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

Leroy42

Why are the interviews with Raab not all started with the one simple question.

"What exactly had you on the table other than the deal TM has put to the cabinet. What exactly was the alternative that Barnier had agreed to?"

Next, "Are you suggesting that you had got a deal with Barnier but that TM gave up that deal to create a new one, the one we have presented to Cabinet? Did you show cabinet the alternative agreement?"

Net, "you are a BRexiteer, you have pushed it as an ideal and believe in it. WHy then, given all your talk of enthusiasm and vigour have you failed to deliver for the people that voted for BRexit?"

Thats the only questions he should be being asked at this point.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

You've said it yourself, 'potential aggressor' is the key term, it's impossible for EU members to go to war with one another.

Well yes, it's difficult to have a war without an aggressor, and it's difficult in envision a war between countries that don't have any military capabilities.

West Germany didn't have an army, and was occupied by the United States, UK, and France. France had an army, which it was using to try (and fail) to control its colonial territories. The UK hasn't had territorial ambitions on mainland Europe since the middle ages.

Maybe the Benelux countries would have launched a campaign of conquest?

sink wrote: »

The Soviet Union and now Russia is not an EU member and does not share deep economic and political integration with the rest of Europe and so it remains as the only potential aggressor for that very reason.

It has interests in eastern euope. The only thing in recent years that has been making war more likely is the EU's territorial ambitions in areas that Russia considers to be in its sphere of influence.

Russia today has its own economic union, which it is quite clearly the leader of.

sink wrote: »

If after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EU and the US set up a Marshall Plan for Russia with the explicit aim of integrating Russia into the western economic system and therefor binding its potential prosperity and success with the rest of Europe we would not be in the mess we are today.

That's an interesting thought actually

20silkcut wrote: »

In a corner of the world historically torn apart by conflict with some of the most historically bloodthirsty and depraved regimes in human history. Living side by side in peace and prosperity for the last 70 years.

The dreikaiserbund managed to secure peace and prosperity in Europe for over 40 years, and that's pretty recent history.

Akrasia wrote: »

Nonsense. The EU has aligned the interests of countries that used to be competing economic powers. The EU is a much closer alignment than NATO ever was or will be. NATO exists to ensure peace between the west and Russia. The EU ensures peace within the European continent which has a very long history of violent conflict

The only war that could have come in post-war Europe was from the USSR. The EU clearly had nothing to do with that. The competing economic interests of the main players within Europe, has, for a long time, been primarily in relation to colonial interests. Unless you can show that the EU helped in terms of the disestablishment of empires (which is actually quite possible) this doesn't really fly.

Roanmore

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was just about to echo the previous post. Raab is a busted flush but he doesn’t realise it yet.

Isn't he the bookies favourite to be the next leader? Frightening if true.

Capt'n Midnight

amacca wrote: »

For the layman .....does all this increase the chances of a second referendum

There can't be a referendum if it undermines the Tory party. Too much face to loose. Unless as Sam Russell pointed out it's decisive.

Sam Russell wrote: »

A second referendum will only be successful if it is decisive - better than 60/40. Otherwise it is not going to be believed by the losers.

Even if there was a referendum (undemocratic , the people have already spoken etc.) it could be totally subverted by simply asking the wrong questions. A three way remain/deal/no deal ? Any of those three could win on 35%.

A referendum would be of no use unless the question was framed in such a way that it gave achievable options. Re-negotiate is not an option as the EU will just point at the clock. It's this deal, or picking an existing deal. But Switzerland isn't on offer and EEA depends on the other EEA countries so uncertain, and Turkey is only for countries that export lots of stuff to the EU so realistically there isn't a better deal.

There is no point in offering the option of backing the government.
Sky Data poll: 78% think the government is doing a bad job on Brexit

Q1 Should the UK remain in the EU.
A - Remain
B - Leave - Accepting that if you need to join again it's Schengen and the Euro. And all the EU social democratic principles not to mention the health and safety rules can be removed at any time.
C - Ban immigration [ stupidity filter, gets rid of voters who didn't read the question ]

Q2 - the devil is in the detail , starting with should everyone answer or only the leavers ?
D - Accepting the current deal
E - No Deal

Option E results in a Downturn / Instant recession is predicted by almost all economists, though some politicians say it will improve after they've retired. The same politicians who used to day the economy would improve but since U-turned to agreeing there will be an economic hit but it would be worth it, eventually.

Rhineshark

I don't quite follow the argument that because political and economic alliances "don't tend to last" (bar all those trading deals and customs unions around the world), the period of unprecedented peace in Europe cannot possibly have anything to do with the long-lasting political and economic alliance that is the EU and must be only down to NATO because military alliances last.

That's how it read to me anyway. But surely the very length of this political and economic alliance undermines what appears to be the point of the argument?

Mind you, I don't say NATO had nothing to do with it. But nor am I going to say the EU didn't. All evidence so far indicates that to be a very facile argument that ignores the last sixty years.

20silkcut

It’s ridiculous that this conversation is happening. It’s as fundamental as trying to justify the positive effects of the sun on planet earth.

Akrasia

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course it's not. If any organization is deserving of that accolade it's NATO, not the EU. The concept of an occupied West Germany and France going to war were it not for the effects of the ECSC is painfully stupid.

The only potential aggressor in Europe since WW2 was the USSR/ Warsaw Pact, and they were, almost by definition, not part of the EU.

Nonsense. The EU has aligned the interests of countries that used to be competing economic powers. The EU is a much closer alignment than NATO ever was or will be. NATO exists to ensure peace between the west and Russia. The EU ensures peace within the European continent which has a very long history of violent conflict

20silkcut

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course it's not. If any organization is deserving of that accolade it's NATO, not the EU. The concept of an occupied West Germany and France going to war were it not for the effects of the ECSC is painfully stupid.

The only potential aggressor in Europe since WW2 was the USSR/ Warsaw Pact, and they were, almost by definition, not part of the EU.

NATO is a military organization.
Nothing to do with the fact that no serious political dispute has arisen between Western European nations in the 70 years since the start of the European movement. Political disputes start wars. In a corner of the world historically torn apart by conflict with some of the most historically bloodthirsty and depraved regimes in human history. Living side by side in peace and prosperity for the last 70 years.
And the occupying Americans were fully behind European integration to maintain the peace. Prosperity and co operation are far more effective at preserving peace than armies and military organizations nothwithstanding their vital role in under pinning it.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course it's not. If any organization is deserving of that accolade it's NATO, not the EU. The concept of an occupied West Germany and France going to war were it not for the effects of the ECSC is painfully stupid.

The only potential aggressor in Europe since WW2 was the USSR/ Warsaw Pact, and they were, almost by definition, not part of the EU.

You've said it yourself, 'potential aggressor' is the key term, it's impossible for EU members to go to war with one another. They're not 'potential aggressors' precisely because of their economic co-reliance as a result of integration.

The Soviet Union and now Russia is not an EU member and does not share deep economic and political integration with the rest of Europe and so it remains as the only potential aggressor for that very reason.

If after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EU and the US set up a Marshall Plan for Russia with the explicit aim of integrating Russia into the western economic system and therefor binding its potential prosperity and success with the rest of Europe we would not be in the mess we are today.

Instead what happened was a strategy of economic shock therapy in which state assets in Russia were sold of to the future oligarchy for pennies on the dollar. With little assistance from the west the Russian economy completely collapsed and people couldn't afford to feed themselves or to heat their homes in the cold dark Russian winter. This allowed a strong man 'Putin' to take power and the rest is history.

Had leaders in the west in the early 90s had the foresight we would be in a very different world today and NATO would be truly obsolete.

Donald Trump

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's actually the other way around. Military alliances tend to last a minimum of decades. In the case of the French-Ottoman military alliance, that lasted two and a half centuries. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, signed in the 14th century, is still technically in effect.

Even when there isn't a direct military alliance, mutual cooperation usually lasts a very long time. Despite not being subject to a single overarching treaty, France and the UK have fought together in every non-colonial war since the mid 19th century (and even in one colonial war with the the Suez Crisis) until the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Economic and political alliances tend to be subject to a lot more volatility.

The reason that military examples might stick out for you is that one tends not to see, or even realise, the successful economic and political ones.

For every long lived military alliance you could name, there are probably hundreds that only last months.

These things are driven by money. Which is why there were buses with GBP350m-a-week lies on them being driven around the UK in advance of the election

RandomName2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

UK politicians seem to believe the UK is the real world equivalent of Wakanda and they cannot comprehend why nobody is queuing up to buy their vibranium on very favourable terms now that they have come out of the shadow of the EU.

Not counting your 'non-single market' chickens before they've hatched?

CelticRambler

There was a young fella being interview on Sky yesterday (student Tom Harwood, wasn't he implicated in some of the shenanigans?) who was banging the Brexit-means-brexit drum, and insisting that Britain is Great and will be signing FTAs all over the place once freed of the shackles of the EU. As with so many other interviews, the presenter let him go unchallenged on the points that (a) he, personally, has never lived in the UK that wasn't part of the EU; and (b) whatever greatness Britain might have today is as a member of the EU.

That particular interview reminded me of a conversation I had some years ago with a Czech pilot, getting on in years, who'd lived through the Soviet era and rejoiced in his country's new lease of life after the Velvet Revolution. He told of having to keep secret the fact that he spoke English, because his airline wouldn't assign English-speaking pilots to flights to Western Europe in case they defected. His son, however, who had only known life with the four freedoms of the EU had been drawn into a political movement that argued for a return to the "better" conditions of the Soviet era.

RandomName2

Donald Trump wrote: »

Military alliances come and go at the drop of a hat

Successful economic and political ones not so much so

It's actually the other way around. Military alliances tend to last a minimum of decades. In the case of the French-Ottoman military alliance, that lasted two and a half centuries. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, signed in the 14th century, is still technically in effect.

Even when there isn't a direct military alliance, mutual cooperation usually lasts a very long time. Despite not being subject to a single overarching treaty, France and the UK have fought together in every non-colonial war since the mid 19th century (and even in one colonial war with the the Suez Crisis) until the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Economic and political alliances tend to be subject to a lot more volatility.

Donald Trump

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course it's not. If any organization is deserving of that accolade it's NATO, not the EU. The concept of an occupied West Germany and France going to war were it not for the effects of the ECSC is painfully stupid.

The only potential aggressor in Europe since WW2 was the USSR/ Warsaw Pact, and they were, almost by definition, not part of the EU.

Military alliances come and go at the drop of a hat

Successful economic and political ones not so much so

devnull

Saw Peter Bone on a regional Week in Politics edition as I'm in the UK this weekend, and some of the stuff he was coming out with is pretty unbelievable and totally full of deluded statements.

Kept going on about a clean, global brexit where he can build urgent care centres, bypassses and roads en-masse and every authority would be £60m a year better off by leaving as WTO terms are far superior.

He will put together a new agreement and put it to the EU. You have to laugh, does he not know that an agreement is something that is between two parties. The constant idea that they put together a proposal and the EU has to agree to it and this is termed an agreement is laughable.

This is the same person who claims that the EU is bullying them.....

Captain Obvious

UK politicians seem to believe the UK is the real world equivalent of Wakanda and they cannot comprehend why nobody is queuing up to buy their vibranium on very favourable terms now that they have come out of the shadow of the EU.

RandomName2

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’ve heard this quite a lot recently. I’m not completely convinced that peace in Europe is something the EU can proudly claim to be the cornerstone of.

Of course it's not. If any organization is deserving of that accolade it's NATO, not the EU. The concept of an occupied West Germany and France going to war were it not for the effects of the ECSC is painfully stupid.

The only potential aggressor in Europe since WW2 was the USSR/ Warsaw Pact, and they were, almost by definition, not part of the EU.

Water John

Whilst Corbyn can spout nonsense, the other main players eg Starmer, McDonnell have a good bit of cop. I would hope when the real pressure comes on that their view would prevail in the LB party.

Raab looks flustered because he's actually quite dim.

Sam Russell

amacca wrote: »

For the layman .....does all this increase the chances of a second referendum given that its probably in everyones best interests for the Britain to remain and thats slowly becoming clearer to at least some sections of the leave cohort.....therefore both sides will find a way to extend deadlines, put a hold on the process, fudge so Britain can vote to stay in.

Ive always believed that ultimately money decides issues......Brexit is costly for both sides therefore it won't happen.......(a nice free trade agreement for Britain when it leaves is unlikely too imo)

Im am slowly losing confidence in my belief after what I've witnessed in the past couple of months, its not just Brinksmanship........its like a significant proportion of morons have ascended to positions of power and its not just the usual cohort of morons present in every electorate in every country in the world.

A second referendum will only be successful if it is decisive - better than 60/40. Otherwise it is not going to be believed by the losers.

There is nothing to prevent the HoC voting to stop Brexit. They could use the context that the Leave side lied and broke the law. They could use the line that the deal on offer is worse than the current situation. They could argue that there is no majority in the HoC for any other course but Remain.

They just need to get on with it and stop the nonsense.

I wonder how many of the 585 pages in the agreement was written by a UK hand - not many I suspect.

Beechwoodspark

I was just about to echo the previous post. Raab is a busted flush but he doesn’t realise it yet.

Muscles Schultz

Raab so unconvincing on Andrew Matt show. He always sweats a lot and looks like he is lying and/or confused.

amacca

For the layman .....does all this increase the chances of a second referendum given that its probably in everyones best interests for the Britain to remain and thats slowly becoming clearer to at least some sections of the leave cohort.....therefore both sides will find a way to extend deadlines, put a hold on the process, fudge so Britain can vote to stay in.

Ive always believed that ultimately money decides issues......Brexit is costly for both sides therefore it won't happen.......(a nice free trade agreement for Britain when it leaves is unlikely too imo)

Im am slowly losing confidence in my belief after what I've witnessed in the past couple of months, its not just Brinksmanship........its like a significant proportion of morons have ascended to positions of power and its not just the usual cohort of morons present in every electorate in every country in the world.

Capt'n Midnight

585 pages and no mention of Scotland.

Nicola has just confirmed that SNP will be voting against.

Rhineshark

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Given that the debate still, somehow hasn't advanced past the stage it was in any part of 2016, can anyone really be surprised at this?

More resigned at this point really.

But it remains jaw-dropping at just what a lousy choice is available to the British people on such an important question.

In the US, people can run for all sorts of positions to get a step on the political ladder. Is it not possible in the UK? It seems like there's a deadlock on getting involved for ordinary people somehow.

Capt'n Midnight

Panrich wrote: »

Surely a Norway type deal is not on the table as it does not satisfy the commitments given in phase 1 on the border.

What commitments ? Repeat after me, Parliament is Sovereign.

The UK won't be bullied

A Red White and Blue Brexit Means Brexit

Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

It's been U-turn after U-turn in an attempt to appease both sides of a party that like Labour would have schismed a long time ago in a PR or multi seat constituencies.

From 2017 it could have been 2015
Ex-minister Sir Robert Atkins condemned Cabinet members for fighting like “ferrets in a sack” and “jockeying for leadership positions”

Cameron only held the referendum to quell the ranks. Newspapers are saying the divorce bill is likely to be about £10Bn more due to the transition period.

ancapailldorcha

Given that the debate still, somehow hasn't advanced past the stage it was in any part of 2016, can anyone really be surprised at this?

oblivious

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What do you all make of this?

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1064056122146021376

Classic British thinking, of divide and conquer

It would undermine the whole point of the EU, of collective negotiation,

devnull

Just watching the interview with Corbyn on Sky News - scroll back to 9am here:
https://news.sky.com/watch-live

Basically what we've gleened so far, is that a second referendum might be an option in the future and that there might be a general election (despite it being pointed out how unlikely that is), he will go back to the EU to renegotiate the backstop and other parts of the deal as it can easily be done in 3 months because they need the UK as much as the UK needs them and therefore even the stuff the EU say is not possible they will be able to achieve.

He's pretty much as deluded as the Tories, I'm afraid, it tells you all about the quality of politicians at Westminster at the moment, the worst group of Tory politicians continue to be allowed to carry on with little realistic challenge, since the leader of the opposition continues to give them an easy ride rather than taking them on.

He's also said he's not read all of the paper and pretty much displaying a lack of leadership and fantasy spin, when he said that he didn't know how he would vote in a second ref.

Panrich

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A Norway Brexit has the advantage that it's an existing template. And they get some control.

It has the slight disadvantage that there'd be a Hard Border and the UK would have to accept the four freedoms , including Freedom of Movement. Details here.

In addition to the normal EU fees Norway also pays a lot of money to the EU for use by the Eastern Countries. And Norway is in Schengen.

I'm still not convinced that the EEA would let the UK join the club because they are too big and too different. An independent Scotland would be a much better fit.

Surely a Norway type deal is not on the table as it does not satisfy the commitments given in phase 1 on the border.

Zubeneschamali

gimli2112 wrote: »

You can't negotiate with that mentality

Fortunately there is no need, since the negotiations on the WA are over.