote to have to pay for health care and be worse off financially-I'm just being realistic not critical-it maybe Ireland will consider enhancing their health system

But you are stating that as if nothing else changes. After Brexit, who knows how NI is going to operate. Will the UK continue to support it? Will the economy continue to provide jobs for people?

You are arguing as if they would lose and gain nothing. I don't know the answer, only the future will tell us, but it is wrong to argue that Ireland must change to accommodate them (there is a totally separate argument over the future of healthcare).

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean, in terms of the DUP and abortion, equal right for marriage etc, we would need to move backwards.

Sure the schools etc is a problem, but they already have schools which can be taken over by the state and we have a system of Educate together ready to do it.

I fully agree on the anthem at matches, but that is a personal thing. Would it help, maybe and I wouldn't be against it, but it starts to look like BRexit again.

They want a UI because they no longer see the benefits of being in the UK, but they want Ireland to change for them so they get to keep everything they like. Choices are just that, a choice. You rarely get everything you want. Is staying in the UK after Brexit worth it given that the alternative is a UI. One can only make the choice based on the options in front of you. If Ireland is so bad, don't vote to join.

Well that's true but the DUP's version of unionism is in the minority in NI. They only got 28% of the vote. And that's only going to go in one direction.

badtoro

lawred2 wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

dropping, changing or lessening some of our more tainted symbols of nationalism - the flag and the anthem..

I don't view either as tainted and would be 100% against changing or dropping either. Should add in relation to UI I wouldn't be in favour of it at this time for social, security & economic reasons.

Hurrache

You'd have to wonder what these Brexit secretaries do with their time outside of negotiations
https://twitter.com/wdjstraw/status/1060446473446477824

Leroy42

badtoro wrote: »

I don't view either as tainted and would be 100% against changing or dropping either. Should add in relation to UI I wouldn't be in favour of it at this time for social, security & economic reasons.

Just to be clear, you quoted a line as if I posted it when it wasn't me that said it.

Leroy42

Hurrache wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what these Brexit secretaries do with their time outside of negotiations
https://twitter.com/wdjstraw/status/1060446473446477824

"I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this".

That quote should be written on the side of a bus a driven to every Brexit voter in the UK

Enzokk

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Normally, you would have to be careful of tweets like this from what is a senior Labour figure like Adonis. However, elements do sound familiar. Remember only a week or so ago, it was reported that Raab proposed (*) to Coveney that the backstop should be limited to 3 months. Lillington (May's trusted lieutenant, now charged with improving the relationship with Dublin) had to do "clean-up" by withdrawing that proposal, again (reportedly) to Raab's fury.

Raab is clearly not part of May's trusted inner circle. But with reports like this, one would have to say that he is also not on the same page as the rest of the UK negotiating team either.

(*) Actually I'm being generous here, the verb used in the Irish Times report that I'm looking at was "demanded"!

Others have posted the quotes from Raab on how he didn't understand that the UK relies on the closest port to the EU in regards to trade, but here is the video of him saying it.

https://twitter.com/indeox/status/1060472540659879936

Also some tweets from Tony Connelly with regards to the backstop and where Varadkar stands.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060458225303203841

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060458229535268864


And here is Phil Hogan on the backstop and what he is expecting.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060466221827665921

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060466226470813696

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060466230069477378

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060466231831076864

So it seems we are now almost at the end and the UK still hasn't sent in a proposal to the EU on the border, at least not officially. This could be just to keep it all quiet until the end when they will spring the agreement on the HoC to just get it through as the agreement will be unpalatable to Brexiteers but in the end it is the only deal that can go through.

charlie14

badtoro wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't view either as tainted and would be 100% against changing or dropping either. Should add in relation to UI I wouldn't be in favour of it at this time for social, security & economic reasons.

I would agree with you on that.
If we were going to start messing around with anthems, especially in relation to GAA county games, we would end up with Amhrán na bhFiann in the RoI and God Save the Queen in NI. Even if, as in the Ulster championship, it was two counties from the RoI playing at a neutral venue in NI.




Please God, let nobody suggest another Ireland`s Call.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you are stating that as if nothing else changes. After Brexit, who knows how NI is going to operate. Will the UK continue to support it? Will the economy continue to provide jobs for people?

You are arguing as if they would lose and gain nothing. I don't know the answer, only the future will tell us, but it is wrong to argue that Ireland must change to accommodate them (there is a totally separate argument over the future of healthcare).

I doubt the UK will descend into some "mad max"type world if there is a hard or no deal brexit and NI is a part of the UK-it's not being supported by it as a separate entity-when people say the UK is bribing NI that is incorrect as NI is still part of the UK along with Wales and Scotland.

Enzokk

Just another update and this time from Coveney,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481678530015237

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481684599128064


This is very good from our politicians in the way they are tempering expectations based on the leaks we are getting from "sources".

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But the reality was that the 52% who voted for Brexit was in reality made up of minorities which have voted for different, and inconsistent, Brexits. There was no actual Brexit that May could deliver which would command the support of the entire 52%.

Yet she had to deliver Brexit. What she needed to do, then, was to develop a Brexit capable of securing some degree of consensus assent. The 48% who lost the referendum understood that there had to be some kind of Brexit, and many of them would have been open to asseting to, if not enthusiastically supporting, a Brexit which was obviously crafted to take account of their concerns and to try to accommodate them to some degree.

So what May should have done was to target not a hard Brexit designed to gratify her own party's right wing, but a soft Brexit designed to satisfy the broad middle of the Tory party, and to win over Remainers by seeking to alleviate their worst concerns.

That would have required her to face down the right of her party. She bottled out.

Again, this is a failure to grasp the nettle. The nettle she needed to grasp there was telling her own Brexiters that until there was a settled consensus in the UK on the aims and outcome of Brexit, and the path to acheiving them, serving A50 notice was premature, and not in the country's interest. And, again, she ducked grasping the nettle.

I think the above doesn't give enough credit to the reality which was she would have been removed immediately if she appeared to be an out and out obstructionist.

I also think that it is misleading because the EU would never have been willing to have any meaningful discussion on post-Brexit before article 50 was invoked because to do so would encourage other eurosceptics in other countries to try to agitate leaving with the message we can at least have a discussion about it.

I agree it would have ideally been the correct approach to do but given the circumstances, I don't think it would have worked. Would she be remembered more favourably if she had tried to do this and been replaced after a party motion of no confidence within 12 months? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

Just another update and this time from Coveney,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481678530015237

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481684599128064


This is very good from our politicians in the way they are tempering expectations based on the leaks we are getting from "sources".

Simon Coveney is performing exceptionally well throughout this process in my view.

Seth Brundle

Enzokk wrote: »

Others have posted the quotes from Raab on how he didn't understand that the UK relies on the closest port to the EU in regards to trade, but here is the video of him saying it.

https://twitter.com/indeox/status/1060472540659879936

That's really unbelievable.
It's like he is aware of the obvious but (and this is the bit I can't understand), why look to distance his country from it?

LuckyLloyd

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. When it mattered, May shirked grasping the nettle.

And it particularly mattered in two areas. First, she chose to foster and encourage a have-cake-and-eat-it approach to Brexit which helped give rise to expectations that could never be met, and laid the grounds for the UK government to adopt red lines that it should never have adopted. The chickens that are coming home to roost now were hatched then.

And, secondly,when the time came to stop saying "Brexit means Brexit" and actually decide what kind of Brexit would be targetted, May chose to target a hard brexit to please the right wing of her own party, even though she knew there was no majority for this in the country, and that doing so would sabotage fatally any prospects of developing a consensus Brexit that could secure the assent of remainers who accepted that they had lost the referendum (which, initially, was a very large group).

I've said it before, but through the whole process her overriding driving objective has appeared to be maintaining her grip on power. To this end her motivations have always seemed to be spurred by relentlessly short term views of the situation. Lancaster House was a reaction to the jingoistic atmosphere of 'phony negotiations'. The General Election was a reaction to polling and tabloid clamour against Corbyn. Chequers was an attempt to fudge and kick the can down the road for another few months. She's living day to day, week to week.

At the outset of the process, there were big strategic decisions to be made about the type of Brexit deal that was desirable. A strong determined leader would have kicked off conversations on the Border, CU and SM membership and got out ahead of the difficulties in agreeing a British position *before* triggering A50.

If you want to talk about how she'll be viewed in terms of history, that will be highlighted as her key political error. In the end she has presided over a shambolic and catastrophic negotiation from the UK. The EU has presented a united front, got all its ducks in a row and been very clear at all stages what is possible and what is not. By contrast the UK comes across as weak, deluded and divided. It also seems to be lacking in essential civil service capability and is not up to the magnitude of the task. If all that is true, then it is impossible to judge her kindly.

Tell me how

A harsh reality for those of the GREAT Britain persuasion. Robert Shrimsley, editorial director of the Financial Times

Brexit is teaching Britain it's true place in the world.

For far too long British politicians, journalists and voters have enjoyed a patently distorted vision of the nation as indispensable world player. Now the nation is facing the painful truth that the UK is not as pre-eminent as it has liked to believe.

Adjusting to a reduced status will require a reality check in our media and our politics and a touch of humility. If Brexit helps the UK come to a more accurate realisation of its global significance, some good may yet come out of this wretched business. Still, it seems an expensive way to learn a lesson.

Tell me how

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

At the outset of the process, there were big strategic decisions to be made about the type of Brexit deal that was desirable. A strong determined leader would have kicked off conversations on the Border, CU and SM membership and got out ahead of the difficulties in agreeing a British position *before* triggering A50.

A strong determined leader would have set out to do this. Yes. But then, what is happening now may have happened before the invoking of article 50 and therefore have led to claims that May was sabotaging the will of the people and she would have been removed. There were already dissenting voices suggesting that she had campaigned to remain and so could not lead the effort to leave.

I suppose what I am wondering is, could any leader have made a better job of leading the UK government given the precariousness of the environment which existed then and continues to do so?

lawred2

charlie14 wrote: »

I would agree with you on that.
If we were going to start messing around with anthems, especially in relation to GAA county games, we would end up with Amhrán na bhFiann in the RoI and God Save the Queen in NI. Even if, as in the Ulster championship, it was two counties from the RoI playing at a neutral venue in NI.




Please God, let nobody suggest another Ireland`s Call.

Urm I said to not be playing anthems outside of maybe 2 games a year

How did that morph into playing GSTQ in Ulster?

LuckyLloyd

prawnsambo wrote: »

If you look at what they've been doing since she took over, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that she didn't seem to understand what the WA was supposed to acheive or that she knew and tried to use it for something else. We can look at David Davis trotting around Europe and Liam Fox, the world and assume they were stupid. Or we can look at what they were trying to do and conclude that their motive was to try and scam something outside the Article 50 process.

Article 50 is tiny. And the meat of it is in one paragraph. You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to not be able to understand it. So why all the visits to European heads of state and ignoring Barnier? Was she just trying to scam a new treaty for the UK? With the triggering of A50 as the ticking time bomb to pressure all the EU leaders into caving. And as the clock has run down, the dawning realisation that this is actually not going to work and the bomb that she started the timer on is going to explode in the UK and not in Europe as she'd expected.

I agree that - if you give them credit and assume them not to be completely stupid - this is indeed what their actual strategy was.

LuckyLloyd

Tell me how wrote: »

A strong determined leader would have set out to do this. Yes. But then, what is happening now may have happened before the invoking of article 50 and therefore have led to claims that May was sabotaging the will of the people and she would have been removed. There were already dissenting voices suggesting that she had campaigned to remain and so could not lead the effort to leave.

I suppose what I am wondering is, could any leader have made a better job of leading the UK government given the precariousness of the environment which existed then and continues to do so?

So it seems like we agree - she's acted out of a consistently selfish and short term consideration of how to remain PM. Country and Brexit be damned.

As noted here over the past couple of years, a leader understanding the arithmetic of 48% remain and the spectre of Jeremy Corbyn as PM would have struck a determined course to marginalize the right of her party and force them to trigger the bomb. Instead she's allowed them to drive the UK into the ditch without actually challenging her. As such, they get a lot of what they want (and remember, the real loonies just need the clock to tick down to get their Hard Brexit) without being burdened with direct ownership of the process. Seems like the definition of bad politics!

Enzokk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That's really unbelievable.
It's like he is aware of the obvious but (and this is the bit I can't understand), why look to distance his country from it?

I am more concerned that politicians doesn't have even a passing knowledge of their briefs that they are given. We have Karen Bradley who didn't know that much about her future role and now you have Raab campaigning to leave the EU without knowing how the relationship with the EU affects the UK.

I think the most worrying thing about Raab and this pronouncement is that he is actually the one person MPs turned to in Parliament when they needed anything or wanted to get clarification on the EU. He was an adviser in the Foreign Office on the EU and he is a qualified lawyer. If he is only now learning about the EU how do you expect most other people to have made a educated choice on whether to leave the EU?

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

when people say the UK is bribing NI that is incorrect

We didn't say they bribed NI - they bribed the DUP, which is different.

Seth Brundle

Michel Barnier attacks those who want to undermine the EU...

"We will have to fight against those who want to demolish Europe with their fear, their populist deceit," the EU chief Brexit negotiator told the European People’s Party (EPP) congress in Helsinki. "And their attacks against the European project. There is now a Farage in every country."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/there-is-now-a-farage-in-every-country-barnier-says-1.3690762

ambro25

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

IIt also seems to be lacking in essential civil service capability and is not up to the magnitude of the task.

I disagree.

What the British Civil Service has lacked, and still does, is political direction: its job is to implement policies.

This apparent “lack of capacity” is merely yet another manifestation of the political infighting that’s been ongoing for the past 2+ years, and still goes on to this day

I remember attending a Sheffield Chamber of Commerce Brexit event well over a year ago (I posted about it at the time, in one of the earlier Brexit threads, a few months before Brexoding back this February), at which a civil servant tasked with the WTO/customs quotas issue was briefing the audience, and he was well on top of that particular brief and already predicting interference by Commonwealth (NZ in particular) and others.

I recall that he was pulled a little bit by a local customs agency/freight guy, albeit that was about real nitty-gritty details at a lower-order/coalface side of things (that I’d expect to concern another civil servant/service). He took that onboard and well, wasn’t the least bit dismissive about it.

Anecdotal of course, and to be contrasted with the (again, apparent-) perma-clusterf**ck that reigns at the Home Office, from Nokes at the top all the way down to applications’ processors. That said, the zeal with which they continue to apply the Hostile Environment policy of 2010 tells you that they at least must be given some political directions alright.

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

A strong determined leader would have set out to do this. Yes. But then, what is happening now may have happened before the invoking of article 50 and therefore have led to claims that May was sabotaging the will of the people and she would have been removed. There were already dissenting voices suggesting that she had campaigned to remain and so could not lead the effort to leave.

I suppose what I am wondering is, could any leader have made a better job of leading the UK government given the precariousness of the environment which existed then and continues to do so?

It is impossible to judge May until a deal is or isn't done. She has kept all of the balls in the air until now, without there being a collapse of the talks, a rift in her party, losing a parliamentary majority or precipitating a general election. All being said, that is some achievement.

Some on this thread have said a strong leader should have done this or that. Strong leaders create divisions. If a strong leader had taken strong decisions, they wouldn't be leader now. May has managed to get the UK to the endgame, others would not have been able to do that.

For all that, her ultimate success or failure depends on whether she can deliver a deal that holds the UK together and ensures it can continue to exist and grow without suffering political convulsions. A near-impossible task, but one she actually is quite close to pulling off. She has looked weak, she has looked indecisive, she has flown kites, but all the time they have inched forward.

If she falls short, and a hard Brexit remains a real possibility, the argument that they should have had a political convulsion before now wins out. However, any deal that results in an orderly Brexit, with limited damage to the UK or the EU, is a vindication of May.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the above doesn't give enough credit to the reality which was she would have been removed immediately if she appeared to be an out and out obstructionist.

No-one is saying she had to obstruct Brexit. Imagine if, instead of setting out her ridiculous red lines, she had said:

"The UK has voted to leave the EU, and it is my job a Prime Minister to deliver on that mandate. Whatever form Brexit takes, the EU will be our nearest and largest trading partner, so it is in our interests to keep trade with the EU as frictionless as possible.

In Ireland, we are fully committed to the Good Friday Agreement, and any Brexit must not endanger the hard won peace in Northern Ireland by forcing a hard border on the island of Ireland.

I am also mindful of the fact that 48% of the electorate voted to remain. While Remain lost the vote, we should not ignore the fact that 48% voted to retain EU citizenship and the rights associated with it today.

With these factors in mind, I will be instructing our negotiators to work for the best possible relations with the EU after we leave, and to explore all options in negotiations including EEA membership, Single Market participation, a Customs Union as well as looser associations like a Free trade Agreement."

Zubeneschamali

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Michel Barnier attacks those who want to undermine the EU: There is now a Farage in every country.

I think the only Farage we have seen in Ireland is Nigel on a day trip from brexitland.

Leroy42

A strong leader does not create divisions, a strong leader deals with divisions that are already there and gets a consensus to move forward.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one is saying she had to obstruct Brexit. Imagine if, instead of setting out her ridiculous red lines, she had said:

"The UK has voted to leave the EU, and it is my job a Prime Minister to deliver on that mandate. Whatever form Brexit takes, the EU will be our nearest and largest trading partner, so it is in our interests to keep trade with the EU as frictionless as possible.

In Ireland, we are fully committed to the Good Friday Agreement, and any Brexit must not endanger the hard won peace in Northern Ireland by forcing a hard border on the island of Ireland.

I am also mindful of the fact that 48% of the electorate voted to remain. While Remain lost the vote, we should not ignore the fact that 48% voted to retain EU citizenship and the rights associated with it today.

With these factors in mind, I will be instructing our negotiators to work for the best possible relations with the EU after we leave, and to explore all options in negotiations including EEA membership, Single Market participation, a Customs Union as well as looser associations like a Free trade Agreement."

I think that if May had said all of that, the EU would be further away from a deal with Prime Minister Raab than the situation they are in now.

ancapailldorcha

blanch152 wrote: »

It is impossible to judge May until a deal is or isn't done. She has kept all of the balls in the air until now, without there being a collapse of the talks, a rift in her party, losing a parliamentary majority or precipitating a general election. All being said, that is some achievement.

Some on this thread have said a strong leader should have done this or that. Strong leaders create divisions. If a strong leader had taken strong decisions, they wouldn't be leader now. May has managed to get the UK to the endgame, others would not have been able to do that.

For all that, her ultimate success or failure depends on whether she can deliver a deal that holds the UK together and ensures it can continue to exist and grow without suffering political convulsions. A near-impossible task, but one she actually is quite close to pulling off. She has looked weak, she has looked indecisive, she has flown kites, but all the time they have inched forward.

If she falls short, and a hard Brexit remains a real possibility, the argument that they should have had a political convulsion before now wins out. However, any deal that results in an orderly Brexit, with limited damage to the UK or the EU, is a vindication of May.

Good post, Blanch152.

I don't mind May as much as many on here. Maybe Shipman's second installment in his trilogy influenced my thinking but of all of the individuals who could be steering HMS United Kingdom, she's a better choice than most.

Ideally, I would have liked a leader who would either have scrapped the referendum result or waited for Johnson, Gove & Co. to come up with a full set of policy proposals for delivering Brexit in such a manner that the UK will be better off. Spoiler, there isn't one but they should be held accountable.

Regarding the bit in bold, I am curious as to how viable the UK is as a geopolitical entity. Scotland's independence movement is by no means vanquished while I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen in Northern Ireland. I don't think right wing Unionism is a viable political ideology in the long term and will have alienated many moderates not just by backing Brexit but resisting any possible backstop solutions. I don't know much about the current lay of the land regarding TUV or the UUP but the DUP risk toxifying Unionism as things are.

In other news, Holyrood has approved a Liberal Democrat amendment committing it to supporting a People's Vote:

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1060223771204837376

farmchoice

blanch152 wrote: »

It is impossible to judge May until a deal is or isn't done. She has kept all of the balls in the air until now, without there being a collapse of the talks, a rift in her party, losing a parliamentary majority or precipitating a general election. All being said, that is some achievement.

Some on this thread have said a strong leader should have done this or that. Strong leaders create divisions. If a strong leader had taken strong decisions, they wouldn't be leader now. May has managed to get the UK to the endgame, others would not have been able to do that.

For all that, her ultimate success or failure depends on whether she can deliver a deal that holds the UK together and ensures it can continue to exist and grow without suffering political convulsions. A near-impossible task, but one she actually is quite close to pulling off. She has looked weak, she has looked indecisive, she has flown kites, but all the time they have inched forward.

If she falls short, and a hard Brexit remains a real possibility, the argument that they should have had a political convulsion before now wins out. However, any deal that results in an orderly Brexit, with limited damage to the UK or the EU, is a vindication of May.

i agree with all that and as you say it comes down to getting it through parliament with a wafer thin majority reliant on the DUP.
i believe that May and Robbins have know for a long time now exactly what the final deal will be (davis and johnson knew it too), it will be what ever the EU gives them.

she agreed the backstop last December, the DUP kicked up, she knew she needed them to keep them onside to get up to the point at which she could shaft them.
that day is quickly approaching. however she must realize that the dup are not a normal political party and are quite prepared to burn the whole house down for their principles, so i only hope she has a plan B for that.
my guess is plans A &B has always been to talk the talk right up until the last possible minute then give the house no option to accept what will be a pretty good deal for everyone except the DUP and the ERG, basically Brexit in name only.