Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

These elections won't bear any resemblance to a GE. Tories and Brexit parties could end up with a majority, with FPTP.

Inquitus

Water John wrote: »

These elections won't bear any resemblance to a GE. Tories and Brexit parties could end up with a majority, with FPTP.

That's not likely UKIP got just shy of 13% in the 2015 GE and got 1 seat for their troubles.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

These elections won't bear any resemblance to a GE. Tories and Brexit parties could end up with a majority, with FPTP.

I think is more likely that the Brexit party will take Tory votes so with FPTP they will not be winning a lot of seats. This is exactly what activists for Remain has been trying to tell Labour. The voters they will lose that voted Leave will not vote Conservative in their heartland or they will not vote again. So their chances of losing seats is a lot less than the Conservatives who will lose their votes that they have to the Brexit party. This could allow either Labour or any of the other parties to swoop in and take seats from them, even with a lesser share of the vote.

It seems that some UKIP campaigners and activists, with Steven Yaxley Lennon (or Tommy Robinson), went to Liverpool to campaign. One of them was the shouty yellow vest protester, James Goddard ("If you want a war, we will give you a war! I will be here next weekend..."), who was filmed aggressively confronting pro-EU MPs and threatening violence every so often was doing the same in Liverpool. He proceeded to slur the city and the response was obvious. When confronted he did not fight his way out, instead he went running away. He was being confronted by the mums of Liverpool though. Seems like talk is cheap when you confront MPs or the police (who is there to maintain order and protect all citizens, including him) but when it becomes hot in the frying pan he doesn't like the heat at all.

https://twitter.com/paul_0l/status/1130126244941574144

Enzokk

Another day and another story about Nigel Farage funding and how they are circumventing the rules. The rules for funding is that you have to register if donations are higher than £500, yet the Brexit Party doesn't allow you to donate more than £500. So they are allowing anonymous donations of up to £500 where anyone can donate as many times as they want. That is an open invitation for fraud and funding from overseas interests without any oversight. I expect zero action from the authorities though.

There is a few tweets from Carole Cadwalla in this thread.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1130195252537520128

Junkyard Tom

Thrashssacre wrote: »

a nice barometer of some of the people who voted leave and their rational for it

Let me guess... almost every reason for voting to leave hasn't been created by Britain's leading-player-EU-membership or will be solved by leaving it?

Edit: I've actually watched a few SofA response videos and the guy is an intellectual fraud.

CelticRambler

Well whaddyaknow? That fiercely independent nation, Switzerland (you know, the one with "frictionless borders" that close to commercial traffic for the weekend) ... well, they've just voted to align another one of their laws with those of the EU, because it was that or give up their Schengen area privileges, and they decided that "Schengen" was worth more than a bit of gun control. Nice to know that some European voters still know how to vote with their brains!

jochenstacker

Very mature and pragmatic attitude by the Swiss. Qualities that have become depressingly rare in today's political world which is marred by pettiness, nationalism, spite and stupidity.
The Americans always point to the Swiss and the Canadians when they argue "guns don't kill".
I think they're undermining their own argument for the second amendment by proving that a lot of Americans are immature, violent idiots and rednecks who shouldn't be allowed have a feather duster, nevermind a tool that has literally no other purpose than to kill people.
But that just as an aside.

black forest

After TM showed up with a new version of the WA bill Eleanor Sharpston, english Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union felt obliged to put this into plain words.

https://twitter.com/akulith/status/1130381433363738624?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_V._E._Sharpstons=21


Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding.

4. The Withdrawal Agreement Bill (the ‘WAB’) is a draft domestic law statute intended to implement the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It is not, as such, a legal instrument ratifying the draft withdrawal agreement (‘WA’) on behalf of the UK.

Changes can only be made within the political declaration.

9. If the WAB contains provisions that would merely require alterations to be made to the Political Declaration that accompanies the WA, agreeing such alterations with the UK’s EU partners in Brussels is probably also relatively straightforward.

Coming to the back stop it’s quite clear that it is an insurance which will probably never be triggered. Given the climate the UK created it seems to be a necessary one.

12. To put that point in technical EU lawyers’ shorthand, if the UK intended to sign up to a permanent customs union with the EU and permanent membership of the single market, that would render the Irish backstop provision otiose.

It is also clear that the UK can not change the content of the WA single handed.

13. If, however, the WAB is passed by Parliament in a form that diverges from what has been agreed with the EU in the WA itself – for example, by removing or altering the ‘Irish backstop’ – the two texts would no longer be in alignment.

And the consequences are clear as well. A No Deal Brexit is still looming and no internal UK bill will change that.

16. Passing the WAB in a form that does not align with the WA will not, of itself, avoid a no-deal Brexit.

All this is known to the readers here but this comprehensive summary of an english advocate general at the european court of justice may hold more weight as an argument than others. Even hardcore brexiteers will find it hard to discredit Eleanor Sharpston.

Seth Brundle

Six weeks of negotiations and one side "hasn't seen the plan"... :rolleyes:
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1130385583644319744

Leroy42

Can I ask a question, that I am sure has been answered already but I have got a little lost.

The WA, the one that TM has agreed with the EU and has been voted down in HoC. What is the justification, on either side (of the HoC), for rejecting it? We continually hear about the will of the people and the HoC not allowing No Deal, so why haven't they already passed this deal?

I get it that many seem to think that it is worse than what they currently have, and a few on Hard Brexit think a No deal is better, whilst a few on Remain think that pushing against it raises the prospect of Remain higher, but surely as MP's who voted to trigger A50, there can be no logical reason not to vote through the WA.

It meets the criteria of leaving the EU, and thus delivering the will of the people by way of the Ref, but also gives the UK the best outcome possible from the EU.

Is it simply because of the extreme positions as above (Remain/No Deal) and this WA is seen as the worst of all worlds?

Shelga

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can I ask a question, that I am sure has been answered already but I have got a little lost.

The WA, the one that TM has agreed with the EU and has been voted down in HoC. What is the justification, on either side (of the HoC), for rejecting it? We continually hear about the will of the people and the HoC not allowing No Deal, so why haven't they already passed this deal?

I get it that many seem to think that it is worse than what they currently have, and a few on Hard Brexit think a No deal is better, whilst a few on Remain think that pushing against it raises the prospect of Remain higher, but surely as MP's who voted to trigger A50, there can be no logical reason not to vote through the WA.

It meets the criteria of leaving the EU, and thus delivering the will of the people by way of the Ref, but also gives the UK the best outcome possible from the EU.

Is it simply because of the extreme positions as above (Remain/No Deal) and this WA is seen as the worst of all worlds?

I think it’s mainly because the WA does not lay out the future clearly enough. It merely covers a 2 year transition period, during which the UK is basically at the mercy of the EU, and will remain in a customs union as there is no alternative to avoiding a hard border in NI.

None of this was explained clearly enough to people before the referendum, and now the WA represents the wall finally being hit, as the realisation that it is vastly inferior to just remaining in the EU becomes clear.

However, one thing I do agree with the Tories about (feels dirty to even write that sentence) is that Labour also voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50, whatever about the rights and wrongs of it at the time- so they do have to co-own the current mess, to an extent.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I get it that many seem to think that it is worse than what they currently have

This is the whole reason.

Remainers obviously think it is worse than Remaining, but many Leavers (including Farage, I think) have also said that May's deal is worse than Remaining.

So, no majority to pass the WA.

The problem is that no course of action, WA, No Deal, or Remain can get a majority, so they are stuck in limbo.

Shelga

I wonder what the political landscape of the UK would look like now, if just 700k or so more people had voted Remain instead of Leave in 2016. Far more stable, surely, but continued apathy of a lot of voters.

Leroy42

So is it basically that the MP's simply see Brexit as a disaster (or at the least very damaging) and cannot bring themselves to actually vote for it?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can I ask a question, that I am sure has been answered already but I have got a little lost.

The WA, the one that TM has agreed with the EU and has been voted down in HoC. What is the justification, on either side (of the HoC), for rejecting it? We continually hear about the will of the people and the HoC not allowing No Deal, so why haven't they already passed this deal?

I get it that many seem to think that it is worse than what they currently have, and a few on Hard Brexit think a No deal is better, whilst a few on Remain think that pushing against it raises the prospect of Remain higher, but surely as MP's who voted to trigger A50, there can be no logical reason not to vote through the WA.

It meets the criteria of leaving the EU, and thus delivering the will of the people by way of the Ref, but also gives the UK the best outcome possible from the EU.

Is it simply because of the extreme positions as above (Remain/No Deal) and this WA is seen as the worst of all worlds?

It gives nobody what they want.

The backstop means that the UK must remain in a permanent customs union with the EU unless a satisfactory solution to the Northern Irish border issue can be forumulated. This means no global free trade deals so leavers are dissatisfied.

Remainers want to remain. The WA is not remain or even the single market and customs union, ie the Norway option. Few people voted in 2016 envisioning the WA as their preferred option. I can't substantiate that beyond alluding to the campaigns' promotional material at the time.

bob mcbob

For those of you who watch Question Time and despair of it (I gave up watching this a long time ago), the following article has some views on the "balance" provided by it in Scotland anyway.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/lesley-riddoch-has-bbc-s-question-time-gone-rogue-1-4930316

IAmTheReign

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Police order McDonald’s to stop selling milkshakes near Farage rally

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/police-order-mcdonalds-to-stop-selling-milkshakes-near-farage-rally-38124760.html

Police order obviously didn't do too much as Farage got milkshaked on a walkabout in Newcastle this afternoon. https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/05/20/complete-failure-could-have-spotted-that-a-mile-off/

4068ac1elhodqr

See today, Raab is closing in on Boris to their new PM.
From memory, Raab (when chief of brexit negs) flew into the North (for the day), visited various ports and borders,
but actually failed to meet a single politican and address any concerns. It was more or less a PR photo-op exercise.

Is there also a chance that Farage will actually become a PM during 2019?



Bit of a long shot, but he's fav to win Peterbourgh, the bookies won't take any more bets on TBP winning most seats in the EE.
And today he's down as low as 12/1 to actually land the top job.

None of the three above actually offer any hope of a soft exit. Maybe suggest they wind up the electorate more and delay it another 4yrs?

reslfj

black forest wrote: »

After TM showed up with a new version of the WA bill Eleanor Sharpston, english Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union felt obliged to put this into plain words.

https://twitter.com/akulith/status/1130381433363738624?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_V._E._Sharpstons=21

This is not a validated Twitter account - and I have RT'ed with a Warning.

https://twitter.com/LarsFJ1/status/1130467461541896192

Lars

reslfj

black forest wrote: »

12. To put that point in technical EU lawyers’ shorthand, if the UK intended to sign up to a permanent customs union with the EU and permanent membership of the single market, that would render the Irish backstop provision otiose.

Coming to the back stop it’s quite clear that it is an insurance which will probably never be triggered. Given the climate the UK created it seems to be a necessary one.

This is not correct. A CU is required at least in NI, but it's not enough to avoid the backstop.

https://twitter.com/LarsFJ1/status/1130461608298393600

Lars

Strazdas

Shelga wrote: »

I wonder what the political landscape of the UK would look like now, if just 700k or so more people had voted Remain instead of Leave in 2016. Far more stable, surely, but continued apathy of a lot of voters.

British Euroscepticism would be alive and well and we would never have heard the term "will of the people" even once. It's pretty disgusting how Brexiteers tried to shut down the debate on Europe for the last three years, ram through their hard Brexit and declare that the matter is closed.

They are cynical opportunists of the highest order. If they'd lost narrowly, they would have been as loud as ever and would claim they had been emboldened by the result.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can I ask a question, that I am sure has been answered already but I have got a little lost.

The WA, the one that TM has agreed with the EU and has been voted down in HoC. What is the justification, on either side (of the HoC), for rejecting it? We continually hear about the will of the people and the HoC not allowing No Deal, so why haven't they already passed this deal?

I get it that many seem to think that it is worse than what they currently have, and a few on Hard Brexit think a No deal is better, whilst a few on Remain think that pushing against it raises the prospect of Remain higher, but surely as MP's who voted to trigger A50, there can be no logical reason not to vote through the WA.

It meets the criteria of leaving the EU, and thus delivering the will of the people by way of the Ref, but also gives the UK the best outcome possible from the EU.

Is it simply because of the extreme positions as above (Remain/No Deal) and this WA is seen as the worst of all worlds?

It is because the WA gives the EU and UK a two year window (it was 2 years and nine months before the extension) at the longest to negotiate a trade deal that will ensure the backstop is not needed. If the UK agreed to the WA and they left in March we would now have been in the negotiations phase until the latest, end 2021, with a view to agree a deal that avoids the backstop. If no deal is agreed by then that does this, the backstop comes into play and the whole of the UK is within the customs union and NI with the elements of the SM to ensure no checks are needed on the island but checks will be done in the ports.

Now why are people against it? Because for Leavers it means that the whole of the UK is in a permanent customs union unless they can agree a trade deal which mirrors this. So in reality her deal ensures the UK never has the ability to negotiate their own trade deals and will be at the mercy of EU trade negotiators for trade deals. It also means that to keep the whole of the UK in regulatory alignment they will need to negotiate a deal that keeps them in the single market effectively. This is courtesy of the DUP.

For Leavers it means they never leave.

For Remainers it is not as simple as just saying they want to remain, but looking at what the UK will be when the trade negotiations actually delivers the deal (mirror of customs union and single market membership but no say in trade deals or the creation of regulations) or they need to rely on the backstop it makes no sense to give up all of their power they currently have for exactly the same benefits.

For Remainers it means they have the exact same benefits without any of the power.

That is why both sides are against the Withdrawal Agreement.

reslfj wrote: »

This is not correct. A CU is required at least in NI, but it's not enough to avoid the backstop.

https://twitter.com/LarsFJ1/status/1130461608298393600

Lars

But that is exactly what that passage says though, right? Permanent customs union and single market membership will render the Irish backstop pointless and it will not be implemented.

reslfj

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It gives nobody what they want.

The backstop means that the UK must remain in a permanent customs union with the EU unless a satisfactory solution to the Northern Irish border issue can be forumulated. This means no global free trade deals so leavers are dissatisfied.

The EU27 requirement was and is only NI must effectively be in the EU CU+SM for goods with Ireland (and EU26). The CU covering all the island of GB too was a UK/TM (DUP?) requirement

If any "satisfactory solution" exists, I think, it would have been found by now, i.e. the backstop will be activated and in use for many years to come.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Remainers want to remain. ....

Passing the WA without a commitment for a second referendum explicitly in the text will effectively ensure Brexit and kill any hope of a revoke of A50.

Re Leroy42: It was another (pre GE2017) parliament that voted for A50.

Lars

reslfj

Enzokk wrote: »

But that is exactly what that passage says though, right? Permanent customs union and single market membership will render the Irish backstop pointless and it will not be implemented.

black forest wrote: »

Coming to the back stop it’s quite clear that it is an insurance which will probably never be triggered.

The EU27 agreeing to a CU for goods is one thing - but agreeing to SM membership is very much another.
The SM is full regulatory compliance and will require the UK to fully accept all four freedoms and much of the ECJ.

The point of doing Brexit will then vanish.

The backstop will, I believe, in all probability be invoked and be active forever (or until a demographically triggered Irish reunification).

Lars

black forest

reslfj wrote: »

This is not correct. A CU is required at least in NI, but it's not enough to avoid the backstop

Isn’t that exactly what she says?


https://twitter.com/akulith/status/1130381445984399363?s=21


The riddles solution should be the little word and.The whole of the UK has to be in a CU and NI (or the whole UK) additionally in the SM which will be subject to the ECJ. This depends on which version of the back stop one prefers.

So the two of us are still on the same track.

robindch

Farage was milkshook earlier today:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-48339711

BBC wrote:

Paul Crowther, 32, from Throckley, Newcastle, said it was a £5.25 Five Guys banana and salted caramel milkshake.

fly_agaric

SNIP.

judeboy101

Disgraceful ppl making fun of an assault on a politician. Imagine if it had been a knife or a brick, whatever your views on NF, no one should condone such behaviour. A labour political lost her life because of the belief that politicians are fair game.

Dyr

judeboy101 wrote: »

Disgraceful ppl making fun of an assault on a politician. Imagine if it had been a knife or a brick, whatever your views on NF, no one should condone such behaviour. A labour political lost her life because of the belief that politicians are fair game.

This is what happens when you have people who label anything they don't like as "fascist"

If Diane Abbot got a facfull of milkshake, You'd have the press screaming about hate crime and racist dog whistling.

Funny old game, politics

Shelga

Remainers rying to defend the milkshake incident are making it worse and making Farage look like a martyr.

Focus on the logic and the facts, condemn aggressive behaviour. When they go low, we go high, etc etc.