nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

charlie14

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is some detail as a follow up,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432165195296768

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432167783260162

So basically the UK was asking for a way to review the backstop but it seems to me the answer was a polite, sure we can have a review however it will not mean the backstop can just be ended by one side.

So nothing has changed then, Ireland are open to discussing the backstop after Brexit but it cannot be ended by the UK alone.

If she is looking for a review, then for that to mean anything someone is going to have to change their position surely ?

kowtow

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is some detail as a follow up,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432165195296768

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432167783260162

So basically the UK was asking for a way to review the backstop but it seems to me the answer was a polite, sure we can have a review however it will not mean the backstop can just be ended by one side.

So nothing has changed then, Ireland are open to discussing the backstop after Brexit but it cannot be ended by the UK alone.

In similar commercial negotiations (which this is not of course) the fact that each side has an effective veto on ending the backstop would normally be tempered by strict obligations on each side to act in good faith to find alternative solutions to avoid the backstop ever being used.

For example - if the UK is proposing alternative / technological arrangements to overcome the need for a backstop - Ireland would need to give these arrangements real consideration and be prepared to commit our own resources to making them work. They could not simply be dismissed out of hand.

I suspect that what the UK is looking for is a review mechanism to establish whether EU / Ireland has acted in good faith and used it's best efforts to avoid a backstop coming in to force rather than simply falling back on it.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm against brexit but think some of the posters on this forum seem to think the UK has committed a terrible sin to want to leave the EU-if it's a no deal brexit it will hurt the UK but all this talk of "watch them come crawling back " and they'll soon realise their mistake-40 years of gutter press..blah blah blah-where is all that bile and bitterness coming from?

I haven't seen much of that. But what you do see if plenty of posters feeling pretty pee'd off that the UK has taken such a decision, that will have serious negative impacts on Ireland, without having any regard for facts.

They continue to brush off major issue like NI, the border, the impact on Ireland. It is quite reasonable for people in Ireland to feel pretty let down by a country that we have worked hard to forge new and better relationships over the last number of years to see many of that work simply tossed aside on the altar of an idea that even they don't seem to fully understand.

Take the Express today for example. Headline about massive charges for travel visa's. One can argue about the level of the fee, but did they really think that it would be free? Why would the EU pay to set up a system to allow the UK to travel and not look to pass on the costs?

It is this sort of ignorant nonsense that, IMO, causes people to feel pretty unimpressed by the whole affair. That so much time and effort has had to be spent, whilst all this time the UK don't even know what it is they want but are pretty sure that others are being terribly mean by not giving it to them.

I think overall the EU and Ireland have actually handled this with decorum and sensitivity. The same cannot be said for the UK where you have government ministers calling the EU the same of the Soviet union and their are many other examples of that type of talk.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

Lets game the scenario where Farage might actually have a legitimate call to re-run a referendum if he had lost the first one

There is a streak of fatalism and stubborn pride in England ("Keep calm and carry on") typified by the people who say they voted Remain but lost and now just want Brexit over with. These people would prefer a crash out Brexit to having to admit that English voters were fooled by lies.

ilovesmybrick

funkey_monkey wrote: »

What does a 'Review Clause' actually mean?

Also why is Leo's twitter handle 'campaignforLeo'? Seems a bit dopey.

Pretty much that there will be a clause for the UK to withdraw, but that it can only be by agreement.

And I was thinking that myself, though the @taoiseach twitter handle appears to have been taken by some American lad!

Enzokk

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432162116681728

Here is some detail as a follow up,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432165195296768

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432167783260162

So basically the UK was asking for a way to review the backstop but it seems to me the answer was a polite, sure we can have a review however it will not mean the backstop can just be ended by one side.

So nothing has changed then, Ireland are open to discussing the backstop after Brexit but it cannot be ended by the UK alone.

breatheme

It would mean that the UK can say "hey, we think the backstop is no longer necessary, we should scrap it" but when they say that, rather than the UK scrapping the backstop, it would mean UK and EU/IE negotiators would sit down and review whether that is true or not.

kowtow

According to Tony Connolly the latest direction is some sort of "review" mechanism - third party? - for the NI backstop.

I've always felt that the UK "agreed" last December to a backstop assuming that both sides really wanted - in good faith - to work for a solution which made it unnecessary. At some subsequent point the backstop seemed to become the preferred solution itself and the UK realized that it had been out-maneuvered.

We're getting somewhere with the CU - the present suggestions look to be uncomfortable on both sides if left unfinished, not just on the UK side - but clearly something more needs to be written in for each side to feel that the other will be kept honest once the ink is dry.

Tell me how

Akrasia wrote: »

They could say that, but that wouldn't change the fact that the deal being voted on will be the deal/no deal that the UK will be getting on brexit day (30/03 or later if they give an extension for a referendum campaign)

Whataboutery works really well when the question is 'should britain leave the eu' but not so much when the question is "Should the UK leave the EU under the terms x y z as negotiated and agreed to by the EU" Yes or no. If No, "Should the UK withdraw article 50 and remain in the EU"

or "Should the UK complete article 50 and leave without any withdrawal agreement"

In theory, but the actual implementation of terms and their impact on communities and industries is often very different from what was originally intended.

ilovesmybrick

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059432162116681728

Akrasia

Tell me how wrote: »

A key thing in all of this is subjectivity. It is entirely possible for two politicians to speak about the same thing and paint an completely different picture.

Even your final two lines are not necessarily true. The Brexiteers would definitely muddy the water by saying that Theresa May actively made a mess of negotiations just so it would ultimately be rejected.

They could say that, but that wouldn't change the fact that the deal being voted on will be the deal/no deal that the UK will be getting on brexit day (30/03 or later if they give an extension for a referendum campaign)

Whataboutery works really well when the question is 'should britain leave the eu' but not so much when the question is "Should the UK leave the EU under the terms x y z as negotiated and agreed to by the EU" Yes or no. If No, "Should the UK withdraw article 50 and remain in the EU"

or "Should the UK complete article 50 and leave without any withdrawal agreement"

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm against brexit but think some of the posters on this forum seem to think the UK has committed a terrible sin to want to leave the EU-if it's a no deal brexit it will hurt the UK but all this talk of "watch them come crawling back " and they'll soon realise their mistake-40 years of gutter press..blah blah blah-where is all that bile and bitterness coming from?

I don't see any "watch them come crawling back" apart from some very rare posts.

I, amongst others, think they will ultimately regret this and look to return (largely based on them wanting to leave but retain all the benefits from being here).
(Ireland by the way are expect to proportionally suffer most by Brexit of all other countries)

There is virtually no 'bile and bitterness' here which is a rare thing for Boards threads on such political topics.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

You are right people don't like to think they are being told what to buy/vote/think, but just because they don't like to think about it doesn't make it true.

The reason there isn't a second referendum right now is because there is no political will for it. If the polls show a majority of people want a second referendum then you will see the likes of Yvette Cooper, who at the moment is going along with the Labour leadership line of following through on the result, change their minds.

We unfortunately cannot do much from Ireland though other than moan about it and just prepare for the worst but hope for the best.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

The other issue is that, whatever the shenanigans on the Leave side, the Remain campaign spend was about twice the size, even before you consider the natural advantage enjoyed by remain being the "established" position of the government and parliament.

RobMc59

McGiver wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

Based on the polls, at least 30% of English people actually believe this non-sense, lies, myths and delusions. They perceive them as truth and it's very difficult to convince them otherwise. 40 years of gutter press propaganda, it's difficult to undo this...not sure if it's even possible.

EDIT: I intentionally said English, because I don't think the situation is so bad in case of Scottish and Northern Irish folks. Not sure about the Welsh.

I'm against brexit but think some of the posters on this forum seem to think the UK has committed a terrible sin to want to leave the EU-if it's a no deal brexit it will hurt the UK but all this talk of "watch them come crawling back " and they'll soon realise their mistake-40 years of gutter press..blah blah blah-where is all that bile and bitterness coming from?

Tell me how

Akrasia wrote: »

If the remain side had campaigned purely on promises that they couldn't possibly deliver, and instead the the opposite was taking place, a potential deal that the majority of the public vehemently and demonstrably oppose, then Farage et al would be perfectly in their rights to call for a referendum on the new deal that they're about to sign with the EU

The 'peoples vote' would be the first time the subjects of the UK could make an informed choice on what leaving the EU actually means in a practical day to day way. They will know what deal, if any, has been negotiated, and what the consequences of that deal will be. It wouldn't be a repeat of the original referendum which was hopelessly vague. It would be a vote on a solid set of proposals.

A key thing in all of this is subjectivity. It is entirely possible for two politicians to speak about the same thing and paint an completely different picture.

Even your final two lines are not necessarily true. The Brexiteers would definitely muddy the water by saying that Theresa May actively made a mess of negotiations just so it would ultimately be rejected.

Akrasia

Tell me how wrote: »

I know about suggestions that more democracy is against democracy. But, if the tables were reversed and Farage was calling for UK to leave, he'd be told that he had to respect the will of the people.

They definitely will not leave and return quickly, but maybe as soon as 3-5 years or so? This is going to be painful.

Lets game the scenario where Farage might actually have a legitimate call to re-run a referendum if he had lost the first one

Lets say the 'remain' campaign had campaigned entirely on the premise that the EU were going to give the UK a great new deal included two hovercars in every driveway and a unicorn in every pot and that deal would be negotiated after the referendum.

But in the two years after that referendum, rather than the EU delivering on these promises, they had actually done the opposite and remaining in the EU would make the UK worse off than they were before the referendum was held

If the remain side had campaigned purely on promises that they couldn't possibly deliver, and instead the the opposite was taking place, a potential deal that the majority of the public vehemently and demonstrably oppose, then Farage et al would be perfectly in their rights to call for a referendum on the new deal that they're about to sign with the EU

The 'peoples vote' would be the first time the subjects of the UK could make an informed choice on what leaving the EU actually means in a practical day to day way. They will know what deal, if any, has been negotiated, and what the consequences of that deal will be. It wouldn't be a repeat of the original referendum which was hopelessly vague. It would be a vote on a solid set of proposals.

Tell me how

charlie14 wrote: »

I cannot see there being a 2nd ref either for much the same reasons. Even if there was it would not solve anything unless there was a very clear majority either way which I cannot see either.

That's why it will likely be so painful over coming years.

Saw somewhere that every time Tony Blair opens his mouth about the need for a peoples vote, it makes more people move away from it.

Also, Alistair Campbell is very actively pushing for the peoples vote. That is fine, but he had not interest in the peoples march of 1M against the war in Iraq.

People see that and think people are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

charlie14

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

I cannot see there being a 2nd ref either for much the same reasons. Even if there was it would not solve anything unless there was a very clear majority either way which I cannot see either.

An Ciarraioch

The Taoiseach sounding rather annoyed here:

http://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059425380648529921

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

Based on the polls, at least 30% of English people actually believe this non-sense, lies, myths and delusions. They perceive them as truth and it's very difficult to convince them otherwise. 40 years of gutter press propaganda, it's difficult to undo this...not sure if it's even possible.

EDIT: I intentionally said English, because I don't think the situation is so bad in case of Scottish and Northern Irish folks. Not sure about the Welsh.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

As for Brexit, the fact that there were so many lies and so much disinformation along with spending irregularities and possible criminal conduct by the Leave campaign is more than enough reason to vote again. If it was the other way I would hope most of us would agree that a election won with dubious means does not settle the result.

The problem with that line of thinking is that many leave voters would argue that despite the money spent, the facebook adds, etc, none of it influenced their vote.

Don't have statistics to hand, but I know that there is a very sizable amount of people that feel that advertising has little or no effect on them. So even if they accept that lies were said, fraud was undertaken etc, they will continue to say that none of it made any difference.

At the core, people hate to think that they are being manipulated. And many would actually see a 2nd ref vote, whatever the circumstances, as just that.

charlie14

Leroy42 wrote: »

So is the supposed deal that the UK would stay in the CU for a period of time to be decided by themselves and that NI would also stay in the CU on the same basis except that should the UK decided to leave the CU then NI would, under the backstop, have to remain within the CU?

So the UK would immediately (29th March) leave the SM, but for whatever time period NI remain within the SM. Doesn't that require customs checks in the Irish Sea?

Whatever this supposed deal is I would not see May having a snowballs chance in hell of her getting it past the HoC`s without some arrangement as to when or how the UK would exit this supposed CU arrangement.

That is the other item that has not been mentioned in this as far as I can see. The SM. Under this supposed deal is NI leaving the SM on March 29th as well?
If that is the case then there will have to be customs checks regardless of how they are dressed up.
I really cannot see how this supposed deal would change anything as regards a backstop unless their is a movement from their positions by either the UK or the EU.

Angry bird

Tell me how wrote: »

I know about suggestions that more democracy is against democracy. But, if the tables were reversed and Farage was calling for UK to leave, he'd be told that he had to respect the will of the people.

They definitely will not leave and return quickly, but maybe as soon as 3-5 years or so? This is going to be painful.

I'd suggest that it could take up to 10 years for our neighbours to come to terms with 'the EU is not our enemy'. So while no deal EU preparations have to step up, we will need to discuss and amend the practicalities of a CTA in order to minimise the damage and defend the GFA insofar as possible. Also throw into the mix the possibility of a border poll, and a second Scottish referendum.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059419396362420224

Enzokk

Tell me how wrote: »

I know about suggestions that more democracy is against democracy. But, if the tables were reversed and Farage was calling for UK to leave, he'd be told that he had to respect the will of the people.

They definitely will not leave and return quickly, but maybe as soon as 3-5 years or so? This is going to be painful.

I guess it would depend on the argument though. If the argument is just to rerun the election because you didn't like the result you deserve to be laughed at. But as with the Scottish referendum the smart move for those on the losing side would be to wait for a change in the circumstance or if more information was available that could change people's minds. In the case for Scottish independence it should be reasonable to ask the question again seeing that one of the arguments used by the No campaign was that leaving the UK would mean leaving the EU. Seeing that this is now actually happening it means a change in circumstance and a new question could be asked.

As for Brexit, the fact that there were so many lies and so much disinformation along with spending irregularities and possible criminal conduct by the Leave campaign is more than enough reason to vote again. If it was the other way I would hope most of us would agree that a election won with dubious means does not settle the result.

As for the UK coming back to the EU, who knows. People are hard headed enough to resist if they feel strong enough that they are being slighted in some way. Even with disastrous consequences you will still have people who will insist that it is the right thing to do. Humans are irrational beings.

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree that Brexiteers will try to paint a second referendum as going against the will of the people and democracy, but only an idiot will say that allowing more democracy is against democracy.

I also think that one option is to let them leave without a deal and they will be back hoping to re-join within a few months of chaos, but the harm we will suffer will be substantial as well and Europe has more pressing issues than having to deal with the UK having a crisis of confidence on where they stand in the new pecking order of the post empire world.

I know about suggestions that more democracy is against democracy. But, if the tables were reversed and Farage was calling for UK to leave, he'd be told that he had to respect the will of the people.

They definitely will not leave and return quickly, but maybe as soon as 3-5 years or so? This is going to be painful.

Enzokk

Tell me how wrote: »

I think Brexit is ridiculous, ill contrived and motivated by selfishness, but, if it comes about to a referendum on a negotiated deal versus staying in the EU then I think that is not overly a positive thing either.
Like it or not, it will be used by leavers to say that democracy was railroaded and also that this is not the best deal which could have been negotiated. They will claim that all suggestions of negative impact were just scaremongering. This would be fuel to eurosceptics rhetoric against the union.

Better to leave and then have a referendum to rejoin ASAP in my view. Even though that too will look ridiculous and the impact on Ireland will still be significant as well.

I agree that Brexiteers will try to paint a second referendum as going against the will of the people and democracy, but only an idiot will say that allowing more democracy is against democracy.

I also think that one option is to let them leave without a deal and they will be back hoping to re-join within a few months of chaos, but the harm we will suffer will be substantial as well and Europe has more pressing issues than having to deal with the UK having a crisis of confidence on where they stand in the new pecking order of the post empire world.

Enzokk

Tell me how

Water John wrote: »

Channel 4 Poll shows 43 to 37% in favour of a 2nd Ref on the negotiated Deal v Staying in the EU.

I think Brexit is ridiculous, ill contrived and motivated by selfishness, but, if it comes about to a referendum on a negotiated deal versus staying in the EU then I think that is not overly a positive thing either.
Like it or not, it will be used by leavers to say that democracy was railroaded and also that this is not the best deal which could have been negotiated. They will claim that all suggestions of negative impact were just scaremongering. This would be fuel to eurosceptics rhetoric against the union.

Better to leave and then have a referendum to rejoin ASAP in my view. Even though that too will look ridiculous and the impact on Ireland will still be significant as well.