Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is one fly in that ointment and his name is Jeremy. At best, he is a soft Leaver. He will do everything he can to ensure there isn't a second referendum and/or that a second referendum isn't in the Labour manifesto.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I was going to post that the EU are probably watching the shift in the UK over recent weeks and could think that a long extension with a likely GE that someone would advocate realistically for a 2nd ref but then you think who is the leader of Labour and that likelihood lessens somewhat.

I don't think the EU gain at all from a short extension so I still think they will offer a long one, let the UK hold EU elections and deal with the consequences after.

JRM suggestion of being obstructionist, might embolden Pro-EU candidates.

Zubeneschamali

Laois_Man wrote: »

Giving them long extensions potentially weakens the EU position in the long term as it gives them the opportunity to get better organized (stop laughing)!

But the only other option is no deal now, which is bad for the EU right now, this week. The EU will prefer the possibility of No Deal in a year (or two, or five...) to a definite No Deal this week, especially since a punt to next year also carries the chance that No Brexit or Soft Brexit get the upper hand in Westminster before the extension ends.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the only other option is no deal now, which is bad for the EU right now, this week. The EU will prefer the possibility of No Deal in a year (or two, or five...) to a definite No Deal this week, especially since a punt to next year also carries the chance that No Brexit or Soft Brexit get the upper hand in Westminster before the extension ends.

If they allow No Deal, the government will be immediately brought down by a No Confidence vote. I don't think May or the Tories are going to let that happen. But they are contrary to say the least, so you never know.

Laois_Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the only other option is no deal now, which is bad for the EU right now, this week. The EU will prefer the possibility of No Deal in a year (or two, or five...) to a definite No Deal this week, especially since a punt to next year also carries the chance that No Brexit or Soft Brexit get the upper hand in Westminster before the extension ends.

On the Claire Byrne show last night, Mairead McGuinness said the UK would be coming back looking for a deal "the next day" after a no-deal Brexit. While the next day might be a bit overly optimistic, there isn't much doubt it will happen very quickly such is their state of readiness - or lack of readiness. Then we know the UK would have to concede on the backstop, citizens rights and the divorce bill in order to get back around the table - they may even have to make further concessions. That is the best chance of a no Brexit, or a softer Brexit IMO - either the revoking of article 50, or a better deal from the EU's point of view.

Also I wouldn't confuse what is better in the long run for EU citizens like us, with what is better for the politicians. The politicians are happy as long as disaster doesn't happen during their term in office - which for the likes of Junker and Tusk ends in 7 months from now. They don't care if it's a catastrophe at a time when it's someone else's problem. We, the public should be taking the view of the best long term outcome of preventing the disaster from EVER happening, not just delaying it!

LeinsterDub

Laois_Man wrote: »

Also I wouldn't confuse what is better in the long run for EU citizens like us, with what is better for the politicians. The politicians are happy as long as disaster doesn't happen during their term in office - which for the likes of Junker and Tusk ends in 7 months from now. They don't care if it's a catastrophe at a time when it's someone else's problem. We, the public should be taking the view of the best long term outcome of preventing the disaster from EVER happening, not just delaying it!

Their is literally no evidence for this. Junker and Tusk both believe in the union more than most and won't want to inflict harm on it or its members

Laois_Man

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Their is literally no evidence for this. Junker and Tusk both believe in the union more than most and won't want to inflict harm on it or its members

And solving that problem at the end of a long extension in 2020 won't be their headache!

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is one fly in that ointment and his name is Jeremy. At best, he is a soft Leaver. He will do everything he can to ensure there isn't a second referendum and/or that a second referendum isn't in the Labour manifesto.

He may not be such a big fly.

Remember that Labour were always advocating A (note, not "the") customs union. This alone shows that they're more pragmatic than the Tories. He might not want a second referendum but at the moment it's far from certain that he would be able to defeat May who is the weakest PM I think I have ever seen.

LeinsterDub

Laois_Man wrote: »

And solving that problem at the end of a long extension in 2020 won't be their headache!

It's not their fault the UK is acting like a cat sitting at the backdoor not sure if they want to be in or out.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they are still in a heap in a years time, the EU should offer to renew the flextension to 2100 or so.

Crazy that they railed against a backstop, because apparently it could keep them 'in' indefinitely, and they are now in a situation were they are relieved to take the option to stay in.

Laois_Man

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not their fault the UK is acting like a cat sitting at the backdoor not sure if they want to be in or out.

Nobody said it was

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He may not be such a big fly.

Remember that Labour were always advocating A (note, not "the") customs union. This alone shows that they're more pragmatic than the Tories. He might not want a second referendum but at the moment it's far from certain that he would be able to defeat May who is the weakest PM I think I have ever seen.

Well, Labour's current official policy is a CU with unicorns. No doubt this is because they are also a divided party and it's an easy out when you're not in power. I think Labour's greatest flaw is Corbyn's lack of charisma and his ideology. He alienates the middle ground Labour MPs and voters. A Starmer would have destroyed May by now.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not their fault the UK is acting like a cat sitting at the backdoor not sure if they want to be in or out.

Great analogy.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, Labour's current official policy is a CU with unicorns. No doubt this is because they are also a divided party and it's an easy out when you're not in power. I think Labour's greatest flaw is Corbyn's lack of charisma and his ideology. He alienates the middle ground Labour MPs and voters. A Starmer would have destroyed May by now.

Yeah but negotiations would dispel that notion fairly sharpish. At least they're not in the habit of comparing EU leaders with history's worst despots while attempting to negotiate a good deal with them.

I think Corbyn could win over the middle ground if he came out for a People's Vote to be honest. Brexit is a disaster and older Brexit voters aren't exactly where future votes will come from.

An Ciarraioch

Guardian suggesting that the final extension would be until the end of the year:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/09/conditions-for-short-brexit-delay-have-not-been-met-says-berlin

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yeah but negotiations would dispel that notion fairly sharpish. At least they're not in the habit of comparing EU leaders with history's worst despots while attempting to negotiate a good deal with them.

I think Corbyn could win over the middle ground if he came out for a People's Vote to be honest. Brexit is a disaster and older Brexit voters aren't exactly where future votes will come from.

If he comes out for a People's Vote, then yes he may well attract middle ground MPs/voters. But, to date, he has done everything in his power to avoid supporting it. And even if he reluctantly backs a People's Vote, Labour would get far more middle ground votes with a better leader. Essentially, IMO, Corbyn is as poor a leader as May. Both parties have been badly served by their leaders throughout this Brexit debacle.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If he comes out for a People's Vote, then yes he may well attract middle ground MPs/voters. But, to date, he has done everything in his power to avoid supporting it. And even if he reluctantly backs a People's Vote, Labour would get far more middle ground votes with a better leader. Essentially, IMO, Corbyn is as poor a leader as May. Both parties have been badly served by their leaders throughout this Brexit debacle.

He is but at least his message about economic inequality, one of the factors behind Brexit is somewhat on point. He did reasonably well in the debates as well.

But yeah, if he continues to resist regarding the People's Vote then he will just alienate potential supporters who'll vote TIG or Lib Dem. I would vote Labour if they adopt the People's Vote stance.

MrMusician18

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

They're establishment cowed in the UK and it's endemic. Even the Guardian goes gently, gently.. and it's always been like that. In the 90s I remember getting a bee in my bonnet about something and the shrugging-off people did, and continue to do, in response was/is quite staggering.

The French say something similar about the english: get treated like crap and then roll over and to have their tummies tickled.

We Irish say it as it is - honest, open critiques and we queried/question things on all levels. In the UK I am considered a complete pain in the ar$e.. until they want something done and then it's a different story.

I hate this kind of stereotypical nonsense. It's obvious why the British media behaves the way it does in contrast to external or foreign media. The BBC for example is in the bubble, and part of the debate. It depends on access to these politicians for comment and as sources. It cannot afford to alienate those it needs, both in terms of audience and politicians. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship that is totally toxic to tough questioning and leads to softball interviews.

RTE on the other hand has no skin in the game, and can afford to be more hard hitting with British commentators and politicians because it doesn't need them and knows it
will play well with it's largely EU supporting audience.

But RTE can be soft too on Brexit issues that are in the control of IRL/EU, such as the border control if the UK exits without a deal. Questions on what the government would do in that situation have not been followed up and have let interviewees away with evasive non-answers.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He is but at least his message about economic inequality, one of the factors behind Brexit is somewhat on point. He did reasonably well in the debates as well.

But yeah, if he continues to resist regarding the People's Vote then he will just alienate potential supporters who'll vote TIG or Lib Dem. I would vote Labour if they adopt the People's Vote stance.

He did well - but by comparison with May who is awful. Personally, I would also incline towards his policies on inequality, but the other far left baggage that he brings simply won't work in a modern global economy.

If he wakes up and does the right thing regarding the People's Vote then Labour will do well despite his lack of charisma. If not, I can see an anti-Hard Brexit grand coalition of Labour, TIGs, Lib Dems and SNP working together in government until Brexit is sorted.

LeinsterDub

Laois_Man wrote: »

Nobody said it was

You implied they where kicking the can down the road so they can wash their hands of it. They have spent the last two years attempting to get the UK into a position where they could leave on the 29th. A WA was signed and agreed by 27 members states. The only one kicking the can is the UK.

Laois_Man

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You implied they where kicking the can down the road so they can wash their hands of it. They have spent the last two years attempting to get the UK into a position where they could leave on the 29th. A WA was signed and agreed by 27 members states. The only one kicking the can is the UK.

No I didn't say anything about what they HAVE done - what they HAVE done is negotiate the WA which they hoped the UK would have passed thru HoC by now and in which case it would be out of the EU with a deal since March 29th - or by next Friday!

As that did not happen on March 29th and will not happen by April 12th, and in the assumption it won't happen by May 22nd either, there cannot now be an orderly exit deal during their term in office. Therefore Revoke or a no-deal Brexit are the only 2 things that can occur realistically during their term of office. Obviously they wold be delighted to take Revoke. But failing that, there is an argument that letting them crash out this Friday with no deal, forcing them to have to come crawling back (as per Mairead McGuinness's view as to what would happen if they do crash out this week) is the strategy that MIGHT be in the best long term interests of the EU27, and of Ireland in particular. It would be a risky tactic - but so is extending article 50 to 2020. The former, if the risk didn't pay off would be a disaster on their watch. The latter isn't their problem. So at this point, they would choose the latter and let it be their successors headache - that's if they got to choose. It's all a bit of a pointless discussion if France or Italy or someone decides to veto an extension anyway.

I'm now pretty certain, extension til NYE this year.

In the meantime there'll be a general election and a binding referendum on May's deal vs remain.

Remain will win if it's a binding referendum, as the brexiteers won't be able to lie like they did the last time.

MrFresh

Chairman of OFSTED having difficulty getting settled status. Seems he has to prove his employment history. You'd think they'd have access to tax records.

Mr.Wemmick

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I hate this kind of stereotypical nonsense. It's obvious why the British media behaves the way it does in contrast to external or foreign media. The BBC for example is in the bubble, and part of the debate. It depends on access to these politicians for comment and as sources. It cannot afford to alienate those it needs, both in terms of audience and politicians. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship that is totally toxic to tough questioning and leads to softball interviews.

RTE on the other hand has no skin in the game, and can afford to be more hard hitting with British commentators and politicians because it doesn't need them and knows it
will play well with it's largely EU supporting audience.

But RTE can be soft too on Brexit issues that are in the control of IRL/EU, such as the border control if the UK exits without a deal. Questions on what the government would do in that situation have not been followed up and have let interviewees away with evasive non-answers.

Nonsense. When the blatant lies were flying about from Brexiteers in 2016, they weren't held to account by anyone across the main UK media. Only now are some waking up to the conveyor belt of subterfuge, side-stepping and deceit re: the EU. We could see the likes of Johnson as the new PM and yet he is neck high in lies since this debacle began. And the main reason he's silent now, to distance himself from all the crap he said in the past.

To say that RTE/Ireland has no skin in the game when the fall out is detrimental to the Irish economy and the border/ GFA, is complete nonsense. Even back in 2016 you could read a more analytical critique of the referendum process and fallout in the Irish times than you could've read in the british press. And don't even get me started how the Irish handle referendums compared to the UK.. ignorance is endemic when it is useful to the establishment, and in the UK that ignorance is a politician's bread and butter. Clarity & accountability is something the UK doesn't do very well, but Ireland, without question, has a better handle on being upfront.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is one fly in that ointment and his name is Jeremy. At best, he is a soft Leaver. He will do everything he can to ensure there isn't a second referendum and/or that a second referendum isn't in the Labour manifesto.

I had Jaws 2 Ted! It's a different film! It's a very different film! It's a different shark!
- Fr Dougal


There will be no second referendum.

Though there may be a confirmatory referendum.


There will be no Customs Union.

Though there may be a unprecedented UK-EU close economic partnership*.



* No Irish Sea checks and no hard border and Boris-proof**,

** So not a backstop, even if it has all the other attributes.


The UK is busy thumbing through an old Collins Pocket English Thesaurus With all the main entry words shown in colour and failing to keep up with people using their second or third languages. There's been two clarifications of the WA so far.

Can you imagine if the Chinese said "Do you know what, we'd love to negotiate in English but our teams are busy with the US and SA and Oz and NZ and India, so unless you can wait a few years, we're going to do this in Mandarin"

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I hate this kind of stereotypical nonsense. It's obvious why the British media behaves the way it does in contrast to external or foreign media. The BBC for example is in the bubble, and part of the debate. It depends on access to these politicians for comment and as sources. It cannot afford to alienate those it needs, both in terms of audience and politicians. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship that is totally toxic to tough questioning and leads to softball interviews.

The BBC used not be like that though. Programmes like Newsnight and QT were a lot more hard-hitting and in-depth than they are now. Politicians would not have been allowed spout slogans unchallenged or enabled by soft questions. Stacking the audience with particular viewpoints would not have been tolerated either.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

The BBC used not be like that though. Programmes like Newsnight and QT were a lot more hard-hitting and in-depth than they are now. Politicians would not have been allowed spout slogans unchallenged or enabled by soft questions. Stacking the audience with particular viewpoints would not have been tolerated either.

TBF, Emily Maitlis ripped into Jacob last week. It's here 4.50-10.30 if anyone would like to see Jacob squirm. She literally sneered at him at one stage.

Mr.Wemmick

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

TBF, Emily Maitlis ripped into Jacob last week. It's here 4.50-10.30 if anyone would like to see Jacob squirm. She literally sneered at him at one stage.

But not in 2016 when it mattered and when they could've woken people up to the dangers of brexit. They all sleep walked into it.

Varta

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

TBF, Emily Maitlis ripped into Jacob last week. It's here 4.50-10.30 if anyone would like to see Jacob squirm. She literally sneered at him at one stage.

Yes, but, TBF she is very biased. She would not have ripped into a remainer like that. I mean "literally sneered at him", come on, that's not acceptable no matter how odious Mogg may be. She was also incredibly biased in favour of Clinton during the US Presidential elections... and I'm no fan of Trump. That is the other side to the BBCs slide, they allow journalists/presenters free flow with their bias.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

But not in 2016 when it mattered and when they could've woken people up to the dangers of brexit. They all sleep walked into it.

Agreed. I think very few people had thought the matter through. The greatest mistake was the Remain campaign's complacency.

Professor Moriarty

Varta wrote: »

Yes, but, TBF she is very biased. She would not have ripped into a remainer like that. I mean "literally sneered at him", come on, that's not acceptable no matter how odious Mogg may be. She was also incredibly biased in favour of Clinton during the US Presidential elections... and I'm no fan of Trump. That is the other side to the BBCs slide, they allow journalists/presenters free flow with their bias.

Well, I've seen the likes of Soubry, Starmer and Boles get a hard time. I saw Andrew Neil conduct a very nasty interview with Boles a couple of months ago. It is indeed unacceptable. But when it comes to a dangerous, lying hypocrite like Jacob, I'm inclined to give her a free pass.