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

mickoneill31

J Mysterio wrote: »

Really, all this nonsense that has infected the thread the last couple of days points to a lack of any news to discuss in terms of the furthering of the negotiations.

The nonsense is typically coming from one or two users. I was considering unsubscribing to it. Every time I opened it I saw some drivel about Ireexit or the EU army.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's seemingly just what May wants... Count the clock down, increase uncertainty and concern... Bounce Westminster into the deal to avoid chaos.

That certainly appears to be the game plan. TM and her team seem to be of the view that when push comes to shove people will accept this deal as the alternatives (No deal, no Brexit) are simply unacceptable.

But they have completely failed to sell the deal. It is very much "this is it, take it or leave it". Which of itself is fine, but they are not articulating why "leave it" is such a poor option. Recall that throughout this TM has continued to state that "No deal is better than a bad deal", but seemingly that was all nonsense as No deal is actually terrible and no body could ever vote for it, although if it happens it won't be that bad at all and WTO is great.

It is this constant lack of detail and continual contradictions that has so many in the UK with diverse opinions as to what to do.

I have said it before, TM needs to stand up in the HoC, or address the nation, and explain in clear terms, why No Deal is simply not an option. She needs to explain that No PM could ever countenance the negative effects of such a gamble, that peoples very lives would be at stake.

She must already believe this otherwise she would not be pushing this deal as the only option.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have said it before, TM needs to stand up in the HoC, or address the nation, and explain in clear terms, why No Deal is simply not an option. She needs to explain that No PM could ever countenance the negative effects of such a gamble, that peoples very lives would be at stake.

I think that she was fearful that if she was as blunt as that that she would have been accused of being a remainer (as has been done already but this time with louder voices and more of them).

But, given that both the ERG group and Corbyn fluffed their lines in trying to oust her before Christmas (and she now has amnesty from attacks from within her own party), maybe she will now be more forceful in explaining why her deal must be accepted.

Corbyn has done her a favour over Christmas in still bleating on about how Brexit must happen (ignoring the numbers in his party who want a peoples vote).

jochenstacker

McGiver wrote: »

Now, what I find interesting though is the analysis of the contributor's thought process

The thought process is to infiltrate and paralyse debate.
It is very simple and requires very little effort.
All you have to do is post sweeping statements as fact backed up by nothing. Ignore any argument to the contrary and if pushed, engage in whataboutery. And keep the argument circular, so you can go round and round and round again, example "Brexit was a democratic vote and must be respected!" when finally backed into a corner with no way out. Then the whole thing starts again at the very beginning, all the troll has to do is post a variation of his previous crap.
By engaging posters in a several page long debate, you can ensure that serious posters lose interest and wander off, whilst the few who hang on and debate you sentence for sentence make sure they don't return and others won't join.
The aim is to spam the thread with so much noise, it becomes unbearable and gets abandoned.
Boards has the advantage of good moderation, so quick spam trolls get the boot fairly quickly.
This just leaves the more careful, but much more insidious trolls that semi engage in debate by borderline trash posting.

Leroy42

Yes, but TM, and lots of others, have attempted just that.

They still will not be truthful with the people in terms of the possible/probable outcome of the different options.

TM has said all along that "No Deal is better than a bad Deal". Taking her on her word, she must now think that this deal is not a bad deal, and as such is better than a No Deal. But she has failed to detail out exactly what a no deal actually means. Any reports all allowed to be rubbished, and TM seems happy for everyone to take whatever view they want.

Even the signing off of an additional £2bn to cover No deal preparations, there was little to any actual discussion about why this was even needed and how much it would cost in the end. Was this an additional £2bn that wouldn't be required if a deal was agreed, and why is it required if the deal is better than No deal.

In general, it would appear that a very significant portion of the UK are still under the belief that No Deal is not really a concern, and it is on this basis that her deal has come under such an attack. If you believe that No Deal is so easy, then why on earth would you vote for her deal? She has created this problem with her continued mantra and unwillingness to make the nation face the real consequences seemingly on the belief that they wouldn't be able to handle it, yet this is the reason that she is struggling to get people on board. Do they believe her now, on what she said previously?

IMO, for her to have any hope of getting this deal through and saving herself, is to stop trying to please everyone and start to lay out the clear facts. Make it clear that JRM is wrong about the £39bn. It is payable and must be paid. Lay out exactly what will happen on 30th March without a deal. Loss of hundreds of agreements, taking months/years to sort out. I'm not even talking about possible effects on the economy, as we can see that plenty of people will simply label that as nonsense.

But stick to the practicalities. What happens to the polish nanny, looking after your children? Or the Spanish van driver delivering on behalf of Amazon. Who will pick the fruit? To sort these out will take time and cost. Who is going to pay that cost and who is going to lose out? What is the plan to deal with the majority of fish currently sold to the EU. Will it flood the UK market? Will they help business' deal with the new customs regimes? Who is going to fund that?

Very little of that has been talked about even now. People still seem to think that it won't have much effect on them, as maybe they don't work for an EU company or don't export. But that flies in the face of the demand to break free as the EU was running peoples lives.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they have completely failed to sell the deal. It is very much "this is it, take it or leave it". Which of itself is fine, but they are not articulating why "leave it" is such a poor option. Recall that throughout this TM has continued to state that "No deal is better than a bad deal", but seemingly that was all nonsense as No deal is actually terrible and no body could ever vote for it, although if it happens it won't be that bad at all and WTO is great.

In fairness, she hasn't been saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" recently. She was saying that during negotiations because she had to say it. Had she not, she would be in an even weaker position now as she would have had to give away more and therefore even less likely to get it through Parliament.

Now that the deal is done and there is no further negotiating, she is saying take this deal or face a "no deal" brexit. This makes sense: make the choice as stark as possible. Varadkar is backing her up on this saying that the choice is between "no-deal and a cliff edge" brexit.

EdgeCase

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK are currently struggling to deal with a few hundred migrants coming across the channel. This is the country that is telling everyone that an open border is fine.

If, as the Brexiteers are telling everyone, the soon to be Brexited UK sees the massive increases that await them, whilst the terrible and doomed EU falls apart, clearly every EU citizen will simply fly to Ireland and cross into the UK through the North.

It is a complete non starter this fantasy about "we simply won't put up a border" that they are currently throwing about.

Bear in mind they're mostly just whipping up hysteria about a few migrants crossing the channel because it keeps the focus on a jingoistic rhetoric that suits the tories. It's a relatively small problem and in normal times would be resolved without major fuss. Someone is deciding to make a song and dance about it for political reasons.

All of this is about the Tories taking the opportunity to show how hard their like on immigration really is.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

In fairness, she hasn't been saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" recently. She was saying that during negotiations because she had to say it. Had she not, she would be in an even weaker position now as she would have had to give away more and therefore even less likely to get it through Parliament.

Now that the deal is done and there is no further negotiating, she is saying take this deal or face a "no deal" brexit. This makes sense: make the choice as stark as possible. Varadkar is backing her up on this saying that the choice is between "no-deal and a cliff edge" brexit.

I could accept that if at any point she actually had laid out what No Deal actually meant and showed the EU that the UK were prepared for it. Not much of a threat when she wouldn't even tell the UK the true nature of No Deal.

Even the No Deal papers launched by Raab were full of 'mini-deals' stuff. Anything to avoid being seen to talk down Brexit.

But even if you take the position that she had to take that line, it is because of that that she is now struggling to sell her deal. From a position that No deal wasn't such a problem, to suddenly this bad deal is the only option. But she hasn't tried to explain that the No deal really is terrible and it was simply a tactic to get concessions from the EU.

lawred2

EdgeCase wrote: »

Bear in mind they're mostly just whipping up hysteria about a few migrants crossing the channel because it keeps the focus on a jingoistic rhetoric that suits the tories. It's a relatively small problem and in normal times would be resolved without major fuss. Someone is deciding to make a song and dance about it for political reasons.

All of this is about the Tories taking the opportunity to show how hard their like on immigration really is.

Exactly how I saw it

The sky news coverage was hilarious.. cutting from reporter to reporter standing in front of one deserted beach to the next deserted beach to the next deserted port dock to an image of a dinghy... Literally images of nothing happening but delivered by reporters using the gravest of tones...

And of course the obligatory red ticker proclaiming how the UK was in the grips of an unheralded migrant crisis...

Comedy stuff if it wasn't for the fact that so many people will be taken in by it

cryptocurrency

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Exactly how I saw it

The sky news coverage was hilarious.. cutting from reporter to reporter standing in front of one deserted beach to the next deserted beach to the next deserted port dock to an image of a dinghy... Literally images of nothing happening but delivered by reporters using the gravest of tones...

And of course the obligatory red ticker proclaiming how the UK was in the grips of an unheralded migrant crisis...

Comedy stuff if it wasn't for the fact that so many people will be taken in by it

Not sure that something which has cost thousands their lives is comedy stuff and I for one am curious as to why they are crossing all those European countries to get to the UK?-The latest suggestion by sajid javid that the migrants could be dropped off at any safe port and mentioned French and other ports is controversial but would spread the load perhaps.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU itself is such an arrangement. Continued membership of the EU is voluntary.

The backstop, once agreed to, however, is no longer voluntary since the UK can't get out of it unilaterally. Even if the UK walk away from the rest of the withdrawal agreement, the agreement concerning the backstop remains.

This is not accurate. No parliament can bind a future one - the UK can tear up the backstop arrangement at any point in time it wants. The same way it can renege on or end any of its international treaties or obligations. It just has consequences and would see the UK going down the road of North Korea-esque "sovereignty".

Seth Brundle

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

I think your view on Davis and Rabb may be somewhat inaccurate, to say the least!

An Ciarraioch

Surely Labour should realise by now that a customs union needs to be reinforced by Single Market membership, otherwise a hard Border and regulatory trade barriers with the EU result?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/corbyn-tells-may-to-strike-new-brexit-deal-labour-can-back

Tell me how

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

Raab, Davis and Johnson taking the reigns and delivering this utopian view of Brexit, is as likely as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher still being alive and are going to assume control of everything from a basement flat in Whitehall.

You're arguments are like David Davis, easy enough to ignore, but sometimes they actually merit checking are you being serious. I doubt it personally.

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Not sure that something which has cost thousands their lives is comedy stuff and I for one am curious as to why they are crossing all those European countries to get to the UK?-The latest suggestion by sajid javid that the migrants could be dropped off at any safe port and mentioned French and other ports is controversial but would spread the load perhaps.

The coverage of the channel crossings is comedic in its sensationalism is what I was referring to as I'm sure you knew well...

It is no joke for those risking their lives in inflatables

Tell me how

lawred2 wrote: »

The coverage of the channel crossings is comedic in its sensationalism is what I was referring to as I'm sure you knew well...

It's insulting to those that need help to be used in such a way. Similar process with Trump and the migrant caravan and now Javid and the migrants in the UK.

They are actually glad these events happened so they can use them to bolster their argument, claim to be concerned for the welfare of 'genuine' refugees while simultaneously not giving a fig what happens to them.

And it's all in plain sight.

ambro25

Infini wrote: »

Honestly what is this exactly. I know there are some who might wanna troll to get a bit of a rise out of others but this whole post is so deluded and devoid of any grounding in reality it makes me wonder if ANY Coherent thought even went into this....

Have a heart: it's good for a bit of levity, for safeguarding the echo chamber ratio of the thread, and harmless.

Of course, not all trolls are born equal, and the bottom of the barrel can irritate far faster than a finer vintage. Luckily, we all have this handy e-spitoon that is the ignore list, always to be preferred over posting drunkenly

Leroy42

Cyrptocurrent, what has any of Johnson, Davis or Raab done that has given you confidence?

By any measurement, Davis was a complete failure in his role. Have you forgotten that he lied to Parliament about the existence of reports? And Johnson? The man wrote columns to support both Leave and Remain and seemingly simply picked one hours before publication. He has also done nothing to advance any plan. Lest we forget, he, as Foreign Secretary, played a significant role in getting a UK citizen extra jail time in Iran.

And Raab. Poor old Raab. The man hired, and immediately sidelined by TM, yet stayed in role. The man, that only a few weeks ago, confessed that he had only recently learned that Dover was quite important in terms of import/export to the island he lives on.

And last but certainly not least, JRM. The man is now on plan number 3 I think. He talked for over a year about getting rid of TM, and then failed to have any actual plan when the chance came. Upon losing, he simply ignored the vote and demanded TM go to the Queen to resign. This was before his complete volte face within a week to tell everyone that he stood 100% behind TM, (just not her deal or her plan.)

You can't honestly think that any of the group of charlatans would provide anything other than chaos for the UK?

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

If you think someone is trolling, report their posts and we'll take a look at them. Don't call it out on thread. It's backseat modding.

Thanks.

fergus1001

a lot of analysts predicting a global recession at the end of 2019 or start of 2020 it's going to be an interesting year for us irish if the 29th of March rolls around with no deal the only game in town

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Don't question mod warnings on thread please. Post deleted.

MrMusician18

fergus1001 wrote: »

a lot of analysts predicting a global recession at the end of 2019 or start of 2020 it's going to be an interesting year for us irish if the 29th of March rolls around with no deal the only game in town

Considering that most markets are in bear territory, a global recession is likely much sooner. As the markets lead the real economy by about 6 months, the data will, I bet, show q2 and q3 to both be negative, but we will start feeling the pinch properly in the summer. If I were in a job vulnerable to a fall in economic activity, I'd be seeking a more secure job this January even if that comes at a cost.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is not accurate. No parliament can bind a future one - the UK can tear up the backstop arrangement at any point in time it wants. The same way it can renege on or end any of its international treaties or obligations. It just has consequences and would see the UK going down the road of North Korea-esque "sovereignty".

However the thing they are leaving, the EU, they can leave without permission of the EU or the other member states. Same with the likes of the EEA, WTO etc. Sure there may be economic consequences, but they are not breaking international law.

Were it the case that once agreeing to join the EU a member could never leave then the situation would be more like the US (where succession is illegal), and the EU would be free to take whatever measures necessary to keep the member in the union.

If such a scenario were the case, then few states would agree to join in the first place. You can see why some members of the UK parliament (not limited to mad hard-line brexiteers) are therefore reluctant to sign up to the current May deal which entails a relationship with the EU which, though less involved than full EU membership, can't be exited without EU agreement.

If the deal has any chance of success it is the likes of Corbyn that need to be persuaded. The brexiteers that have been pushing brexit all along will never be persuaded regardless of the economic cost, but the vote can be swung by opposition members together with pro-deal Conservatives if they vote in favour of it. If Labour (who were anti-brexit) can't be persuaded then the deal has no chance and we get a hard brexit and Varadkar has to face down the EU's pressure to build the border infrastructure, something he is keen to avoid.

I think the important message for Corbyn is that the only two options are the current deal or no deal exit. Yes, May was pushed around by the EU and it is not a great deal and in normal circumstances one would be mad to accept it, but this is the only deal on offer, the alternative being economic problems.

Also Ireland would like if the deal was accepted as it secures the open border with the North as well as ensures a good trading relationship with the UK.

Leroy42

How has TM been pushed around by the EU? Rather than the EU, TM has been pushed around by her own party is what lies at the core issue here.
What part(s) of the deal, specifically.
Bear in mind, that simply wishing it was better is not enough. The UK need to have a different solution to meet the demands of the EU.

fergus1001

MrMusician18 wrote:

Considering that most markets are in bear territory, a global recession is likely much sooner. As the markets lead the real economy by about 6 months, the data will, I bet, show q2 and q3 to both be negative, but we will start feeling the pinch properly in the summer. If I were in a job vulnerable to a fall in economic activity, I'd be seeking a more secure job this January even if that comes at a cost.

currently in line for a department of ag job and I will be gone like the wind as soon as my number comes up

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

How has TM been pushed around by the EU? Rather than the EU, TM has been pushed around by her own party is what lies at the core issue here.
What part(s) of the deal, specifically.
Bear in mind, that simply wishing it was better is not enough. The UK need to have a different solution to meet the demands of the EU.

Well it looks like it is the hard line brexiteer members of her own party she has resisted rather than the EU in order to agree to a deal that seems tailor made for Ireland (a backstop ensuring no hard border in perpetuity, regulatory allignment for the whole of the UK ensuring good trade between Ireland and the UK but making foreign trade deals difficult if not impossible.

The deal agreed by May is far more in line with the EU's goals than the hard-line brexiteers, many of whom resigned from May's cabinet in protest as it became clearer the direction she was going.

Certainly from the point of view of UK Parliamentarians, it looks like she was pushed around. However, the message has to be that the deal she is presenting is the only deal. Take that with all its problems or have the economy suffer.

Also, of course, Ireland wants very bad that the deal is accepted.

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

It's insulting to those that need help to be used in such a way. Similar process with Trump and the migrant caravan and now Javid and the migrants in the UK.

They are actually glad these events happened so they can use them to bolster their argument, claim to be concerned for the welfare of 'genuine' refugees while simultaneously not giving a fig what happens to them.

And it's all in plain sight.

How are the migrants getting across Europe and perhaps the people in charge of security in those countries should be scrutinised and not javid-is it acceptable that there are bands of illegal immigrants roaming around mainland Europe.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the thing they are leaving, the EU, they can leave without permission of the EU or the other member states. Same with the likes of the EEA, WTO etc. Sure there may be economic consequences, but they are not breaking international law.

Were it the case that once agreeing to join the EU a member could never leave then the situation would be more like the US (where succession is illegal), and the EU would be free to take whatever measures necessary to keep the member in the union.

If such a scenario were the case, then few states would agree to join in the first place. You can see why some members of the UK parliament (not limited to mad hard-line brexiteers) are therefore reluctant to sign up to the current May deal which entails a relationship with the EU which, though less involved than full EU membership, can't be exited without EU agreement.

There was no mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.

Where is the consensus/legal opinion that the backstop can not be withdrawn from even if the Withdrawal Agreement itself is cancelled coming from anyway? Would seem slightly bizarre to me.

Leroy42

But what alternatives did she have? Without regulatory alignment then Hard border, something the likes of ERG, Davis etc are totally against.

The deal she has got is pragmatic, although it is clearly worse than the EU membership they currently have. But that is not TM's fault, that is the fault of the UK voter who opted for it.

The problems with the UK goals, is that they are both contradictory and almost designed to set up against the EU. You cannot expect to take on a competitor in terms of less regulations and at the same time expect the other side to accept you new view of regulations.

So it is not whether or not TM delivered on the hopes and wishes, but in what way has she actually given in to the EU?