Brexit discussion thread III

No basis ? Mark rutter from NL came over last time and told us to take the backstop as we had spotted ways the UK might try and weasel out.

The clock is being run down - a deal should be in place now - thats undeniable. I am telling you - that's how its going to work.

Show me an alternative.

The UK used to want to be a part of the EU

We need to ask the question: What is the EU for? And to get to the answer, we need to look at
what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does
not so well, and those it does badly. Only once we have a clear sense of our citizens' priorities
can we sensibly ensure the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver
them. The European Union is for the citizens of Europe, not the political elites of Europe.
That means focussing discussion not on the process but on the results of EU co-operation. Only
ideologues and specialists are impassioned by esoteric technical issues like the extent of
qualified majority voting or the limits of co-decision.
People care most about the practical benefits they can derive from the EU: more jobs, cleaner
streets, less crime. This is where the debate should begin

Jack Straw, when the UK had the EU Presidency and was pushing through the Nice treaty back in 2001.

sorry forgot link http://ec.europa.eu/dorie/fileDownload.do;jsessionid=v6B0JKLMVmhn4s3gt6Tn9psT7TqSTPr81055gfZF1dSxpWLj2WZG!-1645751347?docId=105369&cardId=105369

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Did he challenge her on it?

He didn't really, he asked her if she really believed there would be a Brexit dividend and she said 'Yes' and she was never questioned where this dividend would come from.

trellheim wrote: »

Yes I know it was a somewhat different comparison in terms of the situation faced - my point was more the gun-to-the-head lack of choice.

My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .

Your point seems to be if you ignore everything else and just focus on the fact that Greece was forced into a solution it was unwilling to implement on its own, the same could happen to Ireland.

I could just as easily say that Darren Murphy was jailed for life by the courts and so I can see no reason why the same can't happen to me. That's if you ignore the fact that he stabbed his girlfriend to death and burned down her house. All that matters is that courts have a history of jailing people for life.

Context matters and you're failing to account for it.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not sure if you guys saw this in ths Sunday Times last week, thought it was brilliant.

Thats brilliant. Sums up the whole train wreck that is brexit perfectly methinks.

Peregrinus wrote: »

When the Bill for holding the referendum was before Parliament, there was discussion of whether there should be a requirement for a qualified majority - a majority overall, plus a majority in at least three of the constituent parts of the UK, or a majority including at least 40% of the electorate (so the referendum couldn't be decided by a narrow margin on a low turnout) - that kind of thing. There is precedent for this in referendums that the UK has held before, e.g. the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979.

But the governnment's position was that this wasn't necessary, since the outcome of the referendum would not be legally binding. If the government didn't think that the referendum result reflected a sufficient national consensus, it could decide not to act on it.

In advance of the referendum actually being held, the Tories committed to "respect" the result, which the honours students will note is not quite the same thing as a commitment to implement the result.

However, since the referendum result, the Tories have been hijacked by ultra-Brexiters who assert that the referendum results reflects an immutable "Will of the People™", that their interpretation of the result represents dogma before which all must bow, and that any suggestion of consulting the people or thelr elected represntatives further must be resisted, since it represents an opportunity for the people to betray the Will of the People™.

Only about 10% of MPs in Parliament wanted to leave the EU. This was no exercise in democracy - the process was hijacked first by Cameron and then by the hard Brexit loons and their pals in the press.

Context does matter and I am accounting for it - and a couple of posters here take issue with me saying we would be forced into a deal.

Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level

You think I don't know that ? I've been reading every single bit of PR from the EU, and from Barnier, Tusk, and Verhofstadt and most of the recent Commons (and Dail ) debates - I know the context, and still, I persist.

Do you honestly believe the EU will hold it up if Ireland has a problem with <whatever gets agreed in the next few weeks > ? A lot of the transition agreement has been hammered out, they are at the difficult bits <Ireland etc> ..



Greece is very relevant - small state, beholden to the banks , gets told what to do.

A slightly viable thing is transition agreement with no NI piece in it <can kicking> and that is what I would say we will get told to take. It's an opinion - you're all entitled to your own. What would YOU say will be the outcome from the June EU negotiations and summit ?


In relation to the OP above who mentioned an A50 extension, yes its possible but the UK would have to ask for it, and the ERG would collapse the UK government IMHO because out-means-out

Mrs May said: "In the week beginning the 9th of July we will publish a white paper which will set out, in more detail than the speeches any of us have given ... we will set out in more detail the ambition we have for the relationship with the European Union in future."

You will note that this is after the EU summit . There is shenanigans going on here because the time for this was before the summit so it could be considered then.

And if she does believe it then why all the angst and debate about Brexit. It should be done and dusted. 'Thank you EU, its been great, but we are better off without you.'

Not only are they going to able to pocket the savings on the annual contributions, but obviously she believes that at worst there will be no material negative effects on the UK economy.

Why even look for the 2 years, never mind a transition? And if they hold all these benefits then on what basis is she agreeing to any requests from the EU so far?

It simply makes no logical sense and that she is allowed to simply state this in an interview with no questioning at all is a serious lack of integrity from the BBC

trellheim wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the EU will hold it up if Ireland has a problem with <whatever gets agreed in the next few weeks > ? A lot of the transition agreement has been hammered out, they are at the difficult bits <Ireland etc> ..

Greece is very relevant - small state, beholden to the banks , gets told what to do.

Okay so you say you've accounted for context but still insist that the EU will betray Ireland for the benefit of the UK, selling it's out own interest at the same time. Lets examine the exact consequences of such a deal for the EU

Benefits

• EU can lessen damage to a large export market (this is also in Ireland's interests to an even greater degree)

Negatives

• EU has to secure a new border in order to protect the single market from unfair competition
• It has to secure a border of an unwilling member state, where it relies solely on said member state to enforce rules
• EU has to deal with a growing security situation on it western border, where it's already dealing with serious concerns on its eastern border
• EU demonstrates that it's unable to protect member states interest against competing interests of non-members
• EU demonstrates that it can be pushed around if a big enough stick is used (think US trade dispute)
• EU loses privileged access to a large export market and damages exports (even if less than in a no-deal senario)

You're making the same mistake that Brexit strategists (and I use that term loosely) have by thinking that the barest economic interests can outweigh the political interests of the EU.

Even the Greek situation was driven by political concerns that voters in Northern Europe could not countenance paying for the perceived largess of the Greek government and people when they themselves were making economic sacrifices. Greece would have be far easier to solve if Merkel and co did not have to consider their own domestic political interests and instead could focus solely on the economics.

You will have to demonstrate with more clarity why you think the deal the UK wants will benefit the EU more than no-deal, baring in mind that the exact same can be said for Ireland.

trellheim wrote: »

It's an opinion - you're all entitled to your own

I know you're entitled to your opinion, I'm not attacking your right to an opinion. TBH this shows a lack of foundation to your argument if you're starting to feel your right to an opinion is being challenged.

trellheim wrote: »

What would YOU say will be the outcome from the June EU negotiations and summit ?

I would say can kicking is most likely, which will lead to a no-deal cash out next March. I don't believe that will last long as Theresa May's government is guaranteed to collapse. There will be an election and a possible split in the Tory party.

At that stage a hard no-deal brexit will be reality. Imports and exports will crash leading to food shortages (not starvation, just not being able to find your favourite brand of vegetable extract paste), medicine shortages (not all medicines just some specific medicines) and a contracting economy with rising unemployment, inflation etc.

The hard brextremists will no llonger be able to paint a rosy picture of sunlit green fields. Immigration will no longer be the number one factor, the immediate crisis will outweigh all other considerations. The remain side of the Tory party will take over or else the party will split. Corbyn will also campaign on signing a deal on customs and the single market.

The UK will be back within a year looking to sign a deal with the EU along the lines they EU has laid out since the beginning.

The only plausible alternative is that the Theresa May caves and reaches across the aisle for support to pass a soft brexit. However i think this is becoming more unlikely.

trellheim wrote: »

I may be wrong - indeed I hope I am but I cannot see an alternative. It suits the ERG to crash out March 2019 ( at this stage they can see it in their grasp ) and the UK media will be happy to sell no-deal as EU messing. UK Labour are in favour of Brexit

Labour are not in favour a "no deal" Brexit. They are likely to show some flexibility on NI and would be able to build a deal.

J Mysterio wrote: »

This.

The way May tries to put on her 'excited' persona makes me ill. And the canned lines 'I thought you were going to ask that' - how many times have we heard this? Is it all pre-arranged?

The BBC has abdicated their responsibility in fear of more funding cuts. The softly softly approach they take towards interviews with Brexiteers and the their goal to find "balance" means they actually give more time to the minority position. They are not balanced in their quest to be balanced, and to be honest they should be able to tell someone if they are an idiot without trying to appease them.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Labour are not in favour a "no deal" Brexit. They are likely to show some flexibility on NI, one sticking issue and would be able to build a deal.

Labour seems to want their cake and to eat it as well. They want to trade with the EU and be in a customs union but make their own trade deals. The only difference I can see at the moment is that Labour will allow NI to be tied to the single market and the customs union to avoid a border and protect the GFA. At the moment they have no shackles around their necks on NI and as Barnier pointed out could sell a sea border as nothing more or less than what is happening now with checks that I believe does happen.