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

FreudianSlippers

lawred2 wrote: »

why did you do that to yourself?

God that image is giant. Deleted before I get permabanned for it.

CrabRevolution

Have any of the "we'll renegotiate before March" crowd actually justified their stance or explained what new tactic or leverage they'll use to extract a better deal from the EU?

Or is it all just "we'll demand everything and they'll give us what we want because we're British" type stuff, despite having repeatedly hit a brick wall when trying that tactic with the EU for the last 2 years?

lawred2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

God that image is giant. Deleted before I get permabanned for it.

No I mean - why did you bother checking his claims?

tuxy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

God that image is giant. Deleted before I get permabanned for it.

Has to be that size to see the Portuguese archipelagos off Affrica and the Spanish enclaves in Morroco
Maybe that's what prinzeugen was talking about

Professor Moriarty

Trump's one-liner is the main headline on the Telegraph's website. It really is pathetic when a once great country like Britain is reduced to debating a throwaway comment by an authoritarian, lying clown who couldn't find Britain on the map let alone have the wit to comment on a potential trade deal. Such is the pathetic depths to which the likes of Mogg, Farage and Johnson have dragged political discourse in Britain.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

People are still being fed lies and that is the problem. You cannot really be angry if someone has the wrong information but that information is given to them by someone that is supposed to have their interests in their actions.

Maybe not angry but disappointed the right information is at their finger tips. People aren't being fed lies they are actively looking to eat lies. You can't help those who don't want to be helped

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Maybe not angry but disappointed the right information is at their finger tips. People aren't being fed lies that are actively looking to eat lies. You can't help those who don't want to be helped

Exactly. I do agree that the largest part of the anger should be directed at the likes of Farage, Johnson, JRM etc, but people need to look at themselves. We are in the information age yet there are many that simply don't care to educate themselves.

Whatever about being lied to during the campaign, for which the leaders and media are largely to blame, there is ample evidence to show that they were lied to yet instead of asking questions of Johnson etc, they have labelled TM a traitor, an EU mole working to keep the UK in. IN other words, they have made up their own reality to avoid having to face reality.

Of course this is largely driven by the media, I get that, but simply asking 'so what is your plan' would be a start.

McGiver

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Maybe not angry but disappointed the right information is at their finger tips. People aren't being fed lies that are actively looking to eat lies. You can't help those who don't want to be helped

While the Russians hit again using the chaos to hide their moves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kerch-strait.html

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1067021445174317056

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Maybe not angry but disappointed the right information is at their finger tips. People aren't being fed lies that are actively looking to eat lies. You can't help those who don't want to be helped

Sure, but people that fall for a conman doesn't want to be conned out of their money. If you take the liar out of the equation then you shouldn't have the misinformation out there for people to believe. Will they make up their own lies?

Zubeneschamali

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Have any of the "we'll renegotiate before March" crowd actually justified their stance or explained what new tactic or leverage they'll use to extract a better deal from the EU?

The actual noise from the Brexiteers seems to be "Norway would be better than this!", which would be a closer relationship with the EU, and the EU might indeed go for it.

I would ignore all the "This deal or no deal!" talk from the EU - they have to say that. Obviously any new deal will have to include all the hard stuff in this one - backstop, citizens rights, settle the £40 billion bar bill on the way out. But the political declaration is just waffle and could be torn up and replaced with new waffle rather easily.

trellheim

Peregrinus's posts above struck a chord.

While the EU project causes many problems for member states ( see EU Army and increased Federalism , long list, take your pick) somehow the other 27 don't have a problem staying in. If a condition of staying in was driving on the right ( for example - I was going to say Schengen
but rolled back from that lol ) can be the screeching from the Dail would be long and loud . But would we leave the EU over it ? Also leaving with no say and becoming a rule taker - and no matter what anyone says I just cant see them getting a fabulous trade deal cos why doesnt Norway get that ?

TM bangs on and on about FOM its always first thing with her

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

France has six "overseas countries and territories" which are in a special relationship with the EU, though not part of it. Spain has one. The UK has thirteen.

And France also has the temerity to think of citizens in these territories as equal with those Metropolitan France unlike the hodge podge of British Subjugations.

ancapailldorcha

trellheim wrote: »

While the EU project causes many problems for member states ( see EU Army and increased Federalism , long list, take your pick) somehow the other 27 don't have a problem staying in. If a condition of staying in was driving on the right ( for example - I was going to say Schengen
but rolled back from that lol ) can be the screeching from the Dail would be long and loud . But would we leave the EU over it ? Also leaving with no say and becoming a rule taker - and no matter what anyone says I just cant see them getting a fabulous trade deal cos why doesnt Norway get that ?

TM bangs on and on about FOM its always first thing with her

What are you basing these problems on? What is the extent of this EU army and how many problems has it caused? Same for the "increased federalism"?

trellheim

What is the extent of this EU army

Well; there isn't one. That has not stopped people calling for one https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/ .

Best we can do is EU Battlegroups which are not the same thing at all

And it has not stopped people being worried about it as you can imagine.

As for federalism https://www.ozy.com/need-to-know/special-briefing-the-future-of-europe-dossier/90705

Again - these are directions the EU can take. Does the EU levy taxes ? No. Should it ? worth a discussion - sure.

My point ( I suppose ) was really - if 26 other EU countries decided to have a federal armed force would we leave the EU ? If not then what change in the EU would make us invoke Article 50 ? It would need a huge shift to do so.

Imreoir2

trellheim wrote: »

Well; there isn't one. That has not stopped people calling for one https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/ .

Best we can do is EU Battlegroups which are not the same thing at all

And it has not stopped people being worried about it as you can imagine.

As for federalism https://www.ozy.com/need-to-know/special-briefing-the-future-of-europe-dossier/90705

Again - these are directions the EU can take. Does the EU levy taxes ? No. Should it ? worth a discussion - sure.

My point ( I suppose ) was really - if 26 other EU countries decided to have a federal armed force would we leave the EU ? If not then what change in the EU would make us invoke Article 50 ? It would need a huge shift to do so.

Your point as I read it is that the EU causes many problems for member states, and you sited the EU Army and Federalism as examples. Unless discussion of an EU army and EU Federalism is the problem, then I am not sure how they are examples of the "many problems for member states" the EU has caused.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The actual noise from the Brexiteers seems to be "Norway would be better than this!", which would be a closer relationship with the EU, and the EU might indeed go for it.

I would ignore all the "This deal or no deal!" talk from the EU - they have to say that. Obviously any new deal will have to include all the hard stuff in this one - backstop, citizens rights, settle the £40 billion bar bill on the way out. But the political declaration is just waffle and could be torn up and replaced with new waffle rather easily.

Your assessment is reasonably balanced unlike some others on this forum who allow personal issues with the UK to cloud their judgement.If the TM deal is rejected the EU would probably negotiate with a different government although if this deal is rejected surely remaining is the `no brainer`alternative?The EU have said on many occasions that the decision to leave can be reversed-it would be business-not personal.

Leroy42

I think the issue with renegotiation is that the UK seem to think that they will go over there and just be more demanding. But in effect, the EU will have all the cards since the UK has decided against No deal and cannot simply reverse Brexit.

So lets take the, not unreasonable, position that should the deal fail in the HoC, TM or some other leader comes back to the EU looking for something extra (like we did with Lisbon). What are the UK going to offer the EU to get something additional in the deal, as the starting position will now be taken as the deal from the EU POV.

So what plan have the UK got, what are they willing to sacrifice to gain? Nobody has made it clear. The EU are not simply going to give in extra stuff. My bet would be fishing rights and Gibraltar would move back centre stage. Are the UK willing to move on them? What about NI, forget the backstop and simply leave NI within the EU?

If you look at all of the Brexiteers calling for renegotiation, none of them actually lay out what they will offer in return. And that has been the core problem throughout. The has never come to terms that they will not, ever, get everything they want and need to offer something to get something in return.

trellheim

Your point as I read it is that the EU causes many problems for member states, and you sited the EU Army and Federalism as examples. Unless discussion of an EU army and EU Federalism is the problem, then I am not sure how they are examples of the "many problems for member states" the EU has caused.

OK you are picking me up wrong. To take one point to illustrate

1) We do not currently have a EU Army.
2) There are proposals for one - as linked above.
3) If the EU voted 26 to 1 for an EU Army, would we leave ? Would that be enough for Ireland to put in an Article 50 ?

If you don't like EU Army replace it with "common corporation tax base" .

The UK is leaving for its own reasons - I think our threshold would be higher.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the issue with renegotiation is that the UK seem to think that they will go over there and just be more demanding. But in effect, the EU will have all the cards since the UK has decided against No deal and cannot simply reverse Brexit.

So lets take the, not unreasonable, position that should the deal fail in the HoC, TM or some other leader comes back to the EU looking for something extra (like we did with Lisbon). What are the UK going to offer the EU to get something additional in the deal, as the starting position will now be taken as the deal from the EU POV.

So what plan have the UK got, what are they willing to sacrifice to gain? Nobody has made it clear. The EU are not simply going to give in extra stuff. My bet would be fishing rights and Gibraltar would move back centre stage. Are the UK willing to move on them? What about NI, forget the backstop and simply leave NI within the EU?

If you look at all of the Brexiteers calling for renegotiation, none of them actually lay out what they will offer in return. And that has been the core problem throughout. The has never come to terms that they will not, ever, get everything they want and need to offer something to get something in return.

I think that labour would actually try to negotiate a softer brexit. One that meets their six criteria. Id imagine the eu would be open to this.

An Ciarraioch

Jolyon Maugham has posted the full minutes from the Article 50 hearing - EU position seems to allow possibility of revocation, but that European Council unanimity would be needed to avoid abuse of the provision (i.e. members invoking and promptly withdrawing the article willy-nilly):

https://goodlawproject.org/resources-article-50-hearing/

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the issue with renegotiation is that the UK seem to think that they will go over there and just be more demanding. But in effect, the EU will have all the cards since the UK has decided against No deal and cannot simply reverse Brexit.

So lets take the, not unreasonable, position that should the deal fail in the HoC, TM or some other leader comes back to the EU looking for something extra (like we did with Lisbon). What are the UK going to offer the EU to get something additional in the deal, as the starting position will now be taken as the deal from the EU POV.

So what plan have the UK got, what are they willing to sacrifice to gain? Nobody has made it clear. The EU are not simply going to give in extra stuff. My bet would be fishing rights and Gibraltar would move back centre stage. Are the UK willing to move on them? What about NI, forget the backstop and simply leave NI within the EU?

If you look at all of the Brexiteers calling for renegotiation, none of them actually lay out what they will offer in return. And that has been the core problem throughout. The has never come to terms that they will not, ever, get everything they want and need to offer something to get something in return.

There is a case going on right now in the ECJ on the revocability of A50. The UK side has said it has no position. The EU side has said it should be for a very good reason. It may end up somewhere between a unilateral and anonymous revocation necessary.

The UK has not rejected a no-deal. No-deal is what happens by default if nothing else is agreed.

The EU has said they will not renegotiate. They should be taken at their word. There will not be another negotiation to fix May's political problems. The deal is signed and the game playing is over.

The full permutations as I see them are:

Leave:

May's deal accepted by Commons
May's deal accepted in Referendum
No Deal default Leave
Another off the shelf position requiring almost no negotiation: Norway+ is the only option to avoid backstop. So Norway + Customs Union.

Remain:

Remain chosen in Referendum
A50 revoked to avoid no-deal disaster

I reckon the 4 bolded options are most likely.

Professor Moriarty

The LSE, King's College and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have published a joint report. According to their research, May's deal will cost Britain anywhere between 1.9-5.5% of GDP. So it will be an economic negative. No deal brings it up to 3.5-8.7%. So much for the Utopia envisaged by the Brexiteers. A more important observation is that Ireland would suffer similar reductions in GDP whereas it will have relatively negligible impact on other EU countries. So they are making an economic mistake and will damage us severely in the process. Which is yet another reason why I detest Mogg, Johnson, Farage and their ilk.

Water John

The Guardian is putting it as 227 For and 412 Against the Deal. They have 93 Cons voting against.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/how-will-your-mp-vote-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

The Guardian is putting it as 227 For and 412 Against the Deal. They have 93 Cons voting against.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/how-will-your-mp-vote-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal

What if Labour abstain as has been mooted? It seems from your numbers that it would carry.

seamus

trellheim wrote: »

OK you are picking me up wrong. To take one point to illustrate

1) We do not currently have a EU Army.
2) There are proposals for one - as linked above.
3) If the EU voted 26 to 1 for an EU Army, would we leave ? Would that be enough for Ireland to put in an Article 50 ?

If you don't like EU Army replace it with "common corporation tax base" .

The UK is leaving for its own reasons - I think our threshold would be higher.

We have specific opt-outs on both an EU Army and tax unification. So it's kind of irrelevant. There are no scenarios where the EU can outvote us to accept something we are ideologically opposed to.

I agree our threshold would be higher; it would be a scenario where the EU breaks its own rules and treaties.

Brexit didn't come about because the EU was attempting to force the UK to accept things that they didn't like. There was no "trigger" for it.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

What if Labour abstain as has been mooted? It seems from your numbers that it would carry.

Why would they not vote against a deal that they have publicly rejected?

ancapailldorcha

prawnsambo wrote: »

What if Labour abstain as has been mooted? It seems from your numbers that it would carry.

I don't see how they could to be honest. It's getting very close to make or break time for Corbyn. He either sides with May and kills the notion that he is any sort of opposition or does the opposite and calls for a vote. Simply voting against isn't really good enough any more and there isn't time for a general election.

Water John

Haven't heard as see no reason for Lb to abstain. That would be abandoning their duty as elected MPs, to decide issues. Not happening.
A good bit of debate and opinion as to what will follow this vote against the Deal. Peston say Lb sources saying JC will move to a 2nd Ref and that TM then will try a trump that by mooting a Govn't of National Unity.
You can see the manouverings as to what happens after the vote is already under way.

CelticRambler

devnull wrote: »

You know I keep thinking ...

That's why you'll never grow up to be a Brexiteer!

RobMc59 wrote: »

YIf the TM deal is rejected the EU would probably negotiate with a different government although if this deal is rejected surely remaining is the `no brainer`alternative?

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you look at all of the Brexiteers calling for renegotiation, none of them actually lay out what they will offer in return. And that has been the core problem throughout. The has never come to terms that they will not, ever, get everything they want and need to offer something to get something in return.

The curse of isolationism (them-or-us) strikes again. Neither the UK Govt nor the myriad versions of the Brexiteers understand that "the EU's position" is, in fact, the compromise position of 27 other states. Yes, the EU acts as one (especially - and surprisingly - so during these negotiations), but there are still 27 different points of view feeding into that final published position.

Yet somehow Sky News has no trouble finding a parade of Brexiteers who believe that they can go back to Brussels with 27 equal-but-oppostite, alternative Made-In-Britain notions that may, or may not, possibly (if the planets align correctly) satisfy about half of the members of their own party (with the wind blowing in the right direction), and that that's a perfectly reasonable demand.

Thinking is in short supply on that side of the argument.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how they could to be honest. It's getting very close to make or break time for Corbyn. He either sides with May and kills the notion that he is any sort of opposition or does the opposite and calls for a vote. Simply voting against isn't really good enough any more and there isn't time for a general election.

Well for a start, Corbyn is not pro-EU. And that's putting it mildly. So abstaining would see the deal through and a withdrawal on 29th March. It would suit him to have the Tories carry the can for whatever the fallout is and then sweep in at the next GE.