Brexit discussion thread III

swampgas wrote: »

With reports coming in that Number 10 is at once "outraged" and "deeply disappointed" at the wholly unsurprising move

That kinda sums Brexit up.

1. Ignore all the clearly laid out information you're given and demand the most unrealistic and unreasonable things you can.

2. When this is refused, give out and claim you were taken unawares by this new development which was explained to you over 2 years ago.

Leroy42 wrote: »

In one way it must be super annoying to the voters in Britain that Brexit is potentially being curtailed due to the GFA, signed 20+ years ago and dealing with an issue on a totally separate island.

On the other hand, it is quite useful from the UK governments POv that the NI issue is such a stumbling block as it takes the conversation away from the myriad of other issues that they had equally failed to deal with.

I disagree with both your points. From a British perspective, we have finally won the argument vis a vis the necessity to have trade discussions before a border agreement can be put in place (despite misleading statements from the Irish Government concerning the legal status of the "backstop"). Our assertions that the Irish border will be no different from the French border and that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" remain unchallenged. We will soon be in the phase where our massive trade deficit with the EU and our future contributions to the EU come in to play. Tusk's assertion that Britain will not be able to negotiate Trade Agreements in the Transition phase has been thrown out.

Theresa May's hand and international reputation has been strengthened by a bunch of Russians who lack the guile and intellect of previous generations and a hapless Labour leader who hasn't got a clue. As was, she achieved 42% in the last election (against Merkel's 33% and FG's 25%). There is little doubt that the Conservatives will win the next election - it now looks like she will be allowed to lead them into that election.

Right now, she looks like one of the most influential and statesmanlike politicians in the world and the EU simply cannot afford to ignore her. A full and comprehensive trade agreement seems increasingly likely. Good for Britain and good for Ireland.

whatever_ wrote: »

From a British perspective, we have finally won the argument vis a vis the necessity to have trade discussions before a border agreement can be put in place (despite misleading statements from the Irish Government concerning the legal status of the "backstop").

It's worth noting that while discussions around trade can now begin, the legal text for the back-stop option is likely to be agreed before the EU put pen to paper regarding the political principles expected of a trade agreement.

From the Guardian:

Theresa May has been warned that she has less than three months to resolve the problem of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland as EU leaders formally endorsed the terms of the transition period and its vision of a future trade deal.


Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, said he hoped agreement struck between negotiators on 75% of a draft withdrawal agreement would propel the talks, before setting a June summit of leaders as a potential make or break moment.


The EU would not be prepared to turn to drafting a political declaration that will form the basis of a future trade deal until the UK provides legally watertight answers to the question of the Irish border, the former Polish prime minister suggested.

Notwithstanding a lot of discussion here about EU motives and future negotiation tactics, I believe it has very clearly signaled what its objectives are. Number one is protection of the integrity of the Single Market. But hard on the heals of that is a NI boarder settlement that the Irish government is willing to sign off on. (Other major objectives around the EU citizens in the UK and settlement payments are nearly done and dusted.) Both issues speak to core central self-perceptions of the EU ... and yes, just like the UK, the EU has them too and the EU's self-perceptions are just as hard to shift.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

Think the sacking also could have been done to distract from the latest anti semetism scandal which broke earlier on Friday. The UK is crying out for a serious European friendly party where the worst elements of the hard right of the tory party and the anti semitics and communists who love Corbyn are not welcome. The liberal Democrats are done..if not now, will we ever get such a much needed party?

Bit cynical wrote: »

You acknowledge that it is a risk but I don't think it is appreciated how risky. I doubt very much that the Irish government is pursuing this a a matter of policy. It is a strategy of brinkmanship. I can understand why the EU might be adopting it, because if it fails the consequences are felt most acutely in a small peripheral country that can be "firewalled" if necessary, but it is unlikely that Ireland is pushing it.

I think you miss the point. Yes, under the current strategy there is a risk that we will end up with a hard border. But under your suggested strategy, that risk is much greater - a virtual certainty, in my view.

Thus the strategy currently being followed, while it involves a risk of a hard border, doesn't increase that risk; it reduces it. It does't eliminate it, true, but there is no strategy which would eliminate it.

whatever_ wrote: »

We will soon be in the phase where our massive trade deficit with the EU and our future contributions to the EU come in to play.

Christ, two years after the referendum and people are still throwing out this muck. You need to look up the meaning of a pro-rata calculation and apply it to the affects on EU/UK economies that less trade will cause.

Two years after the referendum and nobody can even agree what it is that they are looking to achieve.

Yesterday for example, as part of a Commons debate in the passport contract, the Tories claimed that giving the contract to a foreign company, in line with WTO and EU rules was an example of taking back control. And then only reason they did it was because Labour signed them up to it in 2009!

Two years and they still seem to based on the plan to split the EU. IN his Sunday morning Marr Interview, Davies claimed that behind the scenes the 27 member states weren't as integrated as it appeared. That is the core of their strategy.

Two years and there is still no concrete proposal of how they will keep the NI border free (which they continually tell us they are fully committed to) and taking control of their own borders.

Two years and they still haven't explained why companies with the FSS, mainly the CoL, will remain in London rather than move to stay within the EU.

Two years and they still haven't put out any actual numbers on what they hope to achieve from these extra trade deals. The most we have got is that they will make up for any EU losses.

Two years later and no details have been given as to how they will cover the loss of EU funds from the links of Cornwall.

Two years later and with less than a year to go, for a hard brexit that they claim they still must prepare for, there is no evidence of any preparations. No additional land to deal with trucks at Dover. No additional personal to undertake the extra work. No IT systems in place to deal with the increased complexity.

The strategy was always the old British one of divide and conquer. Maybe the, sick bucket, was for the rest of us.

Christopher Wylie talking to MPs:

Vote Leave 'cheating' may well have swayed EU referendum result, Wylie tells MPs - Politics live


Still amazing to me, that the cheating is not a big deal. I have seen the very idea of being asked to vote again, seeing as undemocratic by Brexiters, which is of course a complete absurdity, but not a peep about the cheating, which clearly swayed the result (according to vote leave's Dominic Cummings who said the Internet campaign is what won it for them).

There is definitely a case for a 2nd referendum, which won't happen, as Brexiters don't care how they get Brexit. Lieing and cheating is how they do things, and democracy be damned.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

A laughable comment really.

Nate

I laughed

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is the problem, really.

The accusation against Corbyn, as far as I can see, is not that he's an antisemite. It's that he's culpably blind to antisemitism, and therefore an enabler of antisemitism.

And that accusation is reinforced, not rebutted, by explaining Corbyn's support for this artist by saying that Corbyn failed to see the (fairly blatant, it has to be said) antisemitic nature of the artwork concerned, a picture of which was included in the tweet to which Corbyn replied. Corbyn's failure to see such things is precisely the problem.

Can I just clarify (and this is a genuine question) why exactly you think the mural is anti-Semitic. I've heard James O'Brien state that it is clearly Jewish tropes, but my understanding was that the figures at the board game were meant to represent specific real people. Warbugs, Rockefellers, Cabots, Rothschilds and Morgans. Granted two of those are Jewish, but the common thread is that they are bankers and plutocrats. I'm not saying you are wrong, and it may well be that my antenna is not so finely tuned to these things, but I am genuinely perplexed that it just seems to be pretty much a given that the mural was intended to be anti-Semitic and frankly a little bit suspicious of it. (Note I said intended - I think in terms of art, a lot depends on what people bring to it, so in this case, I think the intent of the artist has some bearing)

Ellian wrote: »

Can I just clarify (and this is a genuine question) why exactly you think the mural is anti-Semitic. I've heard James O'Brien state that it is clearly Jewish tropes, but my understanding was that the figures at the board game were meant to represent specific real people. Warbugs, Rockefellers, Cabots, Rothschilds and Morgans. Granted two of those are Jewish, but the common thread is that they are bankers and plutocrats. I'm not saying you are wrong, and it may well be that my antenna is not so finely tuned to these things, but I am genuinely perplexed that it just seems to be pretty much a given that the mural was intended to be anti-Semitic and frankly a little bit suspicious of it. (Note I said intended - I think in terms of art, a lot depends on what people bring to it, so in this case, I think the intent of the artist has some bearing)

I don't think the artist's intention has as much bearing as the viewer's interpretation, to be honest. The meaning of the painting, like the meaning of any artwork, is constructed in the mind of the person engaging with it.

Even if the artist did intend to depict Warburg, Cabot, etc, I do not think he can have expected viewers to know this; their images are not exactly famous. But they will have noticed the hook noses, the hooded eyes, the hands being rubbed together and the other stock features of antisemitic caricatures. The images of the oppressed, by contrast, lack these features. For the slow-witted, there's the prominent Masonic symbolism in the background, evoking the standard antisemitic trope of bracketing international Jewry with Masonic conspiracy. The location of the mural in Brick Lane, at one time the heart of London's Jewish quarter and the location of the Great London Synagogue (now a mosque) is not irrelevant.

I'm willing to grant that this may be subjectively innocent on the part of the artist, since I cannot look into men's souls. But objectively this painting was always likely to be understood as an antisemitic work by most observers. Even Jeremy Corbyn, said to be cloth-eared when it comes to picking up on antisemitic overtones, agrees now that he has looked at the work that, yes, it is "deeply disturbing and antisemitic" and says that he wholeheartedly supports its removal.

whatever_ wrote: »

I disagree with both your points. From a British perspective, we have finally won the argument vis a vis the necessity to have trade discussions before a border agreement can be put in place (despite misleading statements from the Irish Government concerning the legal status of the "backstop"). Our assertions that the Irish border will be no different from the French border and that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" remain unchallenged. We will soon be in the phase where our massive trade deficit with the EU and our future contributions to the EU come in to play. Tusk's assertion that Britain will not be able to negotiate Trade Agreements in the Transition phase has been thrown out.

Theresa May's hand and international reputation has been strengthened by a bunch of Russians who lack the guile and intellect of previous generations and a hapless Labour leader who hasn't got a clue. As was, she achieved 42% in the last election (against Merkel's 33% and FG's 25%). There is little doubt that the Conservatives will win the next election - it now looks like she will be allowed to lead them into that election.

Right now, she looks like one of the most influential and statesmanlike politicians in the world and the EU simply cannot afford to ignore her. A full and comprehensive trade agreement seems increasingly likely. Good for Britain and good for Ireland.

may won 49% in a two horse race, however merkel and fg had a harder race to run, one really cannot compare the first past the post election with a propotional rep one

So MI6 went out onto the streets of Salsbury with Nocachov, WTF.
Wrong Forum

Teresa May begins the long march towards admitting that her magical customs solutions are not deliverable with the timeframe of the transitional period:

We are looking at different potential customs arrangements for the future in order to deliver on the commitments that we have made. We are now the point at being able to look in more detail with the European commission at some of those proposals. And I think it is fair to say that, as we get into the detail and as we look at these arrangements, then what becomes clear is that sometimes the timetables that have originally been set are not the timetables that are necessary when you actually start to look at the detail and when you delve into what it really is that you want to be able to achieve.

The question is whether this is a softening-up for a UK request to extend the transitional period, or a softening-up for a UK request to extend the Art. 50 notice period, or a softening-up for something else.