Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh come on, we've had numerous posts on here about banks et al moving to Dublin. The exodus I believe Eddy keeps referring to it as.

then there was the sure fire one about the company moving it's HQ and hundreds of staff to Dublin, except that was false as well. Plus of course, Enda harping on about this leading to a united Ireland.

Ireland really needs to come up with contingency plans in case the eu prevents the CTA from continuing and insisting on a hard border. This could mean Ireland having to choose between the eu and the GFA. I just hope Ireland hasn't used up all its good will in Brussels.

Where are there examples of politicians not being aware of the implications of a hard Brexit?
Here is what you actually said Fred:

it looks like the penny is dropping with Irish politicians as well, that a hard Brexit could be disastrous for Ireland.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland could end up worse off

The predictions over here before the vote were that Ireland would end up being more negatively affected by brexit than even the UK would be. The strategy since could be best summed up as "when life gives you lemons..."

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the long and the short of it is, the eu will want to do a trade deal with the UK, as it is their largest trading partner. it makes simple economic sense.

Sure, but there is no point in pretending that the eventual deal won't reflect the political and economic reality, and that those realities are tilted against the UK.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh come on, we've had numerous posts on here about banks et al moving to Dublin. The exodus I believe Eddy keeps referring to it as.

then there was the sure fire one about the company moving it's HQ and hundreds of staff to Dublin, except that was false as well. Plus of course, Enda harping on about this leading to a united Ireland.

Ireland really needs to come up with contingency plans in case the eu prevents the CTA from continuing and insisting on a hard border. This could mean Ireland having to choose between the eu and the GFA. I just hope Ireland hasn't used up all its good will in Brussels.

Banks moving to Ireland will not stop Brexit from being a bad thing. People were not claiming otherwise. Sure we will get some of the financial sector but there are other issues at play.

I mentioned linking banks moving to Ireland and a hard Brexit being a good thing for Ireland as a false equivalence before and yer you persist.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've already pointed those out.

Constant leaked stories of banks looking to move to Dublin, how this could lead to a united Ireland.

The last one was particularly good, because it shifted focus from the negatives and managed to get everyone talking about that instead.

The government/Irish politicians are ''leaking stories' about banks moving now?

Well you will be able to definitely link to that.

RasTa wrote: »

Have you seen any firm plans from the conservatives?

Looks like (in the absence of any links/back up) Fred has 'seen' and heard things nobody else has. You can get tablets for that.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Working for his country, it should be seen as an absolute honour. He should respect the will of the people and get on with it. Stop trying to bend and weave and do everything to stall. Someone a few pages back said reverse this decision, what is that all about?

If the Irish people voted on something, should it be ignored and the will of the people go unheard? It is farcical, we might as well not have a democracy, you vote for something and it is ignored, makes the vote utterly useless.

He does respect the will of the people, that's why he resigned. Stop trying to paint everyone who isn't happy about the result as some sort of political suspect. Just because the vote was for Brexit does not mean that now everybody has to be in favour of it. It shouldn't be reversed, there shouldn't be another vote. But you can't force everyone to be happy about it, and this person in particular felt that it made it impossible for him to continue the work he had been given. So he did the honourable thing and quit.

The Irish people recently voted for same sex marriage, but I don't see anyone forcing the Catholic church to hold the ceremonies.
I can see that you enjoy a bot of outrage, but do try and construct some sturdier strawmen, this is just silly.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the traitor accusations are ridiculous, but i'm not sure resigning is the honourable thing either. He is one the most experienced people in Brussels, he is needed now more than ever.

I'm well aware that the diplomats with relevant experience in the UK are currently more than a little thin on the ground, and I seem to recall he's not the first to resign either.

However, I can understand that he would feel that he cannot in good faith do the job he's being asked to do if he feels the whole thing's a mistake. And I think it's more honourable to admit that and resign than to carry on regardless when someone else who is actually convinced about it may do a better job. I would be very hesitant to take on a project at work if I feel I can't do the best possible job, and I don't work in anywhere near as important a position.

A Little Pony wrote: »

He never should have been put in that position in the first place. Like it was said on Good Morning Britain today, it would be like getting a divorce and hiring a lawyer who loves your wife. It is stupid and him resigning is good news. We need people put in place who actually want Brexit, will be doing everything to hurry it up. 

This is the same guy who was part of David Cameron's negotiating team when he went to the EU to get a better deal before he put the referendum to the British electorate. Possibly the worst negotiations in the history of the United Kingdom, which was the nail in the coffin as far as the UK staying part of the EU was concerned.

Actually remainers should be blaming him as much as anyone as to why the UK is leaving the EU, he was part of that terrible attempt to gain concessions, he should blame himself.

He was appointed in 2013 - that was well before Cameron even mentioned the possibility of an EU membership referendum. I think it's fair to say that his role has changed beyond recognition when he decided to resign.

You think that the publicity stunt that was Cameron's "concessions" was actually worse than Chamberlain's Munich agreement? Or are you just looking for things to get wound up about at this point?

Shenshen wrote: »

He does respect the will of the people, that's why he resigned. Stop trying to paint everyone who isn't happy about the result as some sort of political suspect. Just because the vote was for Brexit does not mean that now everybody has to be in favour of it. It shouldn't be reversed, there shouldn't be another vote. But you can't force everyone to be happy about it, and this person in particular felt that it made it impossible for him to continue the work he had been given. So he did the honourable thing and quit.

The Irish people recently voted for same sex marriage, but I don't see anyone forcing the Catholic church to hold the ceremonies.
I can see that you enjoy a bot of outrage, but do try and construct some sturdier strawmen, this is just silly.

Good post.

Just to add to that (and im sure you know): He wasnt anti-Brexit. He was just honest about how long it would take to accomplice. This should be useful info for Theresa May from the UKs most experienced EU diplomat.

As we know the referendum was advisory. The UK referendum on electoral reform was binding.
The advisory referendum is legally completed. A done deal. Nothing further need be done to satisfy any legal requirement.

The high court ruled that the parliament alone has the authority to invoke A50. Not the royal perogative and certainly not the result of the advisory referendum.

The spirit of this ruling is that the parliament should debate this fully and decide based on what is best for the UK.

The attempt to force this through parliament with a 3 line Act and a caveat that the opposition have to pass it in exchange for any discussion is another attempt by Theresa May to subvert democracy.

The fact that the UK government wont know if A50 is revocable or not before invoking it shows how deplorable the Brexit campaign is.

If it is revocable then the Parliament can vote on or reject the deal. Also if there is a significant shift in public opinion a new referendum could be called.

If it is not revocable then the parliament (if they get a say) will surely accept whatever deal no matter how bad. The alternative is Brexit with no deal do better to shoot yourself in the leg than the head.

If it is revacable (decision probably july 2017). Then it changes the nature of teh negotiations completely for the UK. They must now negotiate a deal that they know will have to pass the UK parliament who can revoke it.