Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

ambro25

Lemming wrote: »

How receptive were UK-based colleagues and professional acquaintances to mention of that perceived "loophole" being likely not to fly prior to your moving on ambro? Was it a case of following Emperor Farage and his new clothes or did most see past it?

"la-la-la-la-I'm-not-hearing-you-la-la-la". Then. And still, now (-that the clock has been reset until October). I mean, it's a path still being pursued by the UK arms of my new firm right now.

It was the exact same situation with UK trademark attorneys, head so far in the sand they could count koalas and kangaroos. Until the EUIPO told them, in plain-as-you-can-make-it black and white, that they *will* be chucked off the EU register overnight on Brexit day, last March (which still stands, until and unless Brexit gets cancelled).

Not so much a case of Farageitis, as a case of your typical "I know better, I'm a Senior Partner". Peeps who've worked legal in private practice in t'UK will relate to that one, I'm sure.

Call it 'fudgy' Common Law running smack into 'the written rule is' Civil Law and breaking teeth. Nothing we haven't already seen and debated in so many other avenues of Brexit sub-topics.

20silkcut

Charles Babbage wrote: »

EU immigrants have gone to every parish in Ireland. While many immigrants cluster in cities there are Poles and Latvians all over the country. That is precisely why they are not a problem, as they mingle with the Irish people, drink with them, marry them, play on GAA teams.

Never said they were a problem that was definitely not a point I was putting across in my post.

I think its the non Eu migration that is more of an issue in England anyway.

20silkcut

Water John wrote: »

The reality is those immigrants are in every parish from EU countries. But Silkcut can't see them because they are not visually different.

I hope your not implying a racist element to my post.
I was just pointing out that England has a different immigration experience to ourselves.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

And their country is full of foreigners.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'd love to know the percentage of those foreigners that are from former colonies or commonwealth countries

20silkcut wrote: »

I hope your not implying a racist element to my post.
I was just pointing out that England has a different immigration experience to ourselves.

It's hard to do exact comparisons between the UK and Irish situations, because the figures are compiled on a different basis.

In the UK, they count foreign-born residents. On this basis, as of the 2011 census, 12.7% of the UK population was foreign-born. The top five countries of birth were, in descending order, India, Poland, Pakistan, Republic of Ireland, Germany. (The high ranking of Germany may seem surprising; it is boosted by the offspring of British service personnel who were born in Germany.)

There hasn't been a census in the UK since 2011; but the picture is probably not hugely different today. Migration from other EU countries continued after 2011, but declined sharply after 2016.

In Ireland, we measure citizenship, not birth. As of the 2016 census 11.6% of the population were non-nationals - smaller, but not much smaller, than the foreign-born population of the UK. However there was little representation of British Commonwealth countries (other than the UK); about three-quarters of the non-national population are citizens of these ten countries:US, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, UK.

So if we're looking at migration from other EU countries, in proportion to the population Ireland almost certainly has more of this than the UK.

Zubeneschamali

20silkcut wrote: »

I think its the non Eu migration that is more of an issue in England anyway.

If so, leaving the EU is perhaps not the ideal way to deal with it.

Seth Brundle

Arlene continues to ignore the electorate of NI in order to protect democracy...

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1127954644720861184

Hurrache

"Ulster says voting is not democratic, so no.".

josip

The longer that elapses since the original vote in 2016, the weaker the "undemocratic to have a 2nd vote" argument becomes.
Assuming the EU wants to keep the UK in the EU, and that is a very weak assumption, then it's in the EU's interests to prolong a leave date in the hope that at some stage in the future a 2nd referendum may be acceptable politically.

Tell me how

josip wrote: »

The longer that elapses since the original vote in 2016, the weaker the "undemocratic to have a 2nd vote" argument becomes.
Assuming the EU wants to keep the UK in the EU, and that is a very weak assumption, then it's in the EU's interests to prolong a leave date in the hope that at some stage in the future a 2nd referendum may be acceptable politically.

The "undemocratic to have a 2nd vote" argument has been blown out of the water since May had multiple votes for her agreement, the 1922 committee tried to initiate a 2nd no confidence vote within 12 months of her winning the first and Farage and Rees Mogg said separately that a 2nd referendum should actually be considered to ratify a desire to leave.

Guess what? None of it matters. May took the obliteration of the Conservatives and Labour in the Local elections as a sign that people just wanted Brexit delivered.
Even her enemies want her gone, but are afraid that her going could bring about another vote so I think her deal will get over the line somehow.

Laois_Man

Ann Widdecombe speech a couple of weeks ago

Totally reinforces the view I have expressed numerous times on this thread...we should have let them leave on April 12th if not March 29th

Leroy42

Laois_Man wrote: »

Ann Widdecombe speech a couple of weeks ago

Totally reinforces the view I have expressed numerous times on this thread...we should have let them leave on April 12th if not March 29th

Being pedantic here, but we never stopped them leaving on either dates. We gave them the option (the we being the EU) to extend their stay if they so wished.

The decision was entirely theirs.

Laois_Man

Leroy42 wrote: »

Being pedantic here, but we never stopped them leaving on either dates. We gave them the option (the we being the EU) to extend their stay if they so wished.

The decision was entirely theirs.

I'll rephrase then

'We' should not have offered them any extension!

Leroy42

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'll rephrase then

'We' should not have offered them any extension!

But what harm has it done to the EU to do so? The anti EU feeling, as displayed by Ann in the clip, was there before the extension. The extension is simply the hook they have put their cap on, just like before it was all about the backstop, and before that it was all about the divorce settlement.

And had they not offered the extension then we would probably be in a crash out scenario, with the import issues, the lack of trade deals etc. Who exactly do you think Farage et al would be blaming for that?

Laois_Man

Leroy42 wrote: »

And had they not offered the extension then we would probably be in a crash out scenario, with the import issues, the lack of trade deals etc. Who exactly do you think Farage et al would be blaming for that?

With import issues, no trade deals etc, I don't for a minute think Farage or any of his peers would be accepting a single phone call from any journalist right now. He'd be well into hiding by now, ironically, probably somewhere in the EU!

And THAT'S the harm the extension did the EU!

ancapailldorcha

Laois_Man wrote: »

Totally reinforces the view I have expressed numerous times on this thread...we should have let them leave on April 12th if not March 29th

One person saying something that you disagree of reinforces your view? Every country has people that are widely derided but you're effectively judging the UK based on cherrypicking here.

Leroy42

I agree with the premise that the extension was wrong, but I think you are taking too much notice of the UK press and extrapolating that to cover the EU as a whole. I don't think the extension has had any negative implications for the EU in Ireland for example. i think most people see it for what it is.

I would be on the side of disagreeing with it, certainly the extension to October, but I understand why it was done.

Laois_Man

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

One person saying something that you disagree of reinforces your view? Every country has people that are widely derided but you're effectively judging the UK based on cherrypicking here.

The Brexit party and the millions of people who are about to vote for them are neither 1 person nor cherrypicking

Leroy42

Laois_Man wrote: »

The Brexit party and the millions of people who are about to vote for them are neither 1 person nor cherrypicking

You are moving the goalposts here.

What has the extension got to do with the views of Ann? Do you think those cheering the clip would have simply accepted the WA? Or the effects of a no deal?

Farage only today has come out saying the BBC needs to be gotten rid of. So at last count I have:
the PM
The Lords
The judges
Any MP who doesn't want Brexit,
The GFA,
NI as part of the union
Electoral rules
and now according to Farage manifestos are no longer required.

The point being that the extension has just given these people a simple target. But if the extension hadn't happened then it would be the fact that the EU drove the UK out without a deal. That the NHS was crumbling because they had to pay £39bn to the EU for nothing.

And whatever millions vote for the Brexit party, at the current poll numbers thing haven't really changed since the last EU elections.

ancapailldorcha

Laois_Man wrote: »

The Brexit party and the millions of people who are about to vote for them are neither 1 person nor cherrypicking

You posted a video and said it reinforced your view.

52% of people voted for Brexit in 2016. It makes sense that a portion of them would vote for the Brexit party 3 years later. I doubt most of them are sufficiently well engaged that they agree with the likes of Ann Widdecombe. It's also traditional here for voters to use the local and European elections to vote against the main parties.

Seth Brundle

Laois_Man wrote: »

The Brexit party and the millions of people who are about to vote for them are neither 1 person nor cherrypicking

...but millions of people will not be voting for them.

kunst nugget

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's also traditional here for voters to use the local and European elections to vote against the main parties.

Which goes a long way to showing how little they engage with the European project when they use their vote in it as a protest vote.

ancapailldorcha

kunst nugget wrote: »

Which goes a long way to showing how little they engage with the European project when they use their vote in it as a protest vote.

Yet another sin FPTP is guilty of. Why vote Green when it would harm the Labour vote and risk a Tory winning the local seat.

European elections are viewed as being much less important than national elections as are local elections.

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yet another sin FPTP is guilty of. Why vote Green when it would harm the Labour vote and risk a Tory winning the local seat.

European elections are viewed as being much less important than national elections as are local elections.

But European elections are PR STV

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But European elections are STV

No. They use the barely proportional d'Hondt system. Northern Ireland only uses STV. Mainland Britain uses d'Hondt.

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No. They use the barely proportional d'Hondt system. Northern Ireland only uses STV. Mainland Britain uses d'Hondt.

I meant PR. Oops. Point still stands though

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I meant PR. Oops. Point still stands though

No its not PR as far as candidates are concerned. It is a party list system, where one votes for a Party, and the number of seats is determined, and the top of the list working down is deemed elected.

In some countries, the vote is for party, and person. The number of seats for the party is determined and then the seats are dealt out in the popularity of the candidates.

So even though the UK use a 'PR' system, it is still the undemocratic party machine that determines who gets elected, not the voter. Not that much different from FPTP and safe seats.

An Ciarraioch

kunst nugget wrote: »

Which goes a long way to showing how little they engage with the European project when they use their vote in it as a protest vote.

Interestingly, the highest UK turnout for European elections was 38% in 2004, so it'll surely surpass 40% this time, given both Remainers and Leavers will be motivated to cast their ballots.

murphaph

If they elect a load of Faragists then to hell with them. The remainers better come out in numbers or I will also view them as a lost cause. This election must be viewed as a defacto second referendum.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

This election must be viewed as a defacto second referendum.

I expect that most UK voters will be of the same opinion, it will set the agenda for future Brexit plans.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yet another sin FPTP is guilty of. Why vote Green when it would harm the Labour vote and risk a Tory winning the local seat.

Thanks to FPTP Lord Buckethead* had to stand aside for the greater good. In a 10 seater (!)

While here we elected Ming the Merciless**


* You can't argue with his plan to save £100Bn on Trident.
And I support free bikes, forcing politicians to live locally and of course "a referendum should be held about whether there should be a second referendum" allows all sides to respect the will of the people.



** Luke's currently polling at 16% , second only to Mairead McGuinness Vice President of the European Parliament and it's a 4 seater.