Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Nody wrote: »

You're assuming they would vote for unity though; if the vote goes against uniting nothing gets resolved.

I'm assuming nothing at all.

reslfj

Nody wrote: »

You're assuming they would vote for unity though; if the vote goes against uniting nothing gets resolved.

A stable and lasting future for a UI will require a majority in Ireland but a large majority in NI - like 60-67%.

Don't initiate a border poll, unless you are absolutely sure, you can obtain such a result.

The genius of the GFA with the EU's SM is the well working fudge "No border to the South" and "No border to the East"
This took the urgency out of a border poll for most people and created peace - as I understand the situation pre-Brexit.

Those to the East haven't kept their part of the deal lately, it seems. Too bad for them, imo.

Lars

BonnieSituation

reslfj wrote: »

A stable and lasting future for a UI will require a majority in Ireland but a large majority in NI - like 60-67%.

Don't initiate a border poll, unless you are absolutely sure, you can obtain such a result.

The genius of the GFA with the EU's SM is the well working fudge "No border to the South" and "No border to the East"
This took the urgency out of a border poll for most people and created peace - as I understand the situation pre-Brexit.

Those to the East haven't kept their part of the deal lately, it seems. Too bad for them, imo.

Lars

I wouldn't even try to go down this road Lars.

Widdensushi

reslfj wrote: »

A stable and lasting future for a UI will require a majority in Ireland but a large majority in NI - like 60-67%.

Don't initiate a border poll, unless you are absolutely sure, you can obtain such a result.

The genius of the GFA with the EU's SM is the well working fudge "No border to the South" and "No border to the East"
This took the urgency out of a border poll for most people and created peace - as I understand the situation pre-Brexit.

Those to the East haven't kept their part of the deal lately, it seems. Too bad for them, imo.

Lars

Brexit didn't need a large majority!!!

reslfj

Widdensushi wrote: »

Brexit didn't need a large majority!!!

Look how it turned out. it's sound politics to have a solid political backing behind major changes


Lars

peter kern

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Time to pull the deal at this point. This is getting tiresome.

should we have stopped dealing with the trump administration
or what about china ....

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Time to pull the deal at this point. This is getting tiresome.

Not at all. The UK threatens to repudiate the deals that it has negiated, signed and ratified; the EU does not.

J Mysterio

This is not good.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1394180787638050817?s=20

Seems like Frost et all are literally playing with fire here and trying to rile up the Loyalist paramilitaries.

A senior Irish source has also described as "irresponsible" the suggestion, as briefed by the British government, that the EU would have to deliver a solution to the issues surrounding the backstop by 12 July, the peak of the loyalist marching season.

Last week Mr Frost met a delegation from the Loyalist Communities Council, which includes members of loyalist paramilitary groups. Afterwards he said the Protocol "may not be sustainable" in its current form.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, Mr Frost accused the EU of taking a "purist" view of the Protocol and that the UK "did not anticipate this when we agreed the Protocol and it makes no sense."

So first Arlene and now Frost meeting with illegal groups and legitimising them in an effort to get what they want. EU have to play ball... or else.

And they said we were cynical RE NI.

Zubeneschamali

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But then they pull the "We don't agree" card and on and on it goes

Well, yes. The agreement they signed includes committees to talk about everything forever. Brexit will never end.

And the Brits prefer to negotiate by leaking stories to the Brexit press, so we can expect New EU Outrage! stories there forever.

But they still have very few cards to play, which is why they prefer to threaten NI than to introduce checks at Dover.

fash

.
Isn't the transparent bad faith a thing of wonder?

yagan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But they still have very few cards to play, which is why they prefer to threaten NI than to introduce checks at Dover.

Schrodingers Brexit, taking back control by not wanting to control borders.

Professor Moriarty

fash wrote: »

.
Isn't the transparent bad faith a thing of wonder?

Habib profiteered from Brexit while in the Brexit party. Odious is too kind a word for him.

Sam Russell

yagan wrote: »

Schrodingers Brexit, taking back control by not wanting to control borders.

If only they had thought this Brexit thing out before they had a referendum. Who could have known that this could turn out so badly with so many down sides and so few upsides.

If only they had not been so clear that that they held all the cards and that the German Auto industry would tell Angela Merkle to tell the EU to give the UK all it was asking for - who could have known that that would not work.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only they had thought this Brexit thing out before they had a referendum. Who could have known that this could turn out so badly with so many down sides and so few upsides.

If only they had not been so clear that that they held all the cards and that the German Auto industry would tell Angela Merkle to tell the EU to give the UK all it was asking for - who could have known that that would not work.

The referendum was a pox upon fairly run elections, but surely the larger curse should be placed on the head of the PM who decided prematurely to trigger Article 50? Could be suffering from selective or fault memory, but AFAIK there wasn't a single domino arranged before Theresa May started that 2-year countdown; not a single piece of logistics, legislation, anything. In theory, Brexit could have been seamless had they paused and allowed the country to come up with a plan first. Like I said, maybe my memory has created a false narrative but the decision to just bull on ahead and pretend like anyone had a clue what they were doing was the ultimate flaw.

Joe_ Public

One of the passages i recall from one of the Tim Shipman books describes the first informal gathering of uk and eu reps before official negotiations got under way and Theresa May blithely declaring her hope that they might hammer out the bones of a future trade asap, even before the terms of the divorce had been agreed. Needless to say, much furrowing of brows among the assembled eu delegation ensued.

ArmaniJeanss

pixelburp wrote: »

The referendum was a pox upon fairly run elections, but surely the larger curse should be placed on the head of the PM who decided prematurely to trigger Article 50? Could be suffering from selective or fault memory, but AFAIK there wasn't a single domino arranged before Theresa May started that 2-year countdown; not a single piece of logistics, legislation, anything. In theory, Brexit could have been seamless had they paused and allowed the country to come up with a plan first. Like I said, maybe my memory has created a false narrative but the decision to just bull on ahead and pretend like anyone had a clue what they were doing was the ultimate flaw.

Whilst ultimately it was in the UK governments hands as to when to invoke, there was pressure from all sides. Outgoing PM Cameron had suggested it should be invoked immediately, as did then Leader of the Opposition Corbyn.
Their media (which as we know they are in thrall to) posted daily opinion pieces wanting it to happen by 'midnight tonight'.

Even the European Parliament passed a motion, a few days after the referendum, calling for it to be quick and immediate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36648664

That TMPM was able to delay it for 10 months is arguably a minor credit to her.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One of the passages i recall from one of the Tim Shipman books describes the first informal gathering of uk and eu reps before official negotiations got under way and Theresa May blithely declaring her hope that they might hammer out the bones of a future trade asap, even before the terms of the divorce had been agreed. Needless to say, much furrowing of brows among the assembled eu delegation ensued.

I think that photo of the first meeting of the EU UK delegations summed up the whole debacle.

Michel Barnier and his entourage sat smiling at the camera, each with a pile of folders, books and documents in front of them. Facing them was David Davis and his group of sycophants with not even a pencil or paper on which to make notes.

Who would have guessed that that was a harbinger for all that followed?

[Edit: Here it is - https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2Fbrexit%2F138554&psig=AOvVaw1ymH9J7hkCAXeT99Wb-jue&ust=1621333400110000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCIiF7N-_0PACFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD]

Pandiculation

Ireland needs to be on the phone to the Biden administration about this.

The Tories don’t really care about the GFA, many of them saw it as appeasement even back in the 90s. More of them also see it as a project, like devolution, that is part of Blair and New Labour’s legacy.

At the end of the day, we’re going to see if Joe Biden really cares about Ireland, or if he’s just using his Irish heritage as an election gimmick.

The other issue though is the Tories may place hard Brexit nationalism ahead of any economic considerations. There’s huge anger when anyone suggests that the US trade deal might be contingent upon the US getting its way on any issue. I’m seeing British commentary that’s quite unrealistic and simply doesn’t understand that they’re not in any position to be demanding anything in some of those talks, as they’re offering very little.

There’s a far possibility they’ll just wed themselves to a notion the GOP will be back and attempt to go around the current administration.

I’m even seeing commentary that seems to suggest they might try to undermine Biden domestically, which could result in major issues for the UK in the medium term.

ancapailldorcha

No name calling please. Post deleted.

ambro25

dublin49 wrote: »

Ultimately the remainers on all sides missed ample opportunities to reduce the harm and divisiveness of Brexit.They let the tory SNIP get their way due to their inability to compromise.

You’ll have to supply some data to back up that claim.

Because where I’m looking from, once Brexit became inevitable, ‘remainers’ never wanted anything more, than to be let in on planning and negotiations initiatives, to mitigate the fully-mapped consequences of Brexit.

They weren’t engaged by the ruling government on that front, any more than devolved governments, business federations and associations, and any and all other groups with an actual stake or dozens in the Brexit outcome, were.

So what were these ample opportunities, which ‘remainers’ could have compromised anything about?

MrMusician18

ambro25 wrote: »

You’ll have to supply some data to back up that claim.

Because where I’m looking from, once Brexit became inevitable, ‘remainers’ never wanted anything more, than to be let in on planning and negotiations initiatives, to mitigate the fully-mapped consequences of Brexit.

They weren’t engaged by the ruling government on that front, any more than devolved governments, business federations and associations, and any and all other groups with an actual stake or dozens in the Brexit outcome, were.

So what were these ample opportunities, which ‘remainers’ could have compromised anything about?

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Come off it.

If you insist on blaming two then Johnson and the voters in the UK are to blame.

They voters had ample opportunity to put a stop to this, yet time and again they happily joned Johnson in his flight of fancy.

But lets play your little thought process.

Swinson agrees to back Corbyn, who becomes PM. The price of that support is that Brexit is stopped, immediately have the entire right wing press go mental at Corbyn, along with half his party and the entire ERG. Calls that he is anto-democracy, a traitor, a suck up to Brussels. That is even if he could bring himself to do anything given he never really wanted the EU.

And then what. He get voted out and they hold an election and Johnson sweeps into power. Nothing would have changed.

fiveleavesleft

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Brexit only became inevitable once the opposition coundn't get its act together to stop it, which was actually quite late in the day. Remember, May had a minority government and could've been stopped.

There are two lead characters to blame for this: Corbyn for insisting that he lead a caretaker government and Swinson for refusing to countenance Corbyn as PM.

Corbyn's offer was serious though. He was the only one in that fantasy football summer period who was offering a way out. They really should have backed him.

Joe_ Public

It's always handy to have scapegoats, probably reassuring too in some ways. But realistically, the proposed interim government was never a starter for any number of reasons. And if you want to throw blame around, i think you'd need to reserve some space for the likes of Kenneth Clarke who, despite receiving widespread praise from all sides of the political divide for their principled remain stance, couldn't quite put their political prejudices aside for a short period to support the opposition leader as interim pm, as protocol dictated should happen.

dublin49

ambro25 wrote: »

You’ll have to supply some data to back up that claim.

Because where I’m looking from, once Brexit became inevitable, ‘remainers’ never wanted anything more, than to be let in on planning and negotiations initiatives, to mitigate the fully-mapped consequences of Brexit.

They weren’t engaged by the ruling government on that front, any more than devolved governments, business federations and associations, and any and all other groups with an actual stake or dozens in the Brexit outcome, were.

So what were these ample opportunities, which ‘remainers’ could have compromised anything about?

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

fiveleavesleft

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's always handy to have scapegoats, probably reassuring too in some ways. But realistically, the proposed interim government was never a starter for any number of reasons. And if you want to throw blame around, i think you'd need to reserve some space for the likes of Kenneth Clarke who, despite receiving widespread praise from all sides of the political divide for their principled remain stance, couldn't quite put their political prejudices aside for a short period to support the opposition leader as interim pm, as protocol dictated should happen.

Bang on about Clarke. The whole way through he was praised for his wisdom & foresight. When Corbyn made the offer he should have told Swinson & others to cop on & support it. Instead he got giddy at the thought of being PM.

When he did come round to supporting Corbyn he half-assed it with his "only if we can control him" guff:rolleyes:

Leroy42

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

Do you know what the voting numbers were? It was voted down by historic numbers. Even Johnson voted it down.

TM failed to even attempt to get any plan, any cross-party thinking. This was a Tory Brexit, she only brought Corbyn in late, and with no intention of actually listening.

Johnson then bulldosed his agreement through, without even giving the house the time to read and study the deal. Which his party enthusiastically voted for.

The opposition has many questions to answer but to try and blame them for this is laughable.

Anytime anyone even tried to point out that Brexit was less than perfect the Brexiteers, the media and many in the public were quick to jump on them calling them traitors and sell-outs. Eventually even TM suffered the same fate, all because she wasn't willing to just burn everything around her.

The blame lies squarely with the voters and Johnson. And it is important that the voters are not given a free pass. THey had ample opportunities to get across how much they didn't like the deal or even the costs of Brexit, but not only did they return the Tories, then gave them a massive majority.

And only a few weeks ago they gave them their approval again.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The blame lies squarely with the voters and Johnson. And it is important that the voters are not given a free pass. THey had ample opportunities to get across how much they didn't like the deal or even the costs of Brexit, but not only did they return the Tories, then gave them a massive majority.

And only a few weeks ago they gave them their approval again.

Well, if you are blaming the voters, spare a bit of blame for the voting system.

The FPTP system is not democratic - only slightly better than a no voting. No party has achieved a majority popular vote since 1932, and only one coalition outside of the war time Gov of 1939 to 1945.

So an ignorant electorate, unrepresentative electoral system and a foreign owned right wing press are all to blame for corrupt system hat currently controls the UK.

The Raging Bile Duct

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

I don't understand how people can say stuff like this with a straight face. 'Even though the campaigned against it and tried everything to stop it, I think you'll find that Brexit is the remainers' fault.' Seriously...

Brexit was always going to be like eating a chocolate cake with a poo filling because there was never any one definitive 'Brexit' that the 52% of the electorate voted on. The Brexit campaign worked purely on vague slogans like 'Take Back Control' that had zero substance to them and hid just how monumentally complex leaving the EU and having to negotiate a trade deal with their former partners was going to be. The Remain did a cataclysmic job in trying to get across the benefits of EU membership but to lay the blame of the shítshow that Brexit is now at their feet is crazy. It's like me hitting myself in the balls with a hammer and then giving out to the friend that tried to stop me about how much it hurt and blaming him for my swollen testicles.

Zubeneschamali

dublin49 wrote: »

Theresa May's deal was voted down 3 times simply because the remainers in the lib Dems and Labour were intent on a second referendum and went after the unattainable rather than compromise and accept the will of the people and vote thru a soft Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split in the electorate.

May's deal was not a soft Brexit, it was out of the Single Market and Customs Union, just like Johnsons. May was the one who drew those red lines to begin with.

And we can see from their antics now that if it had passed, the UK would have been threatening to tear it up ever since and demanding that the EU Do Something Or Else.

As Brexit was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.