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

listermint

Calina wrote: »

Can we please stop discussing the end of the conflict in NI at this point?

In the main, I am interested to see the no deal work flows in the UK. I would like to assess their quality compared to the negotiation activities.

Given they were probably drawn up by civil servants they might be better than the negotiations driven by politicians.

I agree especially as there are posters rewriting history and it appears some only read up on it recently ...

Calina

Can we please stop discussing the end of the conflict in NI at this point?

In the main, I am interested to see the no deal work flows in the UK. I would like to assess their quality compared to the negotiation activities.

Given they were probably drawn up by civil servants they might be better than the negotiations driven by politicians.

Enzokk

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'm still amazed at the fact that the Leave side used the red bus(of lies), and nothing has been done about it.

Farage the day after the election admitted the figures were incorrect, the leave side lied to win the election...its baffling that this fact along doesn't justify another referendum.

To be fair to Farage it was not his lie that he confirmed the day after but that was another campaign. He did however never state during the campaign that the pronouncement was not correct so he knowingly let a lie go as it helped achieve his aim.

I agree that something should have been done, their Election Commission should have more power to intervene, but it is a quirk in their system that for a referendum their is no legal recourse for any side to pursue if illegal activity occurred, precisely for the reason that is mention above. Parliament doesn't have to follow the advice of the result! They could easily decide to run the referendum again on the fact that all campaigns were fined for their actions during the campaign and due to that the result was not fair and it is unreasonable for them to act on it. The question is why has Theresa May not done it nor Corbyn. The simple answer, both want Brexit to happen so they will not interfere.

J Mysterio

Folkstonian wrote: »

Most conflicts end up being resolved at the negotiating table.

Total annihilation or enemy forces is rare in the history of warfare and has never happened in even the most successful counter insurgency campaigns. It’s wrong to try and judge success or failure by that gauge. Instead it’s far more useful to simply analyse whether or not each side has set out to do what it intended to.

The IRA were rendered combat ineffective by the intelligence agencies without having achieved any of their own stated aims; the British Army are still in Northern Ireland and we aren’t living in a 32 county socialist republic. On balance, they fell well short of achieving victory.

Likewise the British couldn't defeat the IRA.

I think the GFA is a sort of recognition that neither achieved 'victory'. It is a stalemate or a compromise. Which is of course the whole point.

Folkstonian wrote:

The British pretty much just wanted a quiet life and an end to armed conflict by the mid 90s. They were far more content with the outcome.

That's a fairly contemptible statement to be fair.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's already taken care of with the super ferries on the Dublin Zeebrugge/Rotterdam/Amsterdam routes. The additional time isn't massive. Something like 36 hours total.

The superferries are helpful, certainly, but I don't think they represent sufficient capacity to replace the landbridge wholly.

Nor, in fairness, do they need to. Capacity on the landbridge will likely be reduced, and journey times increased, but that doesn't mean that nothing can come via the landbridge. There will be some displacement to other routes, but not total displacement.

The tricky bit is in working out how much displacement will be needed, which in turm depends on the terms of Brexit. The requirement is maximised in a no-deal Brexit, and I very much doubt that the extra capacity provided on the direct ferry routes will be anything like enough to manage the degree of displacement required, at least in the short term, by a crash-out Brexit. (If for no other reason than because that would imply investment in massively more capacity than will be needed in the medium to long term, or than will be needed at all in the event of an orderly Brexit with a deal, and investing in that much capacity would be expensive and inefficient.)

A crash-out Brexit will be painful for Ireland, let's not delude ourselves. And part of the that pain will be massive congestion in the landbridge which will be only partly ameliorated by diversion of trade to the direct sea route and to airfreight.

zapitastas

Folkstonian wrote: »

Most conflicts end up being resolved at the negotiating table.

Total annihilation or enemy forces is rare in the history of warfare and has never happened in even the most successful counter insurgency campaigns. It’s wrong to try and judge success or failure by that gauge. Instead it’s far more useful to simply analyse whether or not each side has set out to do what it intended to.

The IRA were rendered combat ineffective by the intelligence agencies without having achieved any of their own stated aims; the British Army are still in Northern Ireland and we aren’t living in a 32 county socialist republic. On balance, they fell well short of achieving victory.

The British pretty much just wanted a quiet life and an end to armed conflict by the mid 90s. They were far more content with the outcome.

Back on Brexit, such pitiful grandstanding by May today to ramp up no deal preparations. If she had been serious, or competent, she would have had comprehensive contingency plans in place 18 months ago and they would have been rehearsed many times over at ports, airports, hospitals and on the transport network. It’s all just a facade to buy her some more time. Her mindset is so deeply odd at this stage. Every further day she remains as PM is a massive win in her eyes. There is no bigger picture than clinging onto power.

Combat ineffective in that they were deploying bombs that were devestating large areas of English cities? Insurance companies were running scared. It was the canary warf bomb that focused minds on the process towards the GFA. The BA may still be in the north in small numbers but the visible evidence of their presence that used to scar the countryside has long since been removed

Jim2007

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Because they used lies to win an election...and it worked...maybe the the remainers should have used the same tactic and we wouldn't be in this mess

But there is no legal basis to make such a claim that is the point. It is just a glorified option poll at the end of the day. Parliament is sovereign in the UK and their Supreme Court cannot force them to either comply or ignore an advisory referendum.

Jim2007

bilston wrote: »

I'd say in a no deal scenario the border will remain soft initially. It will be pressure from France and Germany etc which will ultimately lead to a hard border being created.

Not at all. Under WTO rules once BREXIT occurs there is an automatic right to a transition period of six months (A24 I think, it has not been on my reading list recently). There after they will be forced to either open up their borders to all 160 WTO members or establish a border in NI. The WTO members can start formal proceedings once the transition period comes to an end. A failure to comply would mean that no WTO member could continue the trade negotiations with the UK. Once again they will do it to themselves, they will not need any help

Jim2007

flatty wrote: »

May is prepared to hold the entire country to ransom over this, and is doing so, in a final desperate attempt to stamp her seal on brexit. The EU must not give any leeway now, none. She is desperate to avoid a second referendum in the knowledge that she would likely lose it, in an absolute perversion of democracy. The govt and the bbc are in all out spin, with the total tenor of all BBC coverage entirely based upon mays deal or disaster, and not an iota given to a further vote. Senior bbc management are all looking for the holes they will genuflect into no doubt.
It is utterly appalling.
Ireland and the EU must not waver or blink, for the good of all.

Oh please! The EU is not going to waver or blink. The European mentality, including Ireland, is to follow the rules, the agreed framework not go careering of into unknown territory and start making it up as they go along.

Also remember as a major trading block, involved in many negotiations, it can not be seen to be a push over.

Folkstonian

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't want to derail the thread, it's obvious enough that this is way off topic, but it should be clear to anyone that had the IRA been defeated as you claim, then there would be no GFA, there would be no need for one. I have never known any government to do a deal with a defeated paramilitary enemy.

Most conflicts end up being resolved at the negotiating table.

Total annihilation or enemy forces is rare in the history of warfare and has never happened in even the most successful counter insurgency campaigns. It’s wrong to try and judge success or failure by that gauge. Instead it’s far more useful to simply analyse whether or not each side has set out to do what it intended to.

The IRA were rendered combat ineffective by the intelligence agencies without having achieved any of their own stated aims; the British Army are still in Northern Ireland and we aren’t living in a 32 county socialist republic. On balance, they fell well short of achieving victory.

The British pretty much just wanted a quiet life and an end to armed conflict by the mid 90s. They were far more content with the outcome.

Back on Brexit, such pitiful grandstanding by May today to ramp up no deal preparations. If she had been serious, or competent, she would have had comprehensive contingency plans in place 18 months ago and they would have been rehearsed many times over at ports, airports, hospitals and on the transport network. It’s all just a facade to buy her some more time. Her mindset is so deeply odd at this stage. Every further day she remains as PM is a massive win in her eyes. There is no bigger picture than clinging onto power.

c.p.w.g.w

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why? They don’t have a written constitution setting out the process and indeed up to about 60 years ago they were believed to be illegal by many constitutional authorities.

Because they used lies to win an election...and it worked...maybe the the remainers should have used the same tactic and we wouldn't be in this mess

Sure its going to be a mini disaster for the UK, and the last few weeks has been full of drama, much more unbelievable than east enders:D

Jim2007

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'm still amazed at the fact that the Leave side used the red bus(of lies), and nothing has been done about it.

Farage the day after the election admitted the figures were incorrect, the leave side lied to win the election...its baffling that this fact along doesn't justify another referendum.

Why? They don’t have a written constitution setting out the process and indeed up to about 60 years ago they were believed to be illegal by many constitutional authorities.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

So there will likely be increased reliance on airfreight (which will be expensive).

Unlikely, the new container ferry has the ability to take 120k of the 190k containers currently going via the UK.

c.p.w.g.w

I'm still amazed at the fact that the Leave side used the red bus(of lies), and nothing has been done about it.

Farage the day after the election admitted the figures were incorrect, the leave side lied to win the election...its baffling that this fact along doesn't justify another referendum.

Laois_Man

jm08 wrote: »

Hauliers not happy. Say that starting from Dublin adds 4 hours onto the sea journey.

Doesn't seem to be.

A quick search on https://ssl.directferries.com/ shows Rosslare to Cherburg is a crossing ranging from 17hrs 45mins to 18hrs 30mins. Dublin to Cherburg is 19 hours.

Peregrinus

Shelga wrote: »

So, do people think No Deal is the most likely prospect at this time?

Truly terrifying stuff.

No. May's deal is still the most likely prospect.

First, however much you dislike it, for all Leavers it's better than Remain, and for nearly all Leavers it's better than No Deal. And for all Remainers it's better than No Deal.

That's not to say that May's Deal is certain, or even that it's a greater than 50% chance. But it is a more likely outcome than either No Deal or Remain. And, at this stage in the game, those are the only options.

What is mainly required for May's deal to succeed is a climbdown by the DUP and the ultra-Brexiters, facilitated perhaps by some cosmetic language from the EU. May's increasingly public No Deal preparations are said to be aimed at the EU, but in fact they are mainly aimed at the Tory party, to make it easier for them to say "Gosh, no deal would be really bad". And there are some straws in the wind which suggest that the ERG might be preparing the ground for a climbdown. But it's very early days yet.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because the landbridge will be massively congested, and at least some of our imports that currently come by that route will need to be rerouted to avoid Great Britain. And, while capacity on the sea routes direct to the mainland from Cork and Rosslare has being and is being increased, that won't be enough, at least in the short term. So there will likely be increased reliance on airfreight (which will be expensive).

That's already taken care of with the super ferries on the Dublin Zeebrugge/Rotterdam/Amsterdam routes. The additional time isn't massive. Something like 36 hours total.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would we need airlifts?

Because the landbridge will be massively congested, and at least some of our imports that currently come by that route will need to be rerouted to avoid Great Britain. And, while capacity on the sea routes direct to the mainland from Cork and Rosslare has being and is being increased, that won't be enough, at least in the short term. So there will likely be increased reliance on airfreight (which will be expensive).

jm08

First Up wrote: »

I'm sure IF have tested this with their freight customers.

The Stena service from Rosslare to Cherbourg is still available.

Personally I'm happy to spend an extra hour or two at sea instead of the drive to and from Rosslare.

Hauliers not happy. Say that starting from Dublin adds 4 hours onto the sea journey.

prawnsambo

Hurrache wrote: »

Apparently a short bumpy ride at that
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1075102861644718081?s=19

This is Nadine Dorries. Who makes short planks look intelligent. Who gave up trying to understand the customs union because it was too complicated and said on television for the world to see, that May's deal was terrible because it gave them no MEPs and no say in the EU.

Enzokk

Shelga wrote: »

So, do people think No Deal is the most likely prospect at this time?

Truly terrifying stuff.

I think the warnings that we will sleepwalk into no deal is becoming more likely. Once the preparations start it may be too late to stop it. If you bluff with no deal and the other side does not budge we will get it. We know the EU cannot budge, the question is will the UK.

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm inclined to think it's the last sting of the dying wasp. May is trying to frighten MPs into voting for her deal. Like all her cunning plans it will suffer from the law of unintended consequences and she'll end up resigning. I wish she'd cut out all the angst and grief and just do it now.

Yes, but she is betting MPs will rather have her crappy deal (for the UK) than no deal. It is frightening that she is doing it just to try and scare MPs into voting for her deal.

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

And she is going to spend an additional £2bn as part of the ride.

Apparently a short bumpy ride at that
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1075102861644718081?s=19

LeinsterDub

Harry Palmr wrote: »

So then post bad Brexit, if it happens the M20 in Kent will be a lorry park/shanty town and Ireland will need airlifts into the main airports.

Why would we need airlifts?

Leroy42

And she is going to spend an additional £2bn as part of the ride.

Luckily that money isn't needed elsewhere

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

I guess you don’t really believe that. The troubles ended because the ira were so incredibly infiltrated. Stakeknife, Maginnis (your presidential candidate), etc, etc. They were defeated and the the loyalists turned up the volume with their disgraceful sectarian campaign which more than matched the ira sectarian campaign. Support in both communities deminished. I won’t happen again. Not possible.

I don't want to derail the thread, it's obvious enough that this is way off topic, but it should be clear to anyone that had the IRA been defeated as you claim, then there would be no GFA, there would be no need for one. I have never known any government to do a deal with a defeated paramilitary enemy.

Kermit.de.frog

Shelga wrote: »

So, do people think No Deal is the most likely prospect at this time?

Truly terrifying stuff.

No. She is trying to frighten MPs who, despite the bluster now, will be duly frightened as the clock ticks down and the consequences for their constituents of no deal come firmly in to view in the new year.

We should be backing her to scare to bejaysus out of Britain in the coming weeks :pac:

tuxy

flatty wrote: »

But a second vote is the antithesis of democracy she believes. She has said this many times.

She can find some way to justify it.
Who can stop her unless they find a way to remove her from the position as PM

flatty

tuxy wrote: »

I can't see it becoming the official line with May as PM. Her deal no matter how small the chances of getting it through parliament will remain the official line.
Evan after it gets voted down in a few weeks I can see her turning around and saying once more that she will get more reassurances on the backstop and another vote will be held again in February.

But a second vote is the antithesis of democracy she believes. She has said this many times.

flatty

May is prepared to hold the entire country to ransom over this, and is doing so, in a final desperate attempt to stamp her seal on brexit. The EU must not give any leeway now, none. She is desperate to avoid a second referendum in the knowledge that she would likely lose it, in an absolute perversion of democracy. The govt and the bbc are in all out spin, with the total tenor of all BBC coverage entirely based upon mays deal or disaster, and not an iota given to a further vote. Senior bbc management are all looking for the holes they will genuflect into no doubt.
It is utterly appalling.
Ireland and the EU must not waver or blink, for the good of all.

tuxy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Meanwhile other Tories are threatening to resign the whip if no deal becomes the official line.

I can't see it becoming the official line with May as PM. Her deal no matter how small the chances of getting it through parliament will remain the official line.
Evan after it gets voted down in a few weeks I can see her turning around and saying once more that she will get more reassurances on the backstop and another vote will be held again in February.