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

Strazdas

Tell me how wrote: »

The greater the distance between the present time and a previous event, the more the particulars get squashed in to a broad acceptance of what actually happened.

Him who must not be named increasing in popularity throughout a decade leading up to the start of WW2 for example.

What will future people be told about the Brexit experience. From Cameron holding the referendum, Farage campaigning, the result, his resignation, Tory leadership battle, general election, negotiations with DUP, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, accepted backstop, confirmed accepted backstop, deal done, Russian involvement in Leave campaign funds and so on.

What will be the 30-40 word sentence which encapsulates all of that in 100 years?
Hard to see it being one which shows the UK in a positive light irrespective of what is yet to come.

Brexit will be seen as an entirely negative event, even within five years and especially if there is a public enquiry and criminality is exposed.

It took a good 5-6 years for Blair to fall from grace over the invasion of Iraq but once it happened, his fall was total. The same will happen with the Brexit mob, they will be regarded as spivs and charlatans soon enough.

Kermit.de.frog

Theresa May wants Auntie Angie to sort things out - presumably put the Irish in their place to get a deal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-appeals-to-merkel-in-final-push-for-divorce-deal-nwxcjgc59#Echobox=1541611237

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Theresa May wants Auntie Angie to sort things out - presumably put the Irish in their place to get a deal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-appeals-to-merkel-in-final-push-for-divorce-deal-nwxcjgc59#Echobox=1541611237

Is it the German car manufacturers again? Please tell me it's not the German car manufacturers again.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Theresa May wants Auntie Angie to sort things out - presumably put the Irish in their place to get a deal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-appeals-to-merkel-in-final-push-for-divorce-deal-nwxcjgc59#Echobox=1541611237

Would this be the same Angela that didn't do so well in the recent elections ?

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe Angela Merkel should step down as chancellor next year, according to a poll out Wednesday.

Soshouldn't the UK be talking to Mini-Merkel Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer her likely replacement ?

But the UK 'd know that if they were serious and weren't just rearranging the deck chairs on that big Belfast boat.

I still think May has a been in her bonnet about the European Courts, which she'd see as a silver lining on a hard Brexit.

BonnieSituation

Nody wrote: »

Nah m8; they need a space force!

You're probably right. Luxembourg is actually nearer to space than they are to the sea!

trellheim

its being pushed as just these last few points... surely we can meet in the middle when in fact you left the hardest bit to the end

Dyr

Interesting details on an angle that has come up before:

Stormont actually has the final say on any arrangement the UK govt. comes up with for the North:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/11/northern-ireland-constitutional-settlement-a-brexit-booby-trap.html

charlie14

Enzokk wrote: »

Well that is one of the problems. She is in bed with a party looking for a border if it means no border East to West, which is only slightly behind no deal on the scale of things we definitely should not do.

It will be interesting to see what Labour does here, if they stand together and vote as a block, minus Kate Hoey, against the deal they will have a chance at a next election and Jeremy Corbyn will also look more authoritative in his quest to No.10.

I cannot see May getting a deal that is going to keep the DUP on side. If Labour also vote against it en masse, minus Hoey, then it`s no deal.

At that stage there is one of two things would happen. Next vote of no confidence DUP vote against May and she is gone. Or with there being no deal they have what they wanted and they vote with her keeping her their knowing that if there is a GE, Corbyn may becomes PM, and they are irrelevant.

If there is no deal, best case scenario for us is a British GE sooner rather than later, Labour win, and the EU allows Corbyn to re-negotiate.

That said, a deal is in our best interests and Labour voting to reject a May deal could be a problem for them if it caused a GE.

Rain Ascending

prawnsambo wrote: »

The memoirs of anyone in Brussels dealing with this will be highly amusing

Normally, you would have to be careful of tweets like this from what is a senior Labour figure like Adonis. However, elements do sound familiar. Remember only a week or so ago, it was reported that Raab proposed (*) to Coveney that the backstop should be limited to 3 months. Lillington (May's trusted lieutenant, now charged with improving the relationship with Dublin) had to do "clean-up" by withdrawing that proposal, again (reportedly) to Raab's fury.

Raab is clearly not part of May's trusted inner circle. But with reports like this, one would have to say that he is also not on the same page as the rest of the UK negotiating team either.

(*) Actually I'm being generous here, the verb used in the Irish Times report that I'm looking at was "demanded"!

Tell me how

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Raab is clearly not part of May's trusted inner circle. But with reports like this, one would have to say that he is also not on the same page as the rest of the UK negotiating team either.

I posted a comment earlier about History judging the Brexit experience.

Along the same lines, how will May be judged? Or more pointedly, How will she judged on the 30th of March next year? I'm neither a fan nor a critic of hers (as much as any non British person living outside the UK can be either). But, I've been thinking about this question recently.

It's easy list the negatives? She is head of a government from which there has been false statements, poor performance, open-rebellion misunderstanding of EU and Irish arguments etc in terms of Brexit. NHS, Windrush, Grenfell, universal credit negative storylines there are aplenty, but;

She picked up a poisoned chalice fully expecting to be stabbed in the back at a moments notice on the whim of conservative conservatives.
She called a GE which in hindsight was a bad move, but upfront seemed a brave attempt to control the process. She negotiated Chequers within her government and then withstood the absconding of Davis and Johnson. She looks like she will maybe get to the point of bring a deal to parliament for a meaningful vote which may well pass as much because of apathy at the thought of this negotiating process continuing further or by MP's afraid of being seen to go against the will of the people.

Could all of that not be argued as evidence that she was at least a willing and determined PM? I'm not ignoring UK domestic politic issues which have been badly managed and so on but I also think these are understandable to some degree given the focus on Brexit of the entire house of parliament.
What I would definitely say in May's favour is that she had the resolve to grasp the nettle unlike others such as Johnson, Gove and Davis who weren't willing to.
I expect she will not ultimately last that long, nor be looked on favourably but I think this might be doing her a disservice (slightly).

Rain Ascending

Bambi wrote: »

Interesting details on an angle that has come up before:

Stormont actually has the final say on any arrangement the UK govt. comes up with for the North:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/11/northern-ireland-constitutional-settlement-a-brexit-booby-trap.html

There is a big assumption in the article:

Any change regarding Norther Ireland’s border and customs arrangements and/or regulatory supervision needs to be approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The article clearly means this in a legal sense, rather than a political one and bases all the subsequent points on this. I'm not sure that is true. Most of the arguments around the GFA and Brexit have been centered on the (potentially huge) impact Brexit, in all its possible forms, has on the political intent behind the operation of the GFA.

If there is a legal argument to be made here, I haven't heard of anybody trying to go to the courts to establish its veracity.

Peregrinus

I disagree. When it mattered, May shirked grasping the nettle.

And it particularly mattered in two areas. First, she chose to foster and encourage a have-cake-and-eat-it approach to Brexit which helped give rise to expectations that could never be met, and laid the grounds for the UK government to adopt red lines that it should never have adopted. The chickens that are coming home to roost now were hatched then.

And, secondly,when the time came to stop saying "Brexit means Brexit" and actually decide what kind of Brexit would be targetted, May chose to target a hard brexit to please the right wing of her own party, even though she knew there was no majority for this in the country, and that doing so would sabotage fatally any prospects of developing a consensus Brexit that could secure the assent of remainers who accepted that they had lost the referendum (which, initially, was a very large group).

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. When it mattered, May shirked grasping the nettle.

And it particularly mattered in two areas. First, she chose to foster and encourage a have-cake-and-eat-it approach to Brexit which helped give rise to expectations that could never be met, and laid the grounds for the UK government to adopt red lines that it should never have adopted. The chickens that are coming home to roost now were hatched then.

And, secondly,when the time came to stop saying "Brexit means Brexit" and actually decide what kind of Brexit would be targetted, May chose to target a hard brexit to please the right wing of her own party, even though she knew there was no majority for this in the country, and that doing so would sabotage fatally any prospects of developing a consensus Brexit that could secure the assent of remainers who accepted that they had lost the referendum (which, initially, was a very large group).

I don't entirely disagree with your points. I'm wondering was her haphazard behaviour of pandering to various interests an indication as to the tightrope she was walking given a 52-48% vote in the referendum.
At that point (and even now to the letter of the law) the majority did want Brexit and so democracy had to be upheld by being seen to deliver it.

There is a reason why David Cameron was whistling as he walked away from the microphone having had resigned. The only thing he didn't do was the mock 'wash hands and shake them dry' move as he did so.

I'm being devils advocate here to a large degree, the UK government and national discourse has been a shambles since the referendum was announced and she is the leader of the ship since the referendum.

I think the strongest indicators of her poor performance was invoking article 50 before they were ready to do so. But, if she hadn't done, the knives would have come out rather than just being sharpened in the background.

Rain Ascending

Rain Ascending wrote: »

If there is a legal argument to be made here, I haven't heard of anybody trying to go to the courts to establish its veracity.

Oops, it seems it has been tested in the UK courts. In comments from Neville Bagnall to a Slugger O'Toole posting, he quotes from a UK Supreme Court judgement:

135. In our view, this important provision, which arose out of the Belfast Agreement, gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to determine whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or to become part of a united Ireland. It neither regulated any other change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland nor required the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Contrary to the submission of Mr Lavery QC for Mr McCord, this section cannot support any legitimate expectation to that effect.

Neville, himself, also makes the following very reasonable point:

I have sympathy for Unionist feelings on this, but you can't have it both ways. If the spirit of consent matters in relation to the backstop, it matters in relation to Brexit itself.

Peregrinus

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't entirely disagree with your points. I'm wondering was her haphazard behaviour of pandering to various interests an indication as to the tightrope she was walking given a 52-48% vote in the referendum.
At that point (and even now to the letter of the law) the majority did want Brexit and so democracy had to be upheld by being seen to deliver it.

Yes. But the reality was that the 52% who voted for Brexit was in reality made up of minorities which have voted for different, and inconsistent, Brexits. There was no actual Brexit that May could deliver which would command the support of the entire 52%.

Yet she had to deliver Brexit. What she needed to do, then, was to develop a Brexit capable of securing some degree of consensus assent. The 48% who lost the referendum understood that there had to be some kind of Brexit, and many of them would have been open to asseting to, if not enthusiastically supporting, a Brexit which was obviously crafted to take account of their concerns and to try to accommodate them to some degree.

So what May should have done was to target not a hard Brexit designed to gratify her own party's right wing, but a soft Brexit designed to satisfy the broad middle of the Tory party, and to win over Remainers by seeking to alleviate their worst concerns.

That would have required her to face down the right of her party. She bottled out.

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the strongest indicators of her poor performance was invoking article 50 before they were ready to do so. But, if she hadn't done, the knives would have come out rather than just being sharpened in the background.

Again, this is a failure to grasp the nettle. The nettle she needed to grasp there was telling her own Brexiters that until there was a settled consensus in the UK on the aims and outcome of Brexit, and the path to acheiving them, serving A50 notice was premature, and not in the country's interest. And, again, she ducked grasping the nettle.

Mc Love

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Theresa May wants Auntie Angie to sort things out - presumably put the Irish in their place to get a deal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-appeals-to-merkel-in-final-push-for-divorce-deal-nwxcjgc59#Echobox=1541611237

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party’s chief whip, went further, saying that the advice should be published because it is “in the public interest that we understand fully what is happening”. “It affects the whole of the United Kingdom and therefore shouldn’t just be the DUP that sees the advice or the government,” he said.

The funny thing is Mr Donaldson, not one person in the rest of the UK cares about NI

lawred2

Mc Love wrote: »

The funny thing is Mr Donaldson, not one person in the rest of the UK cares about NI

They only care when they are getting in the way

mickoneill31

This weeks Cakewatch podcast is very interesting. https://cakewatch.fireside.fm/
They talk about European foreign policy and how it's agreed. I didn't know that foreign policy decisions had to be unanimous to the 28 (27) for example.

But half way through they talk about the benefits to the EU if the UK leaves and the disadvantages to the EU if the UK stays. If the UK has another referendum it'll only win by a small majority (either way). If it's to stay in the EU, it'll probably give a voice to the people who want to reform the EU to suit Britain. That's just leaving a thorn in the EUs side. They want the UK to stay but can see that it won't be the same as before. For myself I think the UK has done huge damage to its reputation of the last two years. If they stay I'd guess that any clout they have in the EU will be diminished. If they jump up and down and want their own way what can they threaten if Brexit has failed.

They also talked a bit about negotiating with Ireland / EU and how the UK didn't understand it. The UK thought it could roll over Ireland and has been a bit confused that the EU is standing by a small member state. We knew this already but it's good to hear it from somebody who used to advise the Torys.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: I think this thread has gone a little off topic. Take the in-depth military stuff to a new thread please or to the Military forum.

Post deleted.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Mc Love wrote: »

The funny thing is Mr Donaldson, not one person in the rest of the UK cares about NI

They only care when they are getting in the way

I'd disagree with that statement but do think a UI would be the right thing for everyone-if the UK,Ireland and EU could come up with a practical plan to negate the obvious stumbling points-NHS,stamp duty and car tax etc.

Leroy42

On Mays legacy, the fact that one can list so many major mistakes and mis-steps she has taken and the only real positive is that she managed to stay in power and was a better option than the likes of Johnson, Davis and JRM is telling in of itself.

She has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. Both in her abject handling of Brexit (which one could argue was always a unicorn inspired dead horse) which whilst always going to be incredibly difficult due to the divisions in her own party (which she was well aware of) was made even more so by her singular inability to bring people along with her vision past the faintest acceptance. As was pointed out, her rush to trigger A50, before having any clear plan of what she wanted, what they were willing to do, how they would achieve it and how they were going to bring the UK along with her.

The fact that they are still negotiating shows you that they really hadn't a clue. If the red lines were really thought through, and were believed, they would have left a year ago.

The calling of the election as a massive mistake. It is only in hindsight that the loss of seats was the mistake, the polls all showed that she would win handsomely. But she failed to put together and inkling of a policy platform, beyond 'Strong and Stable'. She failed to communicate with the wider party. She didn't bother to turn up to a leaders debate! This is the woman that feels she speaks for the people but was too scared to actually face any questions?

But the biggest mistake was triggering A50 prior to that. She wasted so much time. She should have either called the election prior to that or not bothered. By calling for the GE after A50, she was effectively admitting that she didn't have the power at the time to see through Brexit, so why trigger A50?

In terms of domestic issues, well she has been, naturally I suppose, completely consumed not only by Brexit, but the infighting within the Tories and self preservation. She was a complete shambles at Grenfell. Everyone could she that she hung Amber Rudd out to dry over Windrush. She has done nothing to tackle rising knife crime in London (sure this is the Major responsibility she it is not as if crime isn't an issue everywhere). She has laid out no future vision, she has failed to articulate what the future UK will look like to the people.

History will not, and should not, be kind to TM simply because she was better than some alternatives. She accepted the job of PM.

Mc Love

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd disagree with that statement but do think a UI would be the right thing for everyone-if the UK,Ireland and EU could come up with a practical plan to negate the obvious stumbling points-NHS,stamp duty and car tax etc.

UI also has to go to a vote in the North though. Will it pass?? Maybe if there's no deal. Yes I'd believe there would be a lot of ironing out.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd disagree with that statement but do think a UI would be the right thing for everyone-if the UK,Ireland and EU could come up with a practical plan to negate the obvious stumbling points-NHS,stamp duty and car tax etc.

I don't see why they would be stumbling blocks. In a UI, NI would be treated the same as Tubbercurry, Dundalk etc. There would be a vote and people would need to decide if the pros and cons of staying in the UK are better or worse than the pros and cons of becoming a UI.

When people move from Derry to Dublin (or New York, Sydney whatever) they cannot expect the same rules to follow them, they must adhere to the rules in operation where they move.

prawnsambo

If you look at what they've been doing since she took over, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that she didn't seem to understand what the WA was supposed to acheive or that she knew and tried to use it for something else. We can look at David Davis trotting around Europe and Liam Fox, the world and assume they were stupid. Or we can look at what they were trying to do and conclude that their motive was to try and scam something outside the Article 50 process.

Article 50 is tiny. And the meat of it is in one paragraph. You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to not be able to understand it. So why all the visits to European heads of state and ignoring Barnier? Was she just trying to scam a new treaty for the UK? With the triggering of A50 as the ticking time bomb to pressure all the EU leaders into caving. And as the clock has run down, the dawning realisation that this is actually not going to work and the bomb that she started the timer on is going to explode in the UK and not in Europe as she'd expected.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't see why they would be stumbling blocks. In a UI, NI would be treated the same as Tubbercurry, Dundalk etc. There would be a vote and people would need to decide if the pros and cons of staying in the UK are better or worse than the pros and cons of becoming a UI.

When people move from Derry to Dublin (or New York, Sydney whatever) they cannot expect the same rules to follow them, they must adhere to the rules in operation where they move.

Well whatever about rules there are things that we could definitely do down here to at least begin to create an atmosphere where moderate unionists could begin to feel comfortable about unification..

Primarily getting serious about separating church from state and secondly dropping, changing or lessening some of our more tainted symbols of nationalism - the flag and the anthem..

Even one small gesture like the GAA to restrict playing the anthem to just AI finals day would make a positive difference.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

Well whatever about rules there are things that we could definitely do down here to at least begin to create an atmosphere where moderate unionists could begin to feel comfortable about unification..

Primarily getting serious about separating church from state and secondly dropping, changing or lessening some of our more tainted symbols of nationalism - the flag and the anthem..

Even one small gesture like the GAA to restrict playing the anthem to just AI finals day would make a positive difference.

But again, you are putting it to people which they think best suits them. Nothing is perfect. Why would the GAA not play the national anthem, of the country they voting to join? I wouldn't personally be against it, I am not a fan our the anthem, but I don't think it is something to make of break it.

We have very much moved to separating church from state, to get unionist more comfortable we would actually need to move backwards.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

But again, you are putting it to people which they think best suits them. Nothing is perfect. Why would the GAA not play the national anthem, of the country they voting to join? I wouldn't personally be against it, I am not a fan our the anthem, but I don't think it is something to make of break it.

We have very much moved to separating church from state, to get unionist more comfortable we would actually need to move backwards.

Not really... as a population we have but our school system and our Constitution don't accurately reflect the nation we are today.

What do you mean by move backwards?

The anthem does not need to be played at almost every level of the GAA every Sunday. Bleedin two bit club games have the anthem played out over some poxy tannoy system. AI final Sundays would be more than sufficient in my opinion.

It's archaic and antagonistic.

Imagine if GSTQ was played prior to every football game in the UK? Would you think it excessively jingoistic?

I didn't say that these things make or break anything. But it can change the mood music. Try and create a more positive atmosphere for dialogue.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd disagree with that statement but do think a UI would be the right thing for everyone-if the UK,Ireland and EU could come up with a practical plan to negate the obvious stumbling points-NHS,stamp duty and car tax etc.

I don't see why they would be stumbling blocks. In a UI, NI would be treated the same as Tubbercurry, Dundalk etc. There would be a vote and people would need to decide if the pros and cons of staying in the UK are better or worse than the pros and cons of becoming a UI.

When people move from Derry to Dublin (or New York, Sydney whatever) they cannot expect the same rules to follow them, they must adhere to the rules in operation where they move.

Although a UI is preferable it's unlikely people will vote to have to pay for health care and be worse off financially-I'm just being realistic not critical-it maybe Ireland will consider enhancing their health system

Leroy42

I mean, in terms of the DUP and abortion, equal right for marriage etc, we would need to move backwards.

Sure the schools etc is a problem, but they already have schools which can be taken over by the state and we have a system of Educate together ready to do it.

I fully agree on the anthem at matches, but that is a personal thing. Would it help, maybe and I wouldn't be against it, but it starts to look like BRexit again.

They want a UI because they no longer see the benefits of being in the UK, but they want Ireland to change for them so they get to keep everything they like. Choices are just that, a choice. You rarely get everything you want. Is staying in the UK after Brexit worth it given that the alternative is a UI. One can only make the choice based on the options in front of you. If Ireland is so bad, don't vote to join.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Although a UI is preferable it's unlikely people will vote to have to pay for health care and be worse off financially-I'm just being realistic not critical-it maybe Ireland will consider enhancing their health system

But you are stating that as if nothing else changes. After Brexit, who knows how NI is going to operate. Will the UK continue to support it? Will the economy continue to provide jobs for people?

You are arguing as if they would lose and gain nothing. I don't know the answer, only the future will tell us, but it is wrong to argue that Ireland must change to accommodate them (there is a totally separate argument over the future of healthcare).