Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

The more Boris et al continue as they are , is there a risk that the EU will simply call their bluff and pull the plug early?

The terms of the extension were explicit in that there would be no renegotiation of the WA and that the time was to be used to find solutions to get the WA over the line.

That is clearly not happening. Now I know that pulling the date forward gives the UK their "Big Bad EU" card to play , but beyond having the extra time to prep for the UK's exit is there really much value in waiting?

The only other potential reason for waiting is the hope that the UK see sense, or bottle it depending on your viewpoint and accept the WA as is or maybe go for the Irish sea border instead.

Without a GE though, with all the risk that brings are the UK likely to give in and come to an agreement?

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well other countries would claim that they also need infrastructure and housing. We are wealthy. I wonder what your average Joe Soap in Romania or Hungary would say if they saw our standard of living compared to theirs.

the few working in our office say we're taxed too much

jm08

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well other countries would claim that they also need infrastructure and housing. We are wealthy. I wonder what your average Joe Soap in Romania or Hungary would say if they saw our standard of living compared to theirs.

Both their economies seem to be thriving (roughly 4-5% per annum). Problems with corruption seem to be holding them back.

johnnyskeleton

Sam Russell wrote: »

We did take a severe hit for the team with the bank bail out, so they owe us one (at least). We may be wealthy now but no so much if every thing goes pear shaped.

We need infrastructure and housing - like now.

Im not so sure its seen like that. Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank liabilities, and was critised by other EU leaders for doing so. We were subsequemtly pressured by the EU into entering a bailout, in part I accept because of all the European debt we had underwritten. But Ireland took the first step and I dont think many people outside of Ireland see it as us taking one for the team. More likely they see it as Ireland havjng tk be rescued.

As for infrastructure and housing I agree with you. We also need to pay off our debt, increase defense spending and prepare for a recession. All of which will have to be paid for out of increased taxes or reduced services, none of which we are willing to swallow. So a blank cheque from the EU sounds great right about now!

prawnsambo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The more Boris et al continue as they are , is there a risk that the EU will simply call their bluff and pull the plug early?

The terms of the extension were explicit in that there would be no renegotiation of the WA and that the time was to be used to find solutions to get the WA over the line.

That is clearly not happening. Now I know that pulling the date forward gives the UK their "Big Bad EU" card to play , but beyond having the extra time to prep for the UK's exit is there really much value in waiting?

The only other potential reason for waiting is the hope that the UK see sense, or bottle it depending on your viewpoint and accept the WA as is or maybe go for the Irish sea border instead.

Without a GE though, with all the risk that brings are the UK likely to give in and come to an agreement?

Regardless of the bad look it would give to be reneging on an agreement, it would be a bit unfair with parliament not sitting. At least give them a chance to get their house in order.

Professor Moriarty

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

We could equally ask why so much goes into Poland, whose economy has been growing steadily over the last 10 years. But its about regional support, and the whole purpose of that is to cover temporary problems that arise in specific regions. Think of it more as a functional FEMA rather than a direct subsidy.

But even leaving that aside, it will be the price to be paid for political unity. Perhaps it could be sold as coming out of the £39bn that the UK will eventually pay one way or another. Hopefully, £39bn will still have some value in a few years' time

But isn't that 39 billion already accounted for? Existing commitments, pensions etc. Anyway, we may well need a short term money to tide us over. But our standard of living will remain relatively high. If I were Romania, Poland, Latvia etc. I would be insisting it was a loan or an overdraft rather than subvention.

trellheim

Any serious attempt to prepare for brexit would mean several indicators would become obvious quickly like

thousands of extra customs inspectors
replacement IT systems
new regulatory agencies/old ones re-empowered (said it above, the CAA )

they simply are not prepared for it , not with 75 days to go .

Has anyone any counter data to this ( this kind of thing https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-emergency-food-medicine-supplies-airlifts-chris-grayling-ferry-a9056981.html ) which looks like the same stupid stuff Grayling did

Stop moaning ffs

bilston wrote: »

So now MPs who are opposed to Brexit are "collaborating" with the EU.

I suggest Johnson learns to become more careful with his language

Just heard that. It’s part ‘is this a dagger I see before me?’ And part ‘accuse your opponent of that which you are doing yourself’

It’s moved into double speak and spin now for real. He’s obviously been given some schooling to stay on message and on delivery. It’s not his usual bluster it’s way more focused.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Quite a few are over here and having a good look. They contribute to our economy, and good luck to them.

We carry a high sovereign debt thanks to the bailout of French and German banks.

The French and Germans would have a different perspective. I don't think "We bailed out your banks so give us money" will cut much ice.

Professor Moriarty

jm08 wrote: »

Both their economies seem to be thriving (roughly 4-5% per annum). Problems with corruption seem to be holding them back.

Hmmm. Maybe, but your average person or politician in those (and other) countries will look at Irish living standards with awe.

lawred2

collaborators?

further echoes of WWII

I wonder did these lads ever grow out of reading war comics!?

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

collaborators?

further echoes of WWII

I wonder did these lads ever grow out of reading war comics!?

TBF, today Hammond spoke about Johnson's Brexit plans as being a "betrayal".

Christy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

Regardless of the bad look it would give to be reneging on an agreement, it would be a bit unfair with parliament not sitting. At least give them a chance to get their house in order.

I mean the EU is not stopping them from sitting. It is a big decision and you would presume the UK would treat it as such and have their parliament sit.

prawnsambo

Christy42 wrote: »

I mean the EU is not stopping them from sitting. It is a big decision and you would presume the UK would treat it as such and have their parliament sit.

Well the EU aren't exactly 'sitting' either and in the process of a changing of the guard in the parliament and commission. The new commission takes office on November 1st. I think Michel Barnier will remain in his position but I think Sabine Weyand has moved on. So it's not exactly the best time for anything right now.

Tell me how

Emma Barnett once again getting key politicans to admit the BS they are a part of.

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1161577724487454722

As always, comments are interesting as Brexiteers immediately go to suggesting that Emma has an agenda and so they ignore the floundering from the ministers.

lawred2

For a busted flush IDS has enjoyed some renaissance with this Brexit journey

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well other countries would claim that they also need infrastructure and housing. We are wealthy. I wonder what your average Joe Soap in Romania or Hungary would say if they saw our standard of living compared to theirs.

What the average Joe Soap in any country has to say is not terribly important. I am sure the Romanian political class can understand the context and would find it a comfort to know that such measures can be extended to a member state finding themselves in such an unfortunate stuation not of their own making.

The Romanian political class probably also understands that they do not need and would not benefit significantly from a one off show of soladarity like Ireland is asking for, beacuse their needs are deeper than that. They need consistant support from EU structural and development funds which are long term, reliable and can be planned around. Ireland benefited hugely from that arangement in our day, and Romania is benefiting from it now.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What the average Joe Soap in any country has to say is not terribly important. I am sure the Romanian political class can understand the context and would find it a comfort to know that such measures can be extended to a member state finding themselves in such an unfortunate stuation not of their own making.

The Romanian political class probably also understands that they do not need and would not benefit significantly from a one off show of soladarity like Ireland is asking for, beacuse their needs are deeper than that. They need consistant support from EU structural and development funds which are long term, reliable and can be planned around. Ireland benefited hugely from that arangement in our day, and Romania is benefiting from it now.

And rightly so. My point remains though: If I were in such countries (politician or citizen), I would see this as a loan not a subvention because of the ongoing disparity in living standards.

Imreoir2

Tell me how wrote: »

Emma Barnett once again getting key politicans to admit the BS they are a part of.

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1161577724487454722

As always, comments are interesting as Brexiteers immediately go to suggesting that Emma has an agenda and so they ignore the floundering from the ministers.

Isn't it great when a journalist does their job?

Enzokk

What is the Unite position on Brexit? Well it seems to be muddled at best. Len McCluskey is either confused or just, I don't know.

Unions agree Labour should back remain in referendum on Tory deal

Labour is poised to declare it will campaign for remain in a second referendum on any deal put to parliament by a Conservative prime minister, after trade union leaders including Unite’s Len McCluskey backed a change of policy.

The joint position agreed by the unions on Monday would not commit Labour to an explicitly pro-remain position in all circumstances: unions also agreed Labour should seek to deliver a Brexit deal if the party won an election before the UK left the EU.

That Labour deal would also be put to a public vote, but the party would not commit to campaigning for remain against its own Brexit deal, throwing into doubt what Labour would offer in any snap election manifesto

So Labour will back a second referendum and will back Remain in most circumstances, although they will get a chance to negotiate their own "jobs first" deal.

But today, must over a month later we have this,

https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/1161641024189583360?s=20

Now he seems to be saying that Labour should back the UK leaving the EU, because that is what people voted for. And why is this a concern? Because Unite will be at the table deciding the Labour manifesto in a new election and they will cause Labour to have a muddled policy on Brexit, which will make them lose votes to the Lib Dems which will increase the likelihood of a Johnson majority government.

Kermit.de.frog

Not a peep about this in the Telegraph or other Brexit papers. Not surprising. Not what their readers want to see.

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1161651374658076672

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

What is the Unite position on Brexit? Well it seems to be muddled at best. Len McCluskey is either confused or just, I don't know.

Unions agree Labour should back remain in referendum on Tory deal



So Labour will back a second referendum and will back Remain in most circumstances, although they will get a chance to negotiate their own "jobs first" deal.

But today, must over a month later we have this,

https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/1161641024189583360?s=20

Now he seems to be saying that Labour should back the UK leaving the EU, because that is what people voted for. And why is this a concern? Because Unite will be at the table deciding the Labour manifesto in a new election and they will cause Labour to have a muddled policy on Brexit, which will make them lose votes to the Lib Dems which will increase the likelihood of a Johnson majority government.

Labour have to be the worst opposition party in history. The government is flagrantly walking the country off a cliff and all Labour can do is produce ever more confused statements about which part of the fence they wish to perch themselves upon.

How deluded do you have to be to think that telling voters you support remain, unless you are put in power in which case you will support leave, but only if you can put together the kind of impossible unicorn deal the government failed to secure, and think that will attract support from anyone.

Lackadaisical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Labour have to be the worst opposition party in history. The government is flagrantly walking the country off a cliff and all Labour can do is produce ever more confused statements about which part of the fence they wish to perch themselves upon.

How deluded do you have to be to think that telling voters you support remain, unless you are put in power in which case you will support leave, but only if you can put together the kind of impossible unicorn deal the government failed to secure, and think that will attract support from anyone.

Fundamentally the problem there is that Brexit transcends the party political divide between Labour and Tory. It's about nationalism and I would suspect a lot of the Labour Party support it, while a lot of the Tories, especially pro-business types who are genuinely pragmatic are barely holding the current party line and would vote against it if given half the chance.

The timing is also extremely unfortunate as the Labour Party is in total internal turmoil.

I genuinely think this is one of these topics that will fundamentally change UK politics for generations. I could see the Tory party perhaps being entirely replaced by the Lib Dems as the centre right if there's a full on melt down of the economy.

The one HUGE issue that's cropping up in both Labour and the Tories is having the entire party membership voting for the parliamentary party leader is insane. There should be a distinction between the 'party president' and the leader in Westminster. It's not the same thing at all. At least MPs voting for a parliamentary party leader all have real mandates. Boris and Jeremy have that in common.

They've managed to dismantle the fundamental link between leadership and parliament and created a situation where the party leader is almost like a privately elected president operating in parallel to the normal parliamentary democracy that the UK has had for centuries.

I foresee a massive constitutional crisis in the UK - far too many fundamentals of how their political system works are being ignored or pushed to their limits.

trellheim

And you have massive disillusionment on both sides as there is no middle ground on it as all elements of compromise is regarded as a sell-out of one type or another. As the process began with the irrevocable step of calling the referendum , revoking A50 or out no-deal will in no way begin the healing process. I have a feeling we have not even seen the worst of this yet, some more drifting to the poles yet I think

Lackadaisical

I think from a sociological point of view, they probably do need to go through with it at this stage and actually be forced to deal with the reality of their own choices. If they were lied to, those who lied need to also face the public.

If it doesn't happen, the lies just go on and on and on and we'll be back here again, and again.. and again.

serfboard

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How deluded do you have to be to think that telling voters you support remain, unless you are put in power in which case you will support leave, but only if you can put together the kind of impossible unicorn deal the government failed to secure, and think that will attract support from anyone.

Yeah this has been their policy for some time. They support leaving with a deal so long as it is their deal. Otherwise, they support remain.

Daft nonsense, of course.

serfboard

Lackadaisical wrote: »

If it doesn't happen, the lies just go on and on and on and we'll be back here again, and again.. and again.

I don't normally listen to him, but I heard a bit of Ian Dale on LBC the other night and he thinks that they'll still be talking about Brexit in thirty years time! :eek:

CalamariFritti

trellheim wrote: »

well if you are betting on your own currency to tank its a solid move

Well to be fair that's not exactly whats happening here although it may look that way.

Stop moaning ffs

Senator Neil Richmond handing Ian Dale and the delusional brexit position a severe can of kick ass just there on LBC. Well worth listening back to.

Imreoir2

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Fundamentally the problem there is that Brexit transcends the party political divide between Labour and Tory. It's about nationalism and I would suspect a lot of the Labour Party support it, while a lot of the Tories, especially pro-business types who are genuinely pragmatic are barely holding the current party line and would vote against it if given half the chance.

The timing is also extremely unfortunate as the Labour Party is in total internal turmoil.

I genuinely think this is one of these topics that will fundamentally change UK politics for generations. I could see the Tory party perhaps being entirely replaced by the Lib Dems as the centre right if there's a full on melt down of the economy.

The one HUGE issue that's cropping up in both Labour and the Tories is having the entire party membership voting for the parliamentary party leader is insane. There should be a distinction between the 'party president' and the leader in Westminster. It's not the same thing at all. At least MPs voting for a parliamentary party leader all have real mandates. Boris and Jeremy have that in common.

They've managed to dismantle the fundamental link between leadership and parliament and created a situation where the party leader is almost like a privately elected president operating in parallel to the normal parliamentary democracy that the UK has had for centuries.

I foresee a massive constitutional crisis in the UK - far too many fundamentals of how their political system works are being ignored or pushed to their limits.

I think the Tory system, even though it gave us Johnson, is not a terrible way to elect a party leader. It's a choice between the parliamentary parties top two picks. If that system had been in place in Labour, things would be very different. If it was in place in FG, we would have Taoiseach Coveney which I personally think would have been a better result than their somewhat convoluted system gave us.

Having a leader the parties MPs don't support is Labours problem, Borris was the front runner among Tory MPs and would almost certainly have won was it left to MPs to select the leader.