Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

Czech position on A50 extension is basically yes but with specific conditions attached.

The Anglo - French response to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was to invade Egypt. This took world attention away from Hungry. Something still remembered.

Meanwhile in the UK they view the EU as a common market and still don't get how people get worked up over the peace aspect


Hungry bordered neutral Austria and Tito's Yugoslavia and wanted to be neutral too.

WhiteMan32

As there is seemingly little or no happening on the Brexit front today, I have spent some of this afternoon looking back at videos on various previous discussions, debates & interviews on the topic. This segment from BBC's Question Time from early November last is a good indicator as to where Westminster has currently arrived at: -

Question posed by a member of the audience

WhiteMan32

"Lexit is dead. Democracy is alive. Labour is waking up. Now the British people know the real facts about the costs of leaving, that many of the promises made for Brexit will be broken and that any deal will not give clarity – just a crisis that goes on and on – our voters deserve a new say" - Owen Smith (runner-up in the last Labour leadership election in 2016).

You can read the full article here

Infini

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0406/1041073-varadkar-brexit-veto/

Basically it look's like the EU is going to give an extension though it will likely be with conditions of course and that a Veto is unlikely however as it would not go down well if Ireland, France and the Netherlands were to take the biggest hit of course. This ironically also points out the key difference between the UK's system of government and the EU. The UK is utterly deadlocked because noone there is compromising, May and the conservatives trying to force their own agenda, meanwhile the EU actually is able to move forward purely because they actively seek consensus as much as possible to avoid alienation and the use of the veto is unwise to use unless it's an absolute necessity because of the animosity it would generate unless it's use is for a purely existential reason.

I think the general thinking might be that delaying the whole Brexit thing might be uncomfortable for the EU of course BUT it's ironically potentially toxic for the Brexiteer's. The nation is divided but the message is slowly getting through that the Brexiteer's are liars and cheaters. The real reason Moggles and friends are trying to stir the pot now is they're getting scared and they may actually lose simply because the EU waited them out. That's the real reason because the more time passes the more their hypocracy and lies can be exposed. If the EU can wait it out they can at the least draw things out long enough to either get an orderly deal or even a 2nd referendum on either the deal or remaining.

The longer this goes on the less likely Brexit will happen simply because the longer this goes on the more questions get asked and the Brexiteer's are shown up as empty wasters and oppertunists. It won't end if Brexit is cancelled of course a 10% shift wont undo 40 year's of corrupt lying bullshít but if the whole thing is stopped dead those who want the benefits of EU membership will need to act to prevent a repeat of this whole fiasco, enquiries will need to be made, people like Boris and Mogg's and such need to be held accountable for damaging their nation for pure self interest, publications need to be held at least to decent standards, publishing lines like "Enemies of the people" about judges simply doing their jobs is the kind of toxic rubbish that deserves a big áss fine on them for that carryon. People there need to be made aware of the benefit's of EU membership and realise why it came about to begin with and maybe the rot that's been allowed to fester for decades might finally be tackled.

Calina

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I robbed this from thepropertypin.com but it is relevant here as well, mainly it is a speech by a German MEP from the AfD party.


Basically she is saying that if the EU had been more accommodating to the UK before the Brexit referendum, the remain vote would have won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IcW4eo4uM

She is also lamenting the fact that without the UK, the EU becomes very French dominated, something that Germans will find uncomfortable.

The AfD party merit zero respect. They are hard right leaning and populist.

The EU consists of several large countries of which Germany is the largest. Italy is also similar scale to France and Spain and Poland are large chunks too.

She is talking nonsense. The three French speaking countries together are still less than Germany's population. The EU does not become French dominated in the UK's absence.

The AfD will pick up votes but that does not give their views any credibility.

Capt'n Midnight

A British couple who applied for their passports on the same day received different versions - one with European Union on the cover, the other without.

Pot luck on what you get until the "old stock" runs out, even though the UK is still in the EU. That'll be fun when other countries start enforcing non-EU queues.

Kermit.de.frog

Blue passports was another lie that the EU was forcing countries to use burgundy.

Nothing to stop member countries using blue passports if they like.

ancapailldorcha

Has anyone else noticed a disturbing trend by prominent Brexiters to gaslight now? For example, Private Eye has reported the following:



Not only are these claims now being denied, there is a subtle campaign to convince people that nobody ever promised that Brexit would be good for the country. Nigel Farage has done this. In 2015, he explicitly said that we would thrive post Brexit in this Express piece.

Now we have this:

https://twitter.com/peoplesvote_hq/status/1002472366629322752

I think that this is genuinely distubing. Most people don't frequent moderated boards or read deeply into Politics. If these people are allowed to essentially rewrite history, this could set a very troubling precedent.

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Blue passports was another lie that the EU was forcing countries to use burgundy.

Nothing to stop member countries using blue passports if they like.

Indeed - I believe the reason Croatia opted out is because burgundy is a similar colour to the former Yugoslav passport:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_passport

An Ciarraioch

All aboard the "customs relationship" that definitely isn't a customs union!

http://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1114622842258231298

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

In transition year, I had classes in EU institutions and how it all works. Was that just my school, or was it a national thing?

The UK would have greatly benefited from something like that.

transition year is optional

but yes I did a course on the EU during transition year, and this was at the height of the 2nd nice treaty so it was a very hostile class and I am kinda ashamed to admit I did at school debates the same logic I've seen used by some hard brexiteers about 2nd referendums on Nice (that 2nd referendums are at their very core undemocratic). More depressingly I remember doing this at some school debating event in UCD and a university student coming up and saying I gave the strongest argument at that debate...I was proud at the time as a 16 year old...now I'm embarassed by that memory and that grown men who work in government still think the way I did at 16 trying to win a debating contest.

In terms of EU classes I did 2 while I was at school, 1 was during transition year as part of our geography course in dublin where we got taken to the EU office in the city centre as part of it, the one near graften street (if it's still there, this was almost 20 years ago now)

the other was actually when I was in primary school, do any of the other kids from the country remember the EU van? It was a van that had a little cinema in the back that went around the smaller irish towns and had a short 20 minute documentary on the history of the EU running in the background.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did a subject called CSPE at school. Civil, Social & Political Education. Didn't appreciate it in hindsight but it should have been a core subject. People should know how the government is structured, how the President/Monarch works and their powers, a bit about the courts, etc...

I think my year was the first year they made that mandatory at my school, but it was only for 1 year I think with no state exam attached.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

All aboard the "customs relationship" that definitely isn't a customs union!

http://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1114622842258231298

Very interesting if true. That would mean the statements from Labour would have been false about May not offering any concessions on Friday. Now it seems she will have conceded on everything. I think I will wait and see if this is true and if it is true she will destroy the Tory party as the ERG will split with her.

I still don't see it working either way, this is the same as when the negotiations started and she made it a Conservative Party only affair. She didn't have the numbers for any type of deal when she isolated the other parties as there was enough opposition on either side of the Tories to kill whatever deal she made. If she gets Labour on board and makes promises and ties the next leader into a deal they will not like then how does that solve anything other than they are out of the EU?

As for the state of play, seems that all the talk is about extension. Can I just say as little sense as it is I just want this to end. I want the UK to leave without a deal as dealing with this same tripe for the next couple of months or years is just not worth it. Let them leave, let us take the hit as well and lets see where we are in a years time. If all is great for the UK then we can consider leaving the EU as well. If as predicted it will not be great then they will either be back in the EU already or they will have signed a pre-prepared deal, SM and CU, that will be BRINO and we can all claw back the time we have spent on their inner crises.

Here we have a story how Merkel is giving a lifeline to the UK by not, as May has done, putting down red lines on the extension. However the main problem seems to be that France is as tired of this charade as I am and they just want it over with.

Merkel throws May a lifeline over UK’s Brexit departure date

Angela Merkel is open to backing Theresa May’s request for a short Brexit extension as the German chancellor seeks to maintain the pressure on British MPs to support the withdrawal agreement, according to senior EU sources.

In the face of moves from elsewhere in the EU to insist on a longer delay to Britain’s departure, Merkel is keeping all options on the table ahead of this week’s EU summit and is said to be willing to back 30 June as an exit date. She is thought to be concerned that Donald Tusk’s proposal of a year-long extension, with an option to exit earlier on ratification of the withdrawal agreement, could be self-defeating.

Now the article goes on to assert that this is good for May. This is exactly why we have had to be cagey with the UK about anything Brexit related. They seize on any utterance and try to use it to their advantage. Merkel being pragmatic and not ruling out the options is seen as a win instead of what it is, just sensible thinking.

As I said, I am really tired of this and to imagine if it doesn't end in 6 days time we could have Brexit negotiations for another 12 months. I know that if they leave it will not end the debate, but at least we would know where we stand and move on to the next phase. At the moment it is like we are stuck in purgatory and the same day is played over and over.

Headshot

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

All aboard the "customs relationship" that definitely isn't a customs union!

http://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1114622842258231298

It's nuts ain't it.

I just can't get my head around why are they still persisting with something that is going to damage their economy and stature in Europe. This custom thing is nuts and why they are persisting on it is bewildering to me.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed a disturbing trend by prominent Brexiters to gaslight now? For example, Private Eye has reported the following

I think that this is genuinely distubing. Most people don't frequent moderated boards or read deeply into Politics. If these people are allowed to essentially rewrite history, this could set a very troubling precedent.

They wouldn't be able to get away with it so much if journalists were able to hold them to account. I've watched a fair few interviews with Jacob Rees Mogg, but I've never seen anyone really nail him down on something. Even with Farage, who is nowhere near as smooth as Mogg is, he's allowed off all the time. For example, when Claire Byrne pointed out to him that the second Lisbon referendum was put to the people after negotiations of opt-outs for Ireland in the text, Farage was unable to say anything except, "Whatever, it's all completely meaningless". Whatever you may think of the democracy of that 2nd ref, the changes it held are a point never brought up to Farage when he brings it up (and, boy, does he), and he had no answer when it was. The problem was that Claire Byrne had no followup on that.

But Farage and, moreso, his followers have a handy cop-out whenever they're criticised and it's "You're biased. You're a Remainer. You have an agenda. The BBC has been infiltrated. Channel 4 has been infiltrated. Traitor. Treason." I don't see how it's possible to argue with a true-blue Brexiteer when they will automatically take your arguments to be in bad faith. That's a debate that simply cannot be held.

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

All aboard the "customs relationship" that definitely isn't a customs union!

http://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1114622842258231298

Parliament can't be bound by itself or previous parliaments what sort of legal lock in is possible?

votecounts

Leo has to very careful what he says in public, as everything is clearly monitored by the dup and brexiteers who will use it to portray anti irish sentinment but in private even he must be pissed at these extensions being asked for with no end in sight. Will Irelands representation of MEPs be reduced as this was calculated on the basis of Britain leaving the EU?

Rain Ascending

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

All aboard the "customs relationship" that definitely isn't a customs union!

http://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1114622842258231298

I'm reminded of this classic tweet from Nicholas Watt:

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1113434288396148736

I really must go back and sit through a few episodes of Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. I suspect that the plot lines will be more believable than they were 30 years ago given all that has happened in the HoC over the last few months.:eek:

briany

Having a customs union you can't call a customs union is no more farcical than the idea of holding a second referendum that you can't call a second referendum. The sides in Brexit are so opposed that any decisive movement must be snuck in under the cover of darkness.

woohoo!!!

You don't treat all this as a game, leave the Brits do that. This is businesz, pure and simple. The EU collectively isn't motivated by sentiment, just business. And business says, give them an extension provided they come up with an adequate reason and hold them to it. If the daily mail wants to say EU blinks again, who cares

Lucy8080

fash wrote: »

I have great difficulty understanding how anyone can believe she is a "remainer" - given for example her plan B is clearly to go no deal to save the conservatives. She does not care about remain or leave, she only follows the position that is best for her career and in second place (how distant I am not sure), the conservative party. Prior to the brexit referendum, that meant being a half hearted just about remainer. But with the brexit win, that changed.
The only policy objective she clearly had and pursued is a racist xenophobia towards foreigners - that admittedly did come from her heart - everything else is going wherever the wind blows.

We'll have to agree disagree on this one.

For all her pronouncements about "no deal is better than a bad deal" just about everyone agrees it's a terrible deal. Remainers know that staying is better than this deal. Sensible Leavers know that too. Only Hard-line Leavers would be happy with no deal.

May inviting Corbyn in is a terrible look for the Cons. I doubt she gives a tuppenny toss about that. It will be to the detriment of the E.R.G. wing of the party.

Mogg and Bojo have switched to backing her deal after roundly condemning it and kissing up to the D.U.P. The D.U.P. have switched to Remain if any deal is seen as weakening the Union.

And May hasn't had to move an inch from her position whilst all the above are scurrying for new stories to tell their supporters.

As for only caring about her own political career , politicians eh!

Legally and Democratically ,the stance she has taken is the solid ground that respects the result of the vote(and the advisory booklet that told of the next steps).

It is others in the conservative party that need to worry about being seen as having played party politics when the national interest was at stake( in the event of a future inquiry).

Looking at the headlines in the papers which have been recurrently linked in this thread, and the now exposed lies of leading Brexiteers, it would be nice to think the British have incitement to hatred legislation, and that there is currently a team of lawyers building a case against not merely Brexit politicians, but the editors and owners of the majority of the British national press.

Rain Ascending

Enzokk wrote: »

As for the state of play, seems that all the talk is about extension. Can I just say as little sense as it is I just want this to end. I want the UK to leave without a deal as dealing with this same tripe for the next couple of months or years is just not worth it.

<<snip>>

As I said, I am really tired of this and to imagine if it doesn't end in 6 days time we could have Brexit negotiations for another 12 months. I know that if they leave it will not end the debate, but at least we would know where we stand and move on to the next phase. At the moment it is like we are stuck in purgatory and the same day is played over and over.

I understand your frustration, but no-deal is not the answer. It's not a shut-down of the arguments -- it immediately amplifies the situation even further. Consider the oft-repeated view within the UK that a no-deal exit is simple, quick and clean. That will clash with reality very quickly and the rhetoric will be ramped up to try protect the underlying cognitive dissonance.

By definition, no deal resolves nothing. The A50 issues of the divorce payments, non-national residents, and the Irish border are all unresolved, and indeed get worse. And then on top of that we add the immediate impact tariffs and regulatory checks messing up thousands of supply chains.

I'll happily put up with chaos in the House of Commons, inflammatory rhetoric from the dimmer sections of UK political parties, multiple late European Council meetings, and misleading newspaper headlines if we can get the UK in a more stable position while protecting the spirit of the GFA and Ireland's position within the EU. Remember that after securing our own critical interests (peace and the economy), we need both the EU and the UK to be secure, stable and successful.

Don't give up to the potential nihilism of no-deal. We can't afford to.

Good post, Rain Ascending. I wish I could write like that.

Enzokk

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I understand your frustration, but no-deal is not the answer. It's not a shut-down of the arguments -- it immediately amplifies the situation even further. Consider the oft-repeated view within the UK that a no-deal exit is simple, quick and clean. That will clash with reality very quickly and the rhetoric will be ramped up to try protect the underlying cognitive dissonance.

By definition, no deal resolves nothing. The A50 issues of the divorce payments, non-national residents, and the Irish border are all unresolved, and indeed get worse. And then on top of that we add the immediate impact tariffs and regulatory checks messing up thousands of supply chains.

I'll happily put up with chaos in the House of Commons, inflammatory rhetoric from the dimmer sections of UK political parties, multiple late European Council meetings, and misleading newspaper headlines if we can get the UK in a more stable position while protecting the spirit of the GFA and Ireland's position within the EU. Remember that after securing our own critical interests (peace and the economy), we need both the EU and the UK to be secure, stable and successful.

Don't give up to the potential nihilism of no-deal. We can't afford to.

You are right, it is out of frustration that no-deal looks like an answer. I am frustrated that we are not talking about the issues that are impacting our lives right now but instead we are talking about Brexit and delaying it even further.

It is worse for the UK in that they are neglecting the very things that caused people to turn to Brexit, so even if there is a second vote we could be back where we are now. I don't see how you get rid of the symptoms and solve them if the policies are still there that caused it in the beginning.

So even if they revoke article 50 then this will happen again if things do not change domestically, and I don't see it changing domestically without a dramatic shock to the political system. A no-deal Brexit may just be that. I admit it is an extreme view, but we live in extreme times.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Parliament can't be bound by itself or previous parliaments what sort of legal lock in is possible?

It can be bound by a change to the legal Withdrawal Agreement which the EU has said can only be altered to make it a softer Brexit, and that they would be open to accommodate a CU or SM addition.

What they are not open to is a change that unpicks the current WA.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

So even if they revoke article 50 then this will happen again if things do not change domestically, and I don't see it changing domestically without a dramatic shock to the political system. A no-deal Brexit may just be that. I admit it is an extreme view, but we live in extreme times.

Well, what happened after the Suez Crisis in 1956? Did they return to Egypt with all their warships and demand the canal back? Or did they never speak about it again?

ancapailldorcha

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I understand your frustration, but no-deal is not the answer. It's not a shut-down of the arguments -- it immediately amplifies the situation even further. Consider the oft-repeated view within the UK that a no-deal exit is simple, quick and clean. That will clash with reality very quickly and the rhetoric will be ramped up to try protect the underlying cognitive dissonance.

By definition, no deal resolves nothing. The A50 issues of the divorce payments, non-national residents, and the Irish border are all unresolved, and indeed get worse. And then on top of that we add the immediate impact tariffs and regulatory checks messing up thousands of supply chains.

I'll happily put up with chaos in the House of Commons, inflammatory rhetoric from the dimmer sections of UK political parties, multiple late European Council meetings, and misleading newspaper headlines if we can get the UK in a more stable position while protecting the spirit of the GFA and Ireland's position within the EU. Remember that after securing our own critical interests (peace and the economy), we need both the EU and the UK to be secure, stable and successful.

Don't give up to the potential nihilism of no-deal. We can't afford to.

Excellent post.

I'd like to add that the problem of no deal in 2019 is the same as leave in 2016 - neither are defined. They can be portrayed in different, mutually exclusive ways depending on the audience being targeted. No deal is a little less hazy than leave but the difference isn't nearly big enough for too many people to have the scales fall from their eyes. A functioning media might have made the severity of the situation more apparent. Alas.

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, what happened after the Suez Crisis in 1956? Did they return to Egypt with all their warships and demand the canal back? Or did they never speak about it again?

True, although every crises happens in isolation so the causes and the responses will be different. Do we expect if a National Socialist party takes over in Germany now and makes the same rumbles as in the 1930s that the UK will respond in the exact same way? So the reaction to the Suez crises and the aftermath could be a guide, but it could also shape the reply in the present. Will the people accept another humiliation like that again if they are reminded of it in the gutter press?

I am not for one moment hoping for a no-deal outcome. I hope for revocation and if that doesn't happen a deal that mitigates as much of the damage as possible. But I cannot see how this will happen with the current politics in the UK and if you look at the response from about 40-45% of the population, via polls, they still seem to want to leave the EU as they believe it is the cause of all their ills.

WhiteMan32

"Every different Brexit path represents a very different future for our country...........just to be able to tick the box marked 'Brexit' - whatever it means - just so we can say we delivered, I think that would be letting the country down" - Conservative MP Sam Gyimah, speaking on Spohie Ridge on Sunday (Sky News).

looksee

I find myself perversely wishing they would crash out and suffer the consequences (and I say this as a long time absent brit) just to finish the nonsense. I am however absolutely convinced that we would be better off if Britain stayed in the EU. On the other hand they have made such an exhibition of themselves and stirred up so much ill feeling that their reluctant presence in Europe would, for many years, be an irritant and a disturbing influence. It seems we can't win.

There is no doubt that Britain needed a shake up of some sort, it seems that countries who have been powerful eventually become moribund, and if they are not lucky enough to get a change of leadership that takes them forward - probably kicking and screaming - to a new identity, then they in some way inflict damage on themselves. This was a spectacular example of self-harm by Britain, and probably it was inevitable. Certainly we are living in 'interesting times'.