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

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Lucas is a better choice. She isn't tainted by association with any major party and is very much in touch with the grassroots so st has more credibility there. She's also a very lucid and highly charismatic orator.

The best way to expose Jacob's bombastic jingoism is with facts. Jacob's vision of a hard Brexit is built on sand. Campbell is an excellent and factual debater.

He is also utterly discredited after his contribution to the Iraq disaster.

Anthracite

RobMc59 wrote: »

On the contrary,at least now SF MPs will be able to keep telling themselves the pint of Guinness they're drinking and paying for out of their eyepoppping expenses isn't anything to do with Britain.

On the contrary to what?

This is just more nonsense. I doubt even the most rabid Shinner gives a toss where Diageo PLC is headquartered.

The quality of posting here is really plumbing the depths - what happened to well-reasoned posts and coherent arguments?

L1011

Anthracite wrote: »

*cough* Beamish and Murphy's *cough*

That's why I said Cork wouldn't have cared!

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote:

An interesting contrast between Irish and UK attitudes towards immigration in the context of Brexit arose on another forum - basically Eastern Europeans were regarded as lowering wages and thereby acting as competition for people in the working class, which may well have some merit

How could Eastern European labour reduce wages in an environment where you have at least as much or twice as much third world labour which is way cheaper than EE labour? If you agree with the assumption that supply of labour from other countries actually lowers wages in the UK then this argument makes no sense. In this hypothetical model your Pakistani workers would easily compete with your Polish ones, because they would be willing to work for less, hence the Polish workers can hardly exert any significant pressure on wages.

RobMc59

Anthracite wrote: »

On the contrary to what?

This is just more nonsense. I doubt even the most rabid Shinner gives a toss where Diageo PLC is headquartered.

The quality of posting here is really plumbing the depths - what happened to well-reasoned posts and coherent arguments?

Look-I haven't replied to a couple of posts and don't want to be accused of being a troll because I have different opinions.I made a throw away comment about "Shinner"who quite frankly I couldn't care less about-I feel the same about the DUP-if people choose to take exception to my opinion and choose to defend "shinner"that's their opinion which is fine by me-is that ok?

Water John

Lucas is a good choice, performed well in the Leaders debate previously.
JRM can't change his spots and will com a across as a twat. He can be telling them to see the results in 50 years.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Indeed - Tony Connelly points out that Norway Plus would largely involve meeting the requirements of the WA. Nick Boles, erroneously, suggests that EEA status could simply transfer after Brexit, but in truth, it needs the consent of the 31 members and an interim bespoke status

Well, EEA or EFTA doesn't solve the NI issue, that requires the CU on top. So the WA would be required even if the UK is stays in the EEA. EEA would be kind of an addition to the WA.

Mr.Nice Guy

Don't think Norway Plus is a goer. The Norwegians don't seem to be receptive to the idea.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

EdgeCase

You can be sure EFTA would become the UK and some other countries they don't really care about.

The EFTA deal is also based on grandfathering from an era before the EU and its members are small enough, non controversial enough and rich enough that it makes very little difference to the EU.

The UK would naturally change that dynamic as it's a very large state with a much more mixed economy and an aggressive financial sector that would seek to compete with the Eurozone and so on. It would be more like EFTA agreeing to enter the Anglosphere. Also I'm not really sure what countries like Norway or Iceland, models of nordic social democracy in action, have in common with the Tories' view of the world which is hardcore neoliberalism and all about low regulation and laissez faire economic policies.

The UK is just looking for a way of riding their market access.

Also what's in it for Norway? I can't see any benefits and the British were horrible to Iceland. The cod wars and more recently using anti terrorism legislation against Icelandic companies during the financial crisis.

I'm also pretty sure the EU does not want another EFTA or worse a mess like the Swiss bilateral agreements. They are very messy, more so the Swiss setup.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Don't think Norway Plus is a goer. The Norwegians don't seem to be receptive to the idea.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

She makes some very good points. The UK would clearly be a disruptive influence and only out for itself. Interesting to hear that the EFTA / EEA members regard themselves as a small community of friendly like minded countries. Britain joining would be the equivalent of a loud mouthed drunk showing up at a wedding and ruining it for everyone.

EdgeCase

Realistically, I think you're looking at a scenario where the only thing acceptable to the UK might be a trade deal like EU Japan or EU Korea.

That could take 10 years to negotiate too.

cml387

Maybe there's no one around with long enough memories, but EFTA countries took a dim view when Britain abandoned them when they joined the EU in 1973.

An Ciarraioch

cml387 wrote: »

Maybe there's no one around with long enough memories, but EFTA countries took a dim view when Britain abandoned them when they joined the EU in 1973.

As did Oz and NZ, but both are more Asian-orientated now.

McGiver

cml387 wrote:

Maybe there's no one around with long enough memories, but EFTA countries took a dim view when Britain abandoned them when they joined the EU in 1973.

Because at that time EFTA was a serious competition to the EEC and the EFTA potentially thought they could end up being the dominant and/or more important block. But as the EEC transformed into the EU, everyone else left and the EU overtook EFTA in importance, I am quite sure that EFTA gave up this aspiration and opted to closely associate with the EU as its attachment. Since 1973 EFTA's objective and position changed dramatically.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote:

As did Oz and NZ, but both are more Asian-orientated now.

Due to geography. It's a very simple thing.

Geography is actually one of the strongest arguments against any sort of Brexit as well - UK's most important trading partner will always be the EU due to geographical proximity. It's unlikely UK can divert significant proportion of its trade to say Australia or Cambodia. And it can certainly trade with them within the EU framework.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I made a throw away comment about "Shinner"who quite frankly I couldn't care less about ... is that ok?

No, it's not OK to make throwaway comments about something you don't care about, in the Politics forum, especially when it's irrelevant to the discussion. (See the charter) After Hours is the place for that kind of discussion.

Regarding the increasing noise about "Norway +" being a model for the future UK-EU relationship: it seems unlikely that the existing trio will allow the UK join their bloc, and very likely that the hardest Brexiteers will complain that "Norway +" is nothing other than "EU -" and the worst of all worlds.

Could the EU be persuaded to consider instead a revised "Switzerland" model, taking advantage of the British situation to create a simpler set of rules for Switzerland, that align with post-Brexit UK? There are quite a few parallels in the attitudes of both countries towards outsiders, coupled with a need to engage in relatively frictionless cross-border travel. Rules governing financial services could be copy-and-pasted, and the UK would opt in to various EU programmes as Switzerland does at the moment.

dr.fuzzenstein

cml387 wrote: »

Maybe there's no one around with long enough memories, but EFTA countries took a dim view when Britain abandoned them when they joined the EU in 1973.

Whatever new alliance the Brits now join, there's 2 issues.
First, everyone knows the Brits are only out for the biggest buck they can make and give nothing in return for. So they're users, they're selfish and don't care about their trade partners.
Second, every alliance they join will immediately mobilise opposition, and again there will be talk of "we won't kowtow to any new master".
I don't think the Brexit deal has any chance. Too many interest groups, all pulling in opposite directions.
Everyone just wants their own pile and screw everyone else.
UK will sink into chaos.
Just my prediction.

cml387

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Whatever new alliance the Brits now join, there's 2 issues.
First, everyone knows the Brits are only out for the biggest buck they can make and give nothing in return for. So they're users, they're selfish and don't care about their trade partners.
Second, every alliance they join will immediately mobilise opposition, and again there will be talk of "we won't kowtow to any new master".
I don't think the Brexit deal has any chance. Too many interest groups, all pulling in opposite directions.
Everyone just wants their own pile and screw everyone else.
UK will sink into chaos.
Just my prediction.

That's why the EU was Britain's best hope. Try to influence a large block from within.
And indeed it worked for many years, Thatcher fought and won many battles for Britain yet still maintained the benefits of membership.

It's a comment on leadership that we are where we are today.

Tell me how

cml387 wrote: »

That's why the EU was Britain's best hope. Try to influence a large block from within.
And indeed it worked for many years, Thatcher fought and won many battles for Britain yet still maintained the benefits of membership.

It's a comment on leadership that we are where we are today.

This whole episode can be (and most definitely will be) analysed and commented on from several different valid and equally fascinating angles.

The willingness of many loudmouth politicians to step back and allow a PM to take the flak while simultaneously waiting in the sidelines with knives sharpened hoping that when the hard work is done, they can remove her and take what they think is their position of entitlement.
The influence of the media.
The absence of strategy within UK political parties.
The absence of understanding the true benefits and practices of the EU.
The absence of a worthwhile opposition.
The emergence of social media influencing.
The risk in holding non-defined 'wishful thinking' type referendums.
The willingness to ignore the realities of trade deal negotiations
The complete lack of knowledge within the UK government on the politics associated with one of the countries which make up the union.
The willingness to hold to idealistic positions in the face of clear and present evidence.
What an expert negotiating team and leader looks like.
The willingness to lie publicly when everyone knows it is a lie without risk of sanction.
The willingness of many to believe those with inherited wealth and Oxbridge educations that elected representatives in the EU are the elite.
The belief within such a large part of the electorate that the Empire still exists.

And I'm sure there are several more.

Part of me thinks all this is fascinating (A greater part is genuinely worried about what it all means). We are living in a truly historic time. By that I mean that this period will be referred to consistently in future and we will be able to say "I remember".

Kermit.de.frog

Sunday Times reporting May is to delay the vote on Tuesday so she can demand concessions on the backstop at the meeting of EU leaders on Thursday.

Looks like the EU's solidarity with Ireland is about to be tested once and for all.

LeinsterDub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sunday Times reporting May is to delay the vote on Tuesday so she can demand concessions on the backstop at the meeting of EU leaders on Thursday.

Looks like the EU's solidarity with Ireland is about to be tested once and for all.

EU solidary has been rock solid for the past 2 years. Are you expecting this to change?

road_high

LeinsterDub wrote: »

EU solidary has been rock solid for the past 2 years. Are you expecting this to change?

They’ve been pretty clear. The deal with May was it, there’s nothing more to negotiate. The UK with their delusions of self importance think they’re still top of the EU priority list whereas most in Europe are exacerbated and want this over.

Strazdas

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Whatever new alliance the Brits now join, there's 2 issues.
First, everyone knows the Brits are only out for the biggest buck they can make and give nothing in return for. So they're users, they're selfish and don't care about their trade partners.
Second, every alliance they join will immediately mobilise opposition, and again there will be talk of "we won't kowtow to any new master".
I don't think the Brexit deal has any chance. Too many interest groups, all pulling in opposite directions.
Everyone just wants their own pile and screw everyone else.
UK will sink into chaos.
Just my prediction.

Yes, they've given the game away. A bunch of untrustworthy mavericks who would stab you in the back at a moment's notice. The idea of "Global Britain" is laughable. They are insular and self obsessed.

J Mysterio

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, it's not OK to make throwaway comments about something you don't care about, in the Politics forum, especially when it's irrelevant to the discussion. (See the charter) After Hours is the place for that kind of discussion.

Regarding the increasing noise about "Norway +" being a model for the future UK-EU relationship: it seems unlikely that the existing trio will allow the UK join their bloc, and very likely that the hardest Brexiteers will complain that "Norway +" is nothing other than "EU -" and the worst of all worlds.

Could the EU be persuaded to consider instead a revised "Switzerland" model, taking advantage of the British situation to create a simpler set of rules for Switzerland, that align with post-Brexit UK? There are quite a few parallels in the attitudes of both countries towards outsiders, coupled with a need to engage in relatively frictionless cross-border travel. Rules governing financial seervices could be copy-and-pasted, and the UK would opt in to various EU programmes as Switzerland does at the moment.

I think this is an interesting point, and its certainty what the UK have strove for - a super particular tailored deal - but its what the EU want to avoid at all costs - and who can blame them? Ultimately, it is the EU who are negotiating from a strong positon here, and they won't entertain the furtherment of another complicated arrangement such as they have with the Swiss. That's old hat.

The UK are leaving the bloc and they will not have as favourable a relationship outside as they have within. They need to fucķing understand that. Excuse my EU French.

J Mysterio

cml387 wrote: »

That's why the EU was Britain's best hope. Try to influence a large block from within.
And indeed it worked for many years, Thatcher fought and won many battles for Britain yet still maintained the benefits of membership.

It's a comment on leadership that we are where we are today.

10/10

J Mysterio

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sunday Times reporting May is to delay the vote on Tuesday so she can demand concessions on the backstop at the meeting of EU leaders on Thursday.

Looks like the EU's solidarity with Ireland is about to be tested once and for all.

Not at all. If May goes back to the EU she will be given short shrift. Strasbourg will look like a holiday, she will be hounded out of the place. There is no more negotiations to be had and no room for manoeuvre. Either she can get this deal through her parliament or she cant.

Sadly, it looks like she can not. I have been criticising this appaling 'leader' for years now, but I now find myself in a strange situation where I am rooting for her to succeed with her botched negotiated deal, but still, it looks impossible.

dr.fuzzenstein

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not at all. If May goes back to the EU she will be given short shrift. Strasbourg will look like a holiday, she will be hounded out of the place. There is no more negotiations to be had and no room for manoeuvre. Either she can get this deal through her parliament or she cant.

Sadly, it looks like she can not. I have been criticising this appaling 'leader' for years now, but I now find myself in a strange situation where I am rooting for her to succeed with her botched negotiated deal, but still, it looks impossible.

I wouldn't put the blame entirely at May's door. She inherited a giant crock of sh*t and she somehow has to make it work. She isn't even in favour of Brexit.
She must sometimes feel like a teacher in kindergarten, trying to teach while the kids are out of control and yelling and throwing things.
Cameron left a giant turd on the carpet and she gets to clean it up. No matter how much shake'n'vac she uses, the smell will linger and the stain on the rug will never go away.

Nody

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not at all. If May goes back to the EU she will be given short shrift. Strasbourg will look like a holiday, she will be hounded out of the place. There is no more negotiations to be had and no room for manoeuvre. Either she can get this deal through her parliament or she cant.

Sadly, it looks like she can not. I have been criticising this appaling 'leader' for years now, but I now find myself in a strange situation where I am rooting for her to succeed with her botched negotiated deal, but still, it looks impossible.

I'll expect EU to tell her that sure she can get a better deal; cancel A50 and remain in the union. If not; well what you can get is already on the table.

murphaph

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wouldn't put the blame entirely at May's door. She inherited a giant crock of sh*t and she somehow has to make it work. She isn't even in favour of Brexit.
She must sometimes feel like a teacher in kindergarten, trying to teach while the kids are out of control and yelling and throwing things.
Cameron left a giant turd on the carpet and she gets to clean it up. No matter how much shake'n'vac she uses, the smell will linger and the stain on the rug will never go away.

Her red lines. She could have told the truth in the beginning. She's about 40% responsible. Cameron can have the rest of the responsibility.

Enzokk

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wouldn't put the blame entirely at May's door. She inherited a giant crock of sh*t and she somehow has to make it work. She isn't even in favour of Brexit.
She must sometimes feel like a teacher in kindergarten, trying to teach while the kids are out of control and yelling and throwing things.
Cameron left a giant turd on the carpet and she gets to clean it up. No matter how much shake'n'vac she uses, the smell will linger and the stain on the rug will never go away.

Is there any indications other than she campaigned for Remain that she doesn't want Brexit? I frame this question in the context that Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave the EU but he campaigned for Remain as well so her one speech in favour of staying in the EU doesn't mean she is a Remainer, only she will do and say what she thinks is appropriate for her political ambitions.

As for her not taking the entire blame, she chose the red lines, she chose to trigger article 50 before she knew what Brexit, they wanted, she chose to ignore the voice of Remainers during this whole process and she is the one that was in charge when the Home Office really became a hostile environment for immigrants (and UK citizens). She is the one that didn't guarantee the rights of EU citizens until very late in the negotiations, which would have been a goodwill gesture to the EU. She has referred to people as citizens of nowhere who believe they are part of the wider world and not just of where they were born and then just recently she referred to EU citizens who has made their lives in Brittain and enhanced (in the majority by a big margin I would say) as queue jumpers.

She is a xenophobe and probably a racist as well, she made all her troubles herself and now being a "very difficult woman" she will not back down. So if see her struggling to get her deal through and having to deal with politicians acting as children, she made her bed and there really isn't any reason to feel sorry for her. If you do, just read one or two articles of Amelia Gentleman on the Windrush scandal and you should feel contempt for the architect of the misery people have suffered.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/ameliagentleman