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 VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

This tactic would only work if she actually gets concessions and I cannot remember her getting anything from Salzburg, hence parliament hoping to vote against her deal.

A penny for the thoughts of those MPs that were hesitating on voting for or against her but decided to give her a chance. Another meeting with other EU leaders and another humiliation for her and the UK.

I don't think concessions are in the cards one way or another. The deal is what it is. It's a matter of optics at this stage and I think that warm words and platitudes from the EU are probably not as helpful to May domesticly as the chance to play the bloody dificult woman again.

Folkstonian

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think concessions are in the cards one way or another. The deal is what it is. It's a matter of optics at this stage and I think that warm words and platitudes from the EU are probably not as helpful to May domesticly as the chance to play the bloody dificult woman again.

She delayed her meaningful vote to gain some concessions from the EU.

It was literally the only reason she did it.

That she has hit a brick wall despite her apparent confidence when explaining her U-turn on the vote in Parliament, cannot be anything other than disastrous.

She’s well beyond the ‘bloody difficult woman’ stage. She looks hobbled and hopeless.

Imreoir2

Folkstonian wrote: »

She delayed her meaningful vote to gain some concessions from the EU.

It was literally the only reason she did it.

That she has hit a brick wall despite her apparent confidence when explaining her U-turn on the vote in Parliament, cannot be anything other than disastrous.

She’s well beyond the ‘bloody difficult woman’ stage. She looks hobbled and hopeless.

I don't think she is niave enough to expect any significant concession from the EU. She delayed the vote because she could not win it, not because she thought there were any concessions to be won. It's not good enough for her and her ministers to say there are no concessions available, and that the renegioatiation backbenchers are calling for won't work. She has to prove the point, ask for concessions and be seen to fail. If nothing else, that will at least take some of the wind out of the sails of those who are currently insisting on a renegiotiation.

In January, while the deal won't have changed, the context will, at least somewhat. The cliff edge is closer, there is less time for a renegioatiation and an atempt at renegiotiation will be seen to have already failed. This may or may not change the result of the vote, but it is a better strategy than having the deal voted down by a huge margin already.

J Mysterio

Folkstonian wrote: »

She delayed her meaningful vote to gain some concessions from the EU.

No. She delayed the meaningful vote because she was going to lose it badly.

She only then decided, under duress, that she would go to Brussels to seek assurances that the backstop is temporary.

But why does she need to go to Brussels for this? It says it in the withdrawal agreement which agreed between the UK/ EU negotiators: it is an insurance mechamism for if the future relationship negotiations fail to avoid a hard border. And even then it only applies untill another solution is found. So it is inherently temporary and imperminant.

The ERG should be placated by that given how they said the 'alternative' (magic) solutions are easy. They can spend all the time they like thinking about it as the future relationship is negotiated.

Honestly, I wonder why the backstop has become such a focus of the hysteria - there are so many other aspects which it would seem would be more offensive to Brexiteers. DUP influence perhaps.

J Mysterio

Whats clear to me at this point is that if there is to be a Brexit, it will be the deal currently on the table.

Whats also clear is that the EU have decided to stop doing little merry dances to comfort May so she can go home with a bone to show in Parliament. It's reality time and the fun and games are over. No one has any more time or patience for the nonsense.

Options as I see them, in order of preference:

* Ratify the deal, work on future relationship
* Second referendum: May Brexit or Revoke article 50
* Revoke article 50
* General Election, Article 50 extension
* No deal Brexit (disaster)

Infini

Folkstonian wrote: »

She delayed her meaningful vote to gain some concessions from the EU.

It was literally the only reason she did it.

That she has hit a brick wall despite her apparent confidence when explaining her U-turn on the vote in Parliament, cannot be anything other than disastrous.

She’s well beyond the ‘bloody difficult woman’ stage. She looks hobbled and hopeless.

She's run out of road at this stage. They got 3 choices so make one is the honest responce she's going to get. Remaining either through an A50 withdrawal or a 2nd referendum would end this with the least damage and probably an unwritten rule of "Never Speak of this again" sort of thing.

Otherwise it's either you take the agreement that's on the table and accept that's what you get or you crash out with no deal, ruin your country and cause it's possible breakup as well. If thing's go bad in NI economically at least and enough support builds up I could see a border poll happening or even being a part of any new EU agreement with the State of Little England.

At this point the EU need to take the glove's off and basically hammer home the same point over and over till it finally sink's in with the Brits: Thats the deal take it or leave it, theres no further negotiations at this point. It probably would not hurt to make the point that if they crash out hard any future agreements will be even harsher than what you got now expecially by damaging Ireland as well.

J Mysterio

Not very impressed with Kuenssburgs reporting:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073355430884241409

prinzeugen

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not very impressed with Kuenssburgs reporting:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073355430884241409

Not what you wanted to read? Two sides to a story. I am convinced it will end up in a no deal.

And it is the EU commission to blame not the UK.

Peregrinus

What the Kuenssberg tween doesn't mention is that the reason May is given "little hope of anything she can offer to backbenchers at home" is because, when asked what she needed, she was unable to answer. She's not getting because she didn't ask. She didn't ask, I'm guessing, because she was unable to think of anything that she could plausibly hope to get that would, in fact, solve her domestic problem.

OK, it's a tweet; you can only get so much into a tweet. Still, other journalists are managing to tweet about this.

It's clear how this looks from the EU side; as they see it, May thinks it's her job to tell them about her problem, and their job to devise and deliver a solution to her problem. Hence their frosty response.

As for the EU commission being to blame, that's absurd. This problem is entirely of May's making, the consequence of errors which were in no way forced upon her by the EU. Despite having already adopted the objective of avoiding a hard border in Ireland, and knowing that that was also an objective of the EU's, May chose in her Lancaster House speech, six months after the referendum, to target a hard brexit, ruling out all of the mechanisms which, currently, keep the border open. Then, again in no way forced by the EU, she chose to call a general election, thereby losing her majority and making herself dependent on the DUP, which creates barriers to making any special terms for NI which could help to keep the border open, while allowing her to pursue the hard brexit she wants for the bulk of the UK. May's difficulty now in honouring the commitment she gave last December, and repeated last March, is entirely the result of obstacles that she choose to place in her own way. There is no way the EU Commission can be blamed for May's choices.

Imreoir2

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not what you wanted to read? Two sides to a story. I am convinced it will end up in a no deal.

And it is the EU commission to blame not the UK.

The EU did not force the UK to adopt its red lines. A much better deal could have been reached if not for the red lines the UK set out at the start. It may well end up in a no deal, but the fault is the UK's from start to finish. Brexit is a UK decision, and chosing to allow a no-deal Brexit is also a UK decision. No one is forcing them to do this to themselves.

fash

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU did not force the UK to adopt its red lines. A much better deal could have been reached if not for the red lines the UK set out at the start. It may well end up in a no deal, but the fault is the UK's from start to finish. Brexit is a UK decision, and chosing to allow a no-deal Brexit is also a UK decision. No one is forcing them to do this to themselves.

Mr Prinz is a Brexiter: everything is the EU's fault and he is always the victim. Facts and reality don't matter-only feelings - but only his.

Zubeneschamali

prinzeugen wrote: »

I am convinced it will end up in a no deal.

And it is the EU commission to blame not the UK.

The UK is leaving - no-one in the EU has to pretend to care who the UK gutter press blame for stuff anymore. The EU want this done so they can focus on more important issues.

Seth Brundle

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not what you wanted to read? Two sides to a story. I am convinced it will end up in a no deal.

And it is the EU commission to blame not the UK.

Foolish statement!
Has the EU forced the UK to stumble around drunk whilst saying meaningless soundbites or forced them into a position of not knowing what they actually want?
The British government wanted this but hadn't thought about the specifics of what they wanted or the effects from it.

You reap what you sow!

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not very impressed with Kuenssburgs reporting:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073355430884241409

Not surprised as she probably feels sympathy with the PM.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not what you wanted to read? Two sides to a story. I am convinced it will end up in a no deal.

And it is the EU commission to blame not the UK.

Once again she went to the EU to ask them for help. When they asked her how they can help her she had no answer, but yeah it is the EU that is unhelpful once again. The quicker people realise there is no magical solution no matter how nice they ask or how many times it would get us quicker to a deal, but Theresa May still thinks she can get a magical deal and keep everyone happy.

This is not a message problem, it is a not listening or understanding problem from the UK.

Leroy42

On Laura reporting. Unhelpful seems very much like her opinion. Unhelpful to whom? Unhelpful how?

She is there to report the happens, to report the facts. Not paint the picture that the PM whats to hear. There is no doubt that Laura is more concerned with the bubble of Westminster and the 'soap opera' of politics that actually presenting the facts.

Why not simply state what happened. TM asked for help, was given the floor to describe what she needed but instead of pointing it out went into the usual slogans of working together, partnership. They get it, they understand. What is it that you want.

CrabRevolution

The tweet seems to be based on a predetermined notion that the EU is for some reason naturally and objectively obliged to concede to the UKs demands.

It's the same delusion that has led them to this mess.

boggerman1

Apparently when may was asked by leaders what the UK wanted all she could da was"brexit means brexit".sure how can u talk to a robot spouting such stuff.let em crash out.its the only solution unfortunately

VinLieger

I had quite a lot of respect for the BBC up until the last two years. Their "reporting" on brexit and constant need for "balance" regardless of the facts of a situation is just headache inducing. They are so afraid of offending either side just to save their own skins that they are just doing more damage.

Much like the tories and labour the BBC is more concerned with protecting itself than the country

Laois_Man

J Mysterio wrote: »

* Second referendum: May Brexit or Revoke article 5

From the point of view of those who voted to leave, that is a completely unacceptable choice. Let there be a third option - i.e. WTO Leave. There's a severe danger they might just actually choose it. But they have to be given the choice.

VinLieger

Laois_Man wrote: »

From the point of view of those who voted to leave, that is a completely unacceptable choice.

No its not the people who voted leave all voted for something different, many who did might be perfectly happy with May's deal as it is still a brexit.

Spook_ie

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-much-it-will-cost-to-travel-to-the-eu-after-brexit-11580454

So in the event of a crash out Brexit who's going to be the first to collect their 30 pieces of silver the EU( Ireland) or the UK?

EDIT. Actually can ignore that as long as Ireland doesn't sign up to Schengen

seamus

Enzokk wrote: »

Once again she went to the EU to ask them for help. When they asked her how they can help her she had no answer, but yeah it is the EU that is unhelpful once again.

"What would you like for Xmas, Brexiteers?"

"Surprise us!"

That's what it boils down to for me. They don't know what they want, but there's going to be hell to pay if they don't get it!

Laois_Man

VinLieger wrote: »

No its not the people who voted leave all voted for something different, many who did might be perfectly happy with May's deal as it is still a brexit.

Let them have the chance express that choice then!
The June 2016 referendum was ridiculous. Everybody who voted was given a binary choice for what is no way, a binary situation.

On the upside, if what May is really doing is actually trying to engineer a second referendum behind it all in the hope of getting a "remain" result as some have theorized, splitting the "Leave" vote in 2 by adding two flavors of leave would nearly guarantee a remain victory!

But then, you can never be too certain what madness the British public will vote for when the next version of the NHS bus is rolled out.

Sam Russell

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-much-it-will-cost-to-travel-to-the-eu-after-brexit-11580454

So in the event of a crash out Brexit who's going to be the first to collect their 30 pieces of silver the EU( Ireland) or the UK?

EDIT. Actually can ignore that as long as Ireland doesn't sign up to Schengen

Ireland will not be getting any of it. It is a visa for entry into the Schengen area.

Imreoir2

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-much-it-will-cost-to-travel-to-the-eu-after-brexit-11580454

So in the event of a crash out Brexit who's going to be the first to collect their 30 pieces of silver the EU( Ireland) or the UK?

EDIT. Actually can ignore that as long as Ireland doesn't sign up to Schengen

You vote to remove free travel and complain when you have to pay to travel. :rolleyes:

Hermy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Might watch it with Fiona Bruce on

Do you not think it will get significantly worse with Bruce as host?
To me she's blandness personified.

Keatsian

Laois_Man wrote: »

From the point of view of those who voted to leave, that is a completely unacceptable choice. Let there be a third option - i.e. WTO Leave. There's a severe danger they might just actually choose it. But they have to be given the choice.

That wouldn't be an easy thing to get on the ballot. Any referendum would require either the extension or withdrawal of Article 50, to give the UK time to hold it. A withdrawal is very unlikely - rebel Tories would support a motion of no confidence in the government before they'd countenance allowing May to withdraw Article 50.

That leaves an extension, which the EU would have to grant. The EU would be receptive to facilitating a Remain or Leave-with-May's-deal ballot. But a ballot that included a no deal option, which would see the UK walk away from its financial commitments, leave citizens' rights unresolved, and necessitate a hard border in Ireland? The EU will not be open to that.

Laois_Man

Keatsian wrote: »

That wouldn't be an easy thing to get on the ballot. Any referendum would require either the extension or withdrawal of Article 50, to give the UK time to hold it. A withdrawal is very unlikely - rebel Tories would support a motion of no confidence in the government before they'd countenance allowing May to withdraw Article 50.

That leaves an extension, which the EU would have to grant. The EU would be receptive to facilitating a Remain or Leave-with-May's-deal ballot. But a ballot that included a no deal option, which would see the UK walk away from its financial commitments, leave citizens' rights unresolved, and necessitate a hard border in Ireland? The EU will not be open to that.

EU states would jump at the chance of keeping the UK in altogether. The EU have no say whatsoever in what options the UK puts on its ballot paper! Without a second referendum, they would likely leave with no deal anyway.

10000maniacs

I agree with all the comments about Laura Kuenssburg and quite frankly all of the journalists at the BBC. Whenever a brexiteer appears on ANY BBC programme, very few hard questions are asked and even when they are asked, they are ignored and swept over. See Jo Brands question on Question Time to David Davis last night. Note how quickly Dimbleby moved to another question. There is definitely an agenda at the BBC to bring Brexit of any kind over the line and to give brexiteers a free ride.

Keatsian

Laois_Man wrote: »

EU states would jump at the chance of keeping the UK in altogether. The EU have no say whatsoever in what options the UK puts on its ballot paper! Without a second referendum, they would likely leave with no deal anyway.

Without a second referendum, they can leave with the deal before them.

Would the EU "jump at the chance" of a possible Remain by taking the risk of lending democratic legitimacy to a no deal Brexit? Very unlikely. If the UK "crashes out" with no deal in March, that's very bad, but at least the UK can return to the negotiating table once they come to their senses.

But if the UK leaves with no deal because the people voted to leave with no deal? Then it becomes very, very difficult for any London government to return to talks in the short to medium term.