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

Nody

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

And how does any of that mean UK will be treated fairly? Let's look at the actual deals struck so far.

1) USA - Worse terms than EU already (see flights deal)
2) South Africa dance trip - 4 billion in additional funding yet the countries can still reject the deal which would only be the same as they currently have through EU
3) Australia - Already stated the goal is to screw UK over based on what other countries manage to squeeze out
4) Japan - EU deal prohibits Japan from offering anything that impacts EU without EU permission; once again how do you read this to mean UK will get a better deal?
5) WTO - Multiple objections already out there (and that's before UK's utter failure in even changing currencies from euro to GBP in the taxation listed etc.)

Hence do by all means feel free to point out what country / countries are giving UK a better deal than what they have currently in EU; stating that country wants to trade with UK (as does the EU) does not mean that they are going to get a fair or favorable deal as it's only recognizing a potential market that can be bullied for better than current terms.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

Skipping gaily past the elephant in the room which is May, the UK generally and everyone who campaigned for Leave saying that there will be no problem with the border or the GFA. So much so, that they even put it on the statute books. But the EU done it to tie us up in knots says JRM, because something, something, uppity paddies.

Sorry, I don't have the faintest idea of what you are trying to say.

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

nobody in Europe or anywhere else would give a toss whether Brexit Britain is being treated fairly or not, the current regime and its media are friendless in the world.

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I dispute that. Are you saying that any deviation from a single market would have meant that there was no Belfast Agreement? If so, the current level of phytosanitary checks would disprove your point. There is currently a fairly open border but as far as freedom of movement of citizens between the two countries goes, that is because of the bilateral common travel area agreement which predated the various European organisations anyway.

Removal of customs posts and security installations was certainly a factor in the peace process. Nationalists could travel across the border into what they believed was the rest of their country without any hindrance.

It's hard to quantify what the atmosphere in the border counties circa 1998 would have been like if a hard border had still been in place.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There are 300 crossings on that border.

I'd have thought that there were far more than that, that the border has never been successfully closed and never will be.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The GFA was founded on the fact that both sides were in the SM, and only if that continues will there be no problem. Anything that causes a deviation from SM both sides of the border is asking for trouble.

I dispute that. Are you saying that any deviation from a single market would have meant that there was no Belfast Agreement? If so, the current level of phytosanitary checks would disprove your point. There is currently a fairly open border but as far as freedom of movement of citizens between the two countries goes, that is because of the bilateral common travel area agreement which predated the various European organisations anyway.

ThePanjandrum

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

he suggested that the Taoiseach said something that he didn't say

JRM said "As the Prime Minister of Ireland said yesterday he was not going to impose a hard border," he later added, "If we left without a deal he had no plans to implement a hard border." As far as I can see from newspaper reports this is exactly what was said. Are you saying that Varadkar did say that he was going to impose a hard border.

ThePanjandrum

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that he referred to an Irish Prime Minister, which we don't have,

Then you'd better hold a referendum to change the Irish Constitution because it says there:

article 13
1 1° the President shall, on the nomination of dáil
Éireann, appoint the taoiseach, that is, the head
of the Government or Prime Minister.

But what do I know? I'm only a Brit.

BonnieSituation

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think Ireland (ROI) is that interested in a UI right now. Imagine taking that lot on board.

You obviously asked all of us here in the "ROI" what we think of "that lot" and how interested we are in a UI.

Spanish Eyes

I don't think Ireland (ROI) is that interested in a UI right now. Imagine taking that lot on board.

Anyway, not long to go now. I will place a bet that a No Deal will not happen. But if I am wrong, there are certainly a lot of people in the UK Government willing and able to destroy their country for a mess of hubris.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Nevertheless, the Moggster is in the right. The various supposed difficulties of the border are EU confections designed to give it more negotiating power with the simple-minded May and her Remainer chums.

It works because they don't challenge it.

Skipping gaily past the elephant in the room which is May, the UK generally and everyone who campaigned for Leave saying that there will be no problem with the border or the GFA. So much so, that they even put it on the statute books. But the EU done it to tie us up in knots says JRM, because something, something, uppity paddies.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Nevertheless, the Moggster is in the right. The various supposed difficulties of the border are EU confections designed to give it more negotiating power with the simple-minded May and her Remainer chums.

It works because they don't challenge it.

The EU wouldn't need to stage manage or artificially create problems in the negotiations though (as the ERG crowd and their press buddies claim). They can set up whatever red lines they like in the negotiations : nobody in Europe or anywhere else would give a toss whether Brexit Britain is being treated fairly or not, the current regime and its media are friendless in the world.

Sam Russell

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Nevertheless, the Moggster is in the right. The various supposed difficulties of the border are EU confections designed to give it more negotiating power with the simple-minded May and her Remainer chums.

It works because they don't challenge it.

There are 300 crossings on that border, with some stretches passing through houses. The real solution is a UI, but that comes with other problems, not unrelated to the existing border if it becomes a hard border.

The GFA was founded on the fact that both sides were in the SM, and only if that continues will there be no problem. Anything that causes a deviation from SM both sides of the border is asking for trouble.

johnnyskeleton

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Nevertheless, the Moggster is in the right. The various supposed difficulties of the border are EU confections designed to give it more negotiating power with the simple-minded May and her Remainer chums.

It works because they don't challenge it.

What part exactly is he right about? Leaving aside the fact that he referred to an Irish Prime Minister, which we don't have, he suggested that the Taoiseach said something that he didn't say, and ultimately his plan for Northern Ireland is to simply not have any border. So people can fly to Dublin and take the train up to Belfast, then over to Scotland and they have illegally entered the UK without anyone stopping them. Moreover, goods which under the new Brextied Britain should have customs paid at the border will not be paid because Mogg has suggested that they simply ignore it and then it is not a problem.

All that is fine, but it makes a bit of a mockery of the Brexit slogan to take back control of their borders!

ThePanjandrum

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Very much enjoyed the SNP's Joanna Cherry responding to Jacob Rees Mogg on BBC's Any Questions programme.

Agreed. I just listened to that and she hit the nail absolutely on the head there. The peace in Northern Ireland is more important that this extremely shambolic vanity project that is brexit.

Well done Joanna Cherry. Put Mogg right in his place. Just wish there were more people/politicians in the UK that would do something like that.;)

Nevertheless, the Moggster is in the right. The various supposed difficulties of the border are EU confections designed to give it more negotiating power with the simple-minded May and her Remainer chums.

It works because they don't challenge it.

A Dub in Glasgo

lawred2 wrote: »

Depends where that debate was

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06wch9v

Jonathan Dimbleby presents topical debate from St John's Wood Church in London

1st dalkey dalkey

lawred2 wrote: »

you'd think it'd make sense to hedge your bets and not pass such legislation until after a withdrawal agreement made it through parliament

Indeed it would.

But this is May's government. The same one that delivered the Art 50 notification before knowing anything about Brexit and what it actually meant. So no real surprise there.

As politicians like to say, we are where we are. Add in Trump and the market reaction to his 'presidency' over the last few weeks and next year is looking like "interesting times", as the Chinese might say.

[Deleted User]

Oh I like her:D

Mr Mogg has few friends in that crowd.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

Most surprised by the audience reaction!

Depends where that debate was

J Mysterio

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Very much enjoyed the SNP's Joanna Cherry responding to Jacob Rees Mogg on BBC's Any Questions programme.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1076392669205708800

Most surprised by the audience reaction!

WomanSkirtFan8

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Very much enjoyed the SNP's Joanna Cherry responding to Jacob Rees Mogg on BBC's Any Questions programme.

Agreed. I just listened to that and she hit the nail absolutely on the head there. The peace in Northern Ireland is more important that this extremely shambolic vanity project that is brexit.

Well done Joanna Cherry. Put Mogg right in his place. Just wish there were more people/politicians in the UK that would do something like that.;)

lawred2

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

The UK parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in June 2018.

It sets the withdrawal date as 29/3/19 at 11pm.

A no deal Brexit is the default position, in law.

Failing either a Parliamentary approved deal or some change to the current law, a no deal Brexit goes ahead.

Given the state of the UK Parliament at the moment neither May's deal, nor any change in the current law is likely.

There is another deadline in that Act; " fixes 21 January 2019, at the latest, when the government must decide on how to proceed if the negotiations have not reached agreement in principle on both the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship".

That's a little over 3 weeks. Not going to happen, folks.

The only way out now is for a rebellion by MP's from both the Tory and Labour parties who would then co-operate with the Lib Dems., SNP and PC to withdraw Art 50 and scrap the whole thing for now. Realistic? Probably not.

So, No Deal Brexit it probably is, with a hard border and disrupted supplies for months.

you'd think it'd make sense to hedge your bets and not pass such legislation until after a withdrawal agreement made it through parliament

1st dalkey dalkey

The UK parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in June 2018.

It sets the withdrawal date as 29/3/19 at 11pm.

A no deal Brexit is the default position, in law.

Failing either a Parliamentary approved deal or some change to the current law, a no deal Brexit goes ahead.

Given the state of the UK Parliament at the moment neither May's deal, nor any change in the current law is likely.

There is another deadline in that Act; " fixes 21 January 2019, at the latest, when the government must decide on how to proceed if the negotiations have not reached agreement in principle on both the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship".

That's a little over 3 weeks. Not going to happen, folks.

The only way out now is for a rebellion by MP's from both the Tory and Labour parties who would then co-operate with the Lib Dems., SNP and PC to withdraw Art 50 and scrap the whole thing for now. Realistic? Probably not.

So, No Deal Brexit it probably is, with a hard border and disrupted supplies for months.

prawnsambo

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I took a read thru several UK centric forums that less frequently visit.

The Brexiteers are all jubilant that the EU is softening and giving the UK more and more it wants after the announcement on flights, trucking and financials. A lot of "see the airplanes and trucks will continue to operate" and so on.

By this stage brexitism is starting to resemble a religion

It's been a religion for a long time now.

Igotadose

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Very much enjoyed the SNP's Joanna Cherry responding to Jacob Rees Mogg on BBC's Any Questions programme.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1076392669205708800

I think she'd turn it down, but Joanna Cherry for PM! Rees Mogg... ugh what an awful speaker.

Nasty little right-wing project indeed. Not little is the problem, it's a big clusterfcuk.

Mr.Nice Guy

Very much enjoyed the SNP's Joanna Cherry responding to Jacob Rees Mogg on BBC's Any Questions programme.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1076392669205708800

Speaking of the BBC, interesting discussion on Radio 4 this past weekend from the Donegal/Derry border which is worth a listen:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001l8p

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

The biggest silence is if you don't make your voice heard within the democratic institutions, be they in Stormont or London.

Brexit has exposed the true powerless nature of devolved governments in NI/Scotland/Wales. In truth they have no power, or voice at the table and are and will always remain at the heel of what the English desire, as long as the Union remains intact.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

The biggest silence is if you don't make your voice heard within the democratic institutions, be they in Stormont or London.

The DUP couldn’t care less about Stormont at the minute. Their obsession with trying to seem important within the dynamics of Westminster power politics has caused massive damage to cross community relations in NI. Arlene Foster & co don’t seem to realise that moderate elements within Nationalism that were comfortable with the current status quo are horrified by Brexit and as a consequence are moving back towards a UI as a desirable outcome. Foster would be well advised to stop neglecting local politics if she wants to avoid further destabilising the situation in NI.

FrancieBrady

The trouble with colonies is that they tend to disintegrate if the colonist doesn't care about those who live there or more cynically, has no strategic interest there, which at least, keeps them on their toes regarding harmony and the happiness of the natives.
One of the lucky (if that is the right word)things here is that we know from recent memory the ingredients for conflict. And to be fair to the current government and some in the UK, they seem to be rightfully careful not create those.
We can dispute who changed FG's mind on 'special status' for northern Ireland, the good thing is that they are now actively looking for it to avoid any of the ingredients emerging here.
So far the strategy of most of the other parties of the state in allowing the government to be the lead on this has worked very well.

Anthracite

prinzeugen wrote: »

Except the French. People go on about "Little Englanders" and "Empire" but the French still have the biggest notions of being a world power.

Non, non, non stop. Thinking they are important. Very, very reluctant to give up its colonies also.

Or rather the colonies, which are regarded as a part of France, with the full rights and privileges, are very reluctant to leave France.