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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could be the play. The DUP have effectively shot their bolt now and have been sidelined. It's been put up to the entire parliament now.

Have to say, if May pulls this off it will be some win.

If she of had sense that is what she should have done in December.

She should have stood up to them then rather than making herself look weak and encouraging the likes of the ERG to keep chipping away at her.
Doing it then she would have had 11 months to negotiate a deal at leisure rather than doing a half cock last minute job.

Nate--IRL--

charlie14 wrote: »

If she of had sense that is what she should have done in December.

She should have stood up to them then rather than making herself look weak and encouraging the likes of the ERG to keep chipping away at her.
Doing it then she would have had 11 months to negotiate a deal at leisure rather than doing a half cock last minute job.

I'd contend that had she tried this last December she'd have been out on her ear. The only thing that is keeping in her in place now is that time is so short that nothing else can be done, the options unpalatable as they are, are now solidified. I think this was by design too.

Nate

charlie14

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I'd contend that had she tried this last December she'd have been out on her ear. The only thing that is keeping in her in place now is that time is so short that nothing else can be done, the options unpalatable as they are, are now solidified. I think this was by design too.

Nate

Perhaps, but like now there was no-one who wanted her job then either.

She could not be that dumb not to know she was going to have to face up to the DUP, the ERG and some within her own cabinet at some stage.
Not doing it then just made her look weak.

briany

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I'd contend that had she tried this last December she'd have been out on her ear. The only thing that is keeping in her in place now is that time is so short that nothing else can be done, the options unpalatable as they are, are now solidified. I think this was by design too.

Nate

I think the British parliament is crazy enough that if May puts a gun to its collective head, it might say, "Pull the trigger, b**ch..."

You still have people from Labour like Barry Gardinder saying that a GE is the only way forward, conveniently omitting the fact that by the time their current government collapses and the canvassing is done, you could be into the new year, with even less time on the clock. The EU aren't going to be entertaining renegotiation by that stage unless the renegotiation is asking to stay in the EU.

Water John

Agree that was always her plan, run up to end date. However I think she has misjudged as the window is still there. That is if you favour Remain or any Deal that keeps UK closer to the EU than the present Deal, as per Corbyn.

ThePanjandrum

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you still banging this drum?
The GFA arranged a framework which has ensured peace in NI. Brexit has risked that peace by undermining the GFA. A hard Brexit is a huge risk to that peace.
Now stop with your petty questions on what is written in the GFA about a border because nobody here claimed it was there

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that a discussion group had to agree with you. If you ever look closely you might notice that my comments relate to others which I actually quote. If people didn't say these things then I wouldn't reply to them.

FrancieBrady

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I'd contend that had she tried this last December she'd have been out on her ear. The only thing that is keeping in her in place now is that time is so short that nothing else can be done, the options unpalatable as they are, are now solidified. I think this was by design too.

Nate

I agree. And if that was the play and it works, it's quite a masterstroke. Hurts me to say it,(but certainly doesn't hurt Ireland) but well done Tess.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So there were no checkpoints on the border when the GFA was being negotiated nor afterwards. Is that what you're saying?

Just to be clear, there were 27,000 troops (a third of the current UK army) in NI the last time we had a hard border and still 40% of the fuel in the North was still laundered or smuggled.

And 3,000 people were killed.

Compared to the population of the USA that's 9/11 every two months.
For 30 years.

The "I can't believe it's not IRA" have't gone away.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/1116/1011383-weapons-belfast/

Two AK47 assault rifles, two sawn-off shotguns, a high-powered rifle with a silencer fitted, three pipe bombs and more than 100 assorted rounds of ammunition were stored in the building that went on fire on Rodney Drive in west Belfast on Wednesday.

The UDA haven't gone away either.

Watch NI television , there's an ad campaign about kneecapping.

BTW In the old days a lot of border crossings used to close at 10 o'clock, unless you had written permission from the Guards.

So yeah , we are kinda biased about a return to a hard border.

ThePanjandrum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree. And if that was the play and it works, it's quite a masterstroke. Hurts me to say it,(but certainly doesn't hurt Ireland) but well done Tess.

Personally, I'd go for WTO rules. It's a better option than the Chequers deal.

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Personally, I'd go for WTO rules. It's a better option than the Chequers deal.

Thankfully it isn't your 'personal' choice.

Sand

If May manages to pull this off, her next trick will be to ascend to the heavens in triumph on the third day. The British political class are hopelessly incompetent, and hopelessly divided. Brexit in and of itself was not a cause of the malaise in British society, it is a symptom. 12.6% of British voters backed UKIP in 2015, but they received only 1 seat in the HoC. 30.4% voted for Labour and they received 232 seats in the HoC. A case of 'voter suppression' and 'disenfranchisement' far greater than anything seen in the US.

In so much as representative democracy is supposed to be representative, British democracy was clearly sick long before Brexit arrived. The distance between the British political class, and their supposed constituents was best expressed by Gordon Browns clear disdain and contempt for that 'bigoted woman' in 2010, 6 year prior to Brexit. Gordon Brown at no point believed he should represent her despite leading the party of the British working class.

With Brexit voted for over the objections of Gordon Brown, the actual implementation was left to Tories who are largely cut from the same cloth as Gordon Brown. Who hold the same disdain and contempt for their constituents as Brown and Labour do. There has been a clear cognitive dissonance between the ordinary British/English voter who viewed Brexit as a rejection of globalisation as opposed to their political classes who decided instead to portray it as a demand for even more globalisation: Singapore-upon-Thames and US free trade deals are apparently what Andy from Newcastle wants.

With a country so divided between its people and its elite, its difficult to see how any UK PM can issue a call to arms in 'the national interest' to get a deal across the line. Most MPs in the HoC would not believe there is such a thing as a national interest. The EU has bargained in good faith with the UK, but they are a diverse state with diverse interests and they have no sense of common purpose. Without a collective purpose, the UK is drifting towards a no-deal Brexit. All we in Ireland and the wider EU can do is prepare for it.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree. And if that was the play and it works, it's quite a masterstroke. Hurts me to say it,(but certainly doesn't hurt Ireland) but well done Tess.

I would have trouble watching her performance since becoming PM having this up her sleeve as a deviously planned masterstroke all along. But if she pulls it off either by accident or design all the better for us.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

If Gove et al, think they can fully renegotiate the Deal they are delusional.

Don't forget that the objective of the hard Brexiteers is to run down the clock.

This is one theory behind not handing in all 48 letters to the 1922 committee yet, instead wait until it's too late for May or the government to recover.

Grove ? the Boris backstabber is a Me Feiner and like a lot of them the prize is No. 10 , regardless of the collateral damage.

Didn't Julius Ceaser say he'd rather be head of a village than second in Rome ?

hill16bhoy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

DUP will abstain to keep the billions I reckon. Could be wrong but there we are.

The Guardian's article on where the votes on the deal are likely to go has them abstaining.

They're likely to abstain because they want to keep Corbyn out at all costs and they they think May will lose the vote anyway without them voting against.

However if the numbers become close, abstaining may not be enough, and their hand might be forced.

I think Arlene Foster would nearly take Remain at this point, because the fantasy cake Brexit the DUP wanted is off the table and No Deal is fraught with danger for them.

I think Foster is smart enough to know that. But maybe the MPs in the party aren't.

Fear permeates the DUP's current position. If they wanted to make sure of killing off the deal, which has to be their priority if they are to remain true to their basic point of being as a party, they would bring down the Government now.

But they're trying to hedge their bets on the assumption that the deal won't go through - that hard Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will effectively do their dirty work for them in bringing down the deal.

This in itself is yet another form of cakeism.

FrancieBrady

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Guardian's article on where the votes on the deal are likely to go has them abstaining.

They're likely to abstain because they want to keep Corbyn out at all costs and they they think May will lose the vote anyway without them voting against.

However if the numbers become close, abstaining may not be enough, and their hand might be forced.

I think Arlene Foster would nearly take Remain at this point, because the fantasy cake Brexit the DUP wanted is off the table and No Deal is fraught with danger for them.

I think Foster is smart enough to know that. But maybe the MPs in the party aren't.

Fear permeates the DUP's current position. If they wanted to make sure of killing off the deal, which has to be their priority if they are to remain true to their basic point of being as a party, they would bring down the Government now.

But they're trying to hedge their bets on the assumption that the deal won't go through - that hard Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will effectively do their dirty work for them in bringing down the deal.

This in itself is yet another form of cakeism.

How can they bring down the government 'now'?

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Personally, I'd go for WTO rules. It's a better option than the Chequers deal.

Explain what happens to the service industry your economy relies on under WTO rules.

Explain the WTO Rules Of Origin and vehicle exports to the USA, note that the UK

Tell us how the UK will get a good deal with India etc. without accepting lots and lots of immigration. Refer to the billions promised to Southern Africa in your answer.

Comment on the 2.5% shortfall in tax revenue so far since the referendum. Contrast and compare to every other OECD country that isn't a potential war zone.

Unless you can address these points, and more, you are in cloud cuckoo land.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How can they bring down the government 'now'?

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/

A motion of no confidence, or censure motion, is a motion moved in the House of Commons with the wording: 'That this House has no confidence in HM Government'. If such a motion is agreed to, and a new government with the support of a majority of MPs cannot be formed within a period of 14 calendar days, Parliament is dissolved and an early General Election is triggered.

A motion of no confidence is one of only two ways in which an early General Election may be triggered under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011.

Water John

DUP would always favour Crash out Brexit. It reinstates the border and they don't care of the economic damage needed to achieve that.

theguzman

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unless you can address these points, and more, you are in cloud cuckoo land.

This is why so many voted for Brexit, the arrogance of the Remainers and pontificating drove moderates to vote for it. The language and tone used against Brexiteers was the best recruiter they had. Brexit was a fight back against the left and against political correctness and liberalism.

FrancieBrady

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/

A quick google shows you that in 100 years 2 no confidence votes in a minority government have succeeded.
The DUP don't seem (despite the anger) too keen to do that. They are trying to play the field and their bluff has been called.

Sand

Water John wrote: »

DUP would always favour Crash out Brexit. It reinstates the border and they don't care of the economic damage needed to achieve that.

In fairness, they probably do care about economic damage. But they are intrinsically an ideological party. They are a unionist party, not a GDP party. For the sake of comparison, SF does not back a united Ireland because it would increase GDP. They would back a united Ireland even if there was economic costs. the Green Party backs environmental measures even if they decrease GDP.

What I am saying is, politics is not always what is economically most efficient.

hill16bhoy

Sand wrote: »

If May manages to pull this off, her next trick will be to ascend to the heavens in triumph on the third day. The British political class are hopelessly incompetent, and hopelessly divided. Brexit in and of itself was not a cause of the malaise in British society, it is a symptom. 12.6% of British voters backed UKIP in 2015, but they received only 1 seat in the HoC. 30.4% voted for Labour and they received 232 seats in the HoC. A case of 'voter suppression' and 'disenfranchisement' far greater than anything seen in the US.

That's the single seat constituency system and first past the post for you.

It has meant that the UK system effectviely mirrors the US two-party system with Scotland, Wales and the North the only complicating factors.

Around the time of the crash, there was a lot of criticism of our multi-seat constituencies, and some of it was valid, but it's an infinitely superior system to the UK's.

UKIP were just a more extreme version of the Tory Brexiteers. They may only have got one seat in 2015, but their main policy, ie. leaving the EU, effectively cannibalised the Tories and had been cannibalising the Tories for three decades, and they got what they wanted.

And the only way it was able to cannibalise the Tories to such an extent was because of the same one seat, first past the post system that allowed the Tories to get a majority.

PR like we have here and in other EU countries is infinitely superior to the British system. It's more fragmented and thus more democratic, parties get seat totals that better represent their vote totals, and it acts as a moderating influence that mitigates against extremists.

If Britain had multi-seat PR constituencies, the Brexiteers probably wouldn't have been in the Tory party to begin with - you'd have a much more fragmented system because it would be easier to gain representation with a smaller vote share. As it is, you basically have to be inside one of the Tories or Labour to ever have a hope of gaining any power.

In a multi-seat PR system, the Liberal Democrats for instance, would become a far more attractive electoral proposition. If the Lib Dems had, say, a solid 20% of the vote and seats, British politics would have a far more efffective bulwark against extremes.

oscarBravo

Folkstonian wrote: »

I disputed the veracity of the argument that the EU has been the key to peace on the continent. I don’t think it has been.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but if an organisation is set up with the express purpose of preventing war between its member states, and half a century later there hasn't been war between its member states, a reasonable application of Occam's Razor would suggest that it has certainly been effective.

It's easy to argue that Europe would have been at peace anyway, insofar as it's always an exercise in navel-gazing to boldly assert what would have been. But if you're going to argue that the EU hasn't achieved one of its core objectives, despite that core objective having been achieved, I think the onus is on you to make a convincing case for your counterfactual.

Anthracite

theguzman wrote: »

This is why so many voted for Brexit, the arrogance of the Remainers and pontificating drove moderates to vote for it. The language and tone used against Brexiteers was the best recruiter they had. Brexit was a fight back against the left and against political correctness and liberalism.

Yup. It shows where rejecting those things and adopting your worldview leads - to stupid self-harm.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/

A quick google shows you that in 100 years 2 no confidence votes in a minority government have succeeded.
The DUP don't seem (despite the anger) too keen to do that. They are trying to play the field and their bluff has been called.

Was one of those no confidence votes that succeeded in the 1970s and it passed by one vote ? It involved an SDLP MP who got langers in a pub near Westminster and it played a part.

theguzman

Anthracite wrote: »

Yup. It shows where rejecting those things and adopting your worldview leads - to stupid self-harm.

Please demonstrate to me the self-harm caused by Brexit?

[Deleted User]

theguzman wrote: »

Please demonstrate to me the self-harm caused by Brexit?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTspKtSFWJO_u-k3nuUHrmv0PjALaRh8Q3sTN8XQhDtry83wVV8Ng

theguzman

Financial markets, some people may know the price of everything but the true value of nothing. There is far bigger things at play than mere financial markets.

Anthracite

theguzman wrote: »

Please demonstrate to me the self-harm caused by Brexit?

What confuses me about this question is that you clearly have some means of accessing the internet.

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Was one of those no confidence votes that succeeded in the 1970s and it passed by one vote ? It involved an SDLP MP who got langers in a pub near Westminster and it played a part.

That is the kind of stuff it hinges on. The DUP have not been brave enough yet even though their red lines have been crossed and they have been literally shafted by May.