Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

1…314316318319320

Comments

  • #9452
    Infini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,651 ✭✭✭Infini


    There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.


  • #9453
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Inquitus wrote: »
    The thing is from an Irish perspective she's better than all the Tory alternatives as it stands, if she goes we likely get a Brexiteer, or even Brexit Extremist.

    I don't buy that. What difference would a 'true' brexiteer have made?

    They are hurtling towards No deal, at the very least TM has delayed that from being the only route. The likes of Johnson etc would probably have triggered no deal at this stage.

    TM has been woeful in many respects, but in terms of the actual deal that she managed to get from the EU I think she did pretty well. Apart from those decrying the backstop, I have yet to hear any cogent argument about what is wrong with the current deal (as opposed to not liking parts of it) and what changes they would realistically make.

    Try harder is not really a policy.
    I suppose there is a chance that the Brexiteers might eventually accept reality from one of their own but there's a few more chapters of the pantomime to go before that happens.

    May will probably throw in the towel at some point anyway.


  • #9454
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969

    Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid.

    It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over".

    These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.


  • #9455
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm no fan of May, but to claim that the merits of the Brexit deal depend on who is presenting it, is to ignore the fact that there are some for whom no deal will ever be good enough.

    Except I didn't make any such claim. I said a decent PM who had kept a 20+ point opinion poll lead on the day the election was called, and not let it whittle down to a 3 point lead by election day, would have seen such a lead translate to a majority of approx. 110 in parliament (the reason she called the snap election in the first place), and which is why it would have been far easier to get something thru the house of commons. Not because Teresa May was the one presenting it.


  • #9456
    intellectual dosser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭intellectual dosser


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Its only a matter of time now before Labour issue a motion of no confidence in the government and try to have a general election, but I don't think the EU should allow an extension to Article 50 if Labour campaign on the platform of renegotiating the deal that the EU already consider to be negotiated.
    So they'll have a choice to either campaign on offering a 2nd referendum, or campaign on withdrawing Article 50

    This is where I get confused - what are Labour waiting for?

    If they wait until the new year, or even closer to March 29th then the electorate will tar them with the same brush as the Tories for wasting time and being completely impotent.


  • Advertisement
  • #9457
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.

    The funny thing about Farage is, behind it all - he wants to remain - or at least remain half in as per the current WA. He has made a career out of protesting against this stuff. He is already openly drawing up plans to form a new party to contest the European elections this coming May in the event that the UK are still in. If they get a hard Brexit, what would he do with himself for the rest of his life (besides go into hiding if things get really really bad)?


  • #9458
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Gavin Esler made a good point on the Sean O'Rourke Show on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

    If people think a second referendum will be "divisive", how divisive would it be that a deal that few want is pushed through by a zombie Prime Minister in charge of a total shambles of a government?

    How divisive would a no deal Brexit be?

    How divisive would economic chaos and massive job losses be?

    How divisive was the referendum in the first place?

    Remember, the Brexiteers are the people who pushed to introduce division in the first place.

    Their "solutions" are the most divisive of all.

    But there is no solution which will not be massively divisive.

    I wouldn't normally give any praise to Margaret Thatcher, but she does deserve praise for opposing the introduction of the concept of a referendum in British politics in 1975, because she foresaw that a referendum such as this one could lead to chaos.

    That genie is out of the bottle now, however. The least worst solution there is now, is to hold a second referendum which overturns the result of the first.


  • #9459
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Infini wrote: »
    There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.

    No, what she actually said was she won't contest the next scheduled General Election which is in 2022

    She's being sly and underhanded again - she knows there isn't a snowballs hope in hell of this Government lasting til 2022!


  • #9460
    flatty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭flatty


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

    Well she knows one paddy at least.


  • #9461
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    EdgeCase wrote: »
    Looking at the analysis this morning, there's still a huge problem with May's security of tenure. There's likely to be a parliamentary motion of no confidence when (and I don't think it's if) she comes back with assurances from the EU that won't be accepted by the ERG and DUP.

    The best the EU will offer to her is some kind of words of comfort type text.

    I think you're looking at a general election in January.
    But with a Corbyn government, it's basically a case of pass the parcel, given that Corbyn's stated strategy is the same unicorns in the sky stuff that May is currently carrying out by looking for a renegotiation of the deal.

    Unless Corbyn can be persuaded by the vast bulk of opinion within his party that a second referendum is needed, what changes?

    And what happens if an election produces a similar result to 2017, because it could easily do so?


  • Advertisement
  • #9462
    Inquitus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,776 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Gavin Esler made a good point on the Sean O'Rourke Show on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

    If people think a second referendum will be "divisive", how divisive would it be that a deal that few want is pushed through by a zombie Prime Minister in charge of a total shambles of a government?

    How divisive would a no deal Brexit be?

    How divisive would economic chaos and massive job losses be?

    How divisive was the referendum in the first place?

    Remember, the Brexiteers are the people who pushed to introduce division in the first place.

    Their "solutions" are the most divisive of all.

    But there is no solution which will not be massively divisive.

    I wouldn't normally give any praise to Margaret Thatcher, but she does deserve praise for opposing the introduction of the concept of a referendum in British politics in 1975, because she foresaw that a referendum such as this one could lead to chaos.

    That genie is out of the bottle now, however. The least worst solution there is now, is to hold a second referendum which overturns the result of the first.

    You make a good point, all of the available options are divisive, which is why a 2nd referendum should not be ruled out on that basis. I think its the best way forward, but it could be a crap shoot.


  • #9463
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,420 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    seamus wrote: »
    Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969

    Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid.

    It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over".

    These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.


    The most recent poll in Scotland shows 47% if Brexit is cancelled, 53% for independence if Brexit goes ahead with deal and 57% if there is no deal. I'd say that London will further aggravate Scotland in the next 6 months.


  • #9464
    flatty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭flatty


    Infini wrote: »
    There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.

    She actually said she didn't intend to, not won't. Michael D used not standing for a second term as a major plank in his election campaign, and still noone raised an eyebrow when surprise surprise he changed his mind.


  • #9465
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You make a good point, all of the available options are divisive, which is why a 2nd referendum should not be ruled out on that basis. I think its the best way forward, but it could be a crap shoot.
    It would be massively divisive.

    And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again.

    But at least the question would be more defined than before.

    And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess.

    Nothing else does.


  • #9466
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    flatty wrote: »
    She actually said she didn't intend to, not won't. Michael D used not standing for a second term as a major plank in his election campaign, and still noone raised an eyebrow when surprise surprise he changed his mind.

    Yeah but Michael D. wasn't leading a party and was contesting a position which has no power.

    Realistically, there's no way May could possibly last beyond 2021 at the very latest.


  • #9467
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,044 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    It would be massively divisive.

    And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again.

    But at least the question would be more defined than before.

    And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess.

    Nothing else does.

    There is a lot more evidence which would refute the claims originally made such as "The day after Brexit we hold all the cards", "Negotiating trade deals will be the easiest thing in the world", "£350M per week can go to the NHS", "We will be talking directly with Berlin, not Brussels" and so on.

    There is a deal on the table, there can be no pipe dreams of what might be under the rainbow.


  • #9468
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    New thread open for business:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108871795#post108871795

    This thread will remain open for the next 24 hours or so to continue with the last few disccussions. To start the new thread, it would be great if people can give a summary of their views to date to get the ball rolling over there!


  • #9469
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Water John wrote: »
    Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.
    Water John wrote: »
    JRM put it badly, but Soubry put it correctly, TM lost the majority of her back benchers. We can thank Grieve and Millar that Parliament now has the option of extending Art 50 and also forcing a 2nd Ref.

    Article 50 can only be extended with with the consent of the EU so even if they wanted to it is not clear if this will happen. Parliament can vote for anything but with regards to article 50 there has to be agreement with the EU for most things, other than cancelling it.

    seamus wrote: »
    Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969

    Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid.

    It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over".

    These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.


    The SNP is playing this very well it seems. They have learned from their earlier mistake in 2017 of pushing too much for another independence referendum. They seem to know the path the UK is on will mean the people in Scotland will push for it as much as they want it.


  • #9470
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,040 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    If they get a hard Brexit, what would he do with himself for the rest of his life (besides go into hiding if things get really really bad)?

    Well, he can do many things. He can learn Indian cooking, how to dance the tango, write a memoir, sail around the Cape of Good Hope, finally watch The Wire, eat a chicken kiev *in* Kiev, learn the cello, gain and lose 200 pounds, manage a Sunday league football team, set the time on the VCR, set the time on the microwave, talk long luxurious morning walks, feed the ducks, go to concerts, go to movies, play Brain Training on the Nintendo DS, learn to fly a 747, keep some coturnix quail, darn socks, online shopping, an Open University course, give blood, charity work, be a shopping centre Santa, woodworking, computer programming, and brewing beer.

    Anything that keeps him busy and off TV, really.


  • #9471
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

    does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?


  • Advertisement
  • #9472
    Thatnastyboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭Thatnastyboy


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

    does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?



    The folk who's homes & businesses straddle the border might have something to say about it being 'overblown', and I wager they do REALLY care.


  • #9473
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,802 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Enzokk wrote:
    Article 50 can only be extended with with the consent of the EU so even if they wanted to it is not clear if this will happen. Parliament can vote for anything but with regards to article 50 there has to be agreement with the EU for most things, other than cancelling it.

    The first thing the EU will ask is "Why, what do you want the time for." if extension is ask. TM would need to provide a clear plan for what the time will be used for, not vague waffle.

    Faffing around like the past 2+ years is the most likely result.


  • #9474
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

    does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

    Naive to think that the only people who cross the border are on cheap booze trips!

    Aside from business, and people who live/work either side of the border, there are families whose kids go to school the other side of the border.

    Passport checks on the way to school/work may be a little inconvenient.


  • #9475
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown.

    does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?

    Thousands of people cross the border everyday, I'm one of them. I don't think there will be a return to violence of the scale witnessed before but border infrastructure will be attacked/damaged.
    It will be destabilising and an extremely regressive step in light of the advances of GFA.

    Remember the DUP never supported the GFA, they did not take part in the negotiations. They would love to see a physical border again


  • #9476
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    Thatnastyboy wrote: »
    The folk who's homes & businesses straddle the border might have something to say about it being 'overblown', and I wager they do REALLY care.

    don't get me wrong, i have little or no sympathy for the Tories.
    they never even considered little old Ireland indeed historically this has always been the case/

    but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!


  • #9477
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    Naive to think that the only people who cross the border are on cheap booze trips!

    Aside from business, and people who live/work either side of the border, there are families whose kids go to school the other side of the border.

    Passport checks on the way to school/work may be a little inconvenient.

    I understand it's an off topic question (apologies) but can kids from either side of the border go cross border and how difficult would this be?


  • #9478
    Muscles Schultz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 302 ✭✭Muscles Schultz


    Can this be locked/merged ????


  • #9479
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

    but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!

    But it's not about a few farmers dodging tax it's about the GFA and a possible return to the troubles. Brexit will make people who are poor in NI even poorer and that combined with sections of the GFA being ignored has a chance of starting things off again.


  • #9480
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    joe40 wrote: »
    Thousands of people cross the border everyday, I'm one of them. I don't think there will be a return to violence of the scale witnessed before but border infrastructure will be attacked/damaged.
    It will be destabilising and an extremely regressive step in light of the advances of GFA.

    Remember the DUP never supported the GFA, they did not take part in the negotiations. They would love to see a physical border again

    as i suspected the reason many on the border are so adamant is they do not want the DUP to be seen to "get one over" on the nationalists.

    this is more about tribal NI politics than what's best for these 2 islands & the EU.


  • Advertisement
  • #9481
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,040 ✭✭✭✭briany


    If a hard border goes up, and the UK's economic policy gradually drifts away from that of the EU's such that it becomes this laissez-faire tax haven that some experts have opined it could then the smuggling opportunities across the border will be absolute 90. And you can put up all the posts you like and fly drones in the air with LIDAR equipped. It wouldn't matter - with 300 or so crossings, the historical porousness of the border means that it'll still be a knockout. It'll be quite the game, in fact.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement