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; } } }

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

An Ciarraioch

Cornwall (which famously voted Leave) now plans to lobby Brussels to secure funding after Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/13/cornwall-council-eu-cornish-embassy-brussels-brexit

ThePanjandrum

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Cornwall (which famously voted Leave) now plans to lobby Brussels to secure funding after Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/13/cornwall-council-eu-cornish-embassy-brussels-brexit

It has a Lib-Dem led council which ignores other views.

ThePanjandrum

Anthracite wrote: »

A large number of Brits think this will allow their economy to boom. They are in for a surprise.

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

This kind of delusion is far too common in Britain right now

ThePanjandrum

murphaph wrote: »

They think they are but when the reality of WTO bare bones trade hits the UK they will realise their mistake. 80s per lorry at Dover means an unrecoverable traffic jam in the south east of England. That's what UCL says

And it's wrong. There have been bigger delays at Calais before when there have been strikes in France but the traffic has been managed.

ThePanjandrum

Water John wrote: »

The clear majority of HoC see a No Deal Brexit as cathastrophic and would see it as irresponsible to let it happen.

Politicians the world over want as little responsibility as possible and to feather their nests.

The EU is a great way to let this happen.

But it doesn't benefit our country.

ThePanjandrum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This kind of delusion is far too common in Britain right now

You can believe what you want. They are terrified of the effects of having one of the largest economies in the world on their doorstep but not under their control when they know that it can enact policies which will hurt them unless they abandon their protectionism.

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You can believe what you want. They are terrified of the effects of having one of the largest economies in the world on their doorstep but not under their control when they know that it can enact policies which will hurt them unless they abandon their protectionism.

How is this 'terror' manifesting itself? Holding firm to the deal they negotiated?

LeinsterDub

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

Hamstring it in what way?

listermint

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You can believe what you want. They are terrified of the effects of having one of the largest economies in the world on their doorstep but not under their control when they know that it can enact policies which will hurt them unless they abandon their protectionism.

I presume you understand that it's managed to increase and maintain that position solely by being part of the EU the since the 70s.

The whole get left behind thing will be the new reality

Imreoir2

cml387 wrote: »

The EU are trying not to be the bad guys here. If an extension is requested it will probably be given, under certain conditions.

Tony Connelly has it that asking for an extension will be seen as an opportunity by some member states to extract further concessions from the UK.

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You can believe what you want. They are terrified of the effects of having one of the largest economies in the world on their doorstep but not under their control when they know that it can enact policies which will hurt them unless they abandon their protectionism.

I do believe it because I encounter it a few times a month when I am on my travels... people who are normally rational when talking about other things are delusional when talking about the cake and eating it and how those pesky 'Europeans' are just running scared about a no deal Brexit and they are just about to fold... I lose the will to live at that point as there is no explaining that can be done to convince the cult. Maybe you are in that camp

[Deleted User]

An English trucker has just been interviewed on The Week in Politics and he lamented that on his last time over the EU border, specifically between Serbia and Hungary, he had to wait over 23 hours. As the border between Ireland and the UK will be an EU border, just what masterly plans are going to remove that 23 hour wait between the EU and the UK here? How much is that wait going to cost companies, and thus the consumer?

The programme is saying that a majority of people in Anglesea, which is apparently one of the poorest regions of the UK, voted for Brexit. The people interviewed all gave the impression that they'd change their vote if it was held again but said they couldn't have another vote as it would make democracy meaningless. Stupid on the double. Talk about cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

prawnsambo

I don't know why you guys bother. These posts are rinse and repeat. Every single time, they are refuted and then dredged up again. There's no substance to them, just meaningless soundbites.

Seth Brundle

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

...aah you're back with your delusional version of reality.
Any chance of responding to my questions from last week on how one would implement a technical border given that you claimed "it's perfectly possible"?

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

An English trucker has just been interviewed on The Week in Politics and he lamented that on his last time over the EU border, specifically between Serbia and Hungary, he had to wait over 23 hours. As the border between Ireland and the UK will be an EU border, just what masterly plans are going to remove that 23 hour wait between the EU and the UK here? How much is that wait going to cost companies, and thus the consumer?

The programme is saying that a majority of people in Anglesea, which is apparently one of the poorest regions of the UK, voted for Brexit. The people interviewed all gave the impression that they'd change their vote if it was held again but said they couldn't have another vote as it would make democracy meaningless. Stupid on the double. Talk about cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

It tells us how much Brexiteers and the right wing press are driving forward the public narrative and nobody else can get a look in. The democracy that they are subscribing to is a right wing authoritarian version of democracy.

fash

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

Interesting- that is exactly what the UK policy as regards the EU and its forerunners was: try to sabotage from the outside (failed), tried to do it from the outside (failed), leave in order to do it from the outside (?).
Projection much?

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

During the transition period in the WA, does the EU funding continue for CAP Common fisheries policy, and regional funding?

Yes.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU agree to extend Art 50, but that the UK do not have voting rights for the EU Parliament - unless and until .... ?

No. If the Art 50 period is extended the UK remains a member of the EU and, as a member state, it has rights enshrined in the treaties (including the right to elect MEPs) which cannot be abrogated, except by amending Treaty. Which is politically unthinkable and, at this point in time, impossible in practice.

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

The EU are trying not to be the bad guys here. If an extension is requested it will probably be given, under certain conditions.

Depends on what it's requested for.

The EU will not look kindly on a request for an extension so that the UK can continue to dither. That's of no benefit to anybody, and positively harmful for the EU. So they'll only consider an extension to faciliate some definite action which is going to break the logjam.

But not just any action. The EU is very unlikely to agree to an extension so that the UK government can (a) prepare better for a no-deal Brexit, or (b) seek a political mandate, or at least political cover, for a no-deal Brexit (or indeed (c), do anything which makes a no-deal Brexit more likely to happen). As far as the EU is concerned, no-deal Brexit represents a repudiation by the UK of its obligations and commitments. It's an unfriendly and irresponsible act, and hostile on the part of the UK towards the EU. The EU will do nothing which might be construed as assent to, or legitimation of, a no-deal Brexit.

So the EU is most likely to agree to an A50 extension to faciliate some measure which increases the likelihood of exit on the terms of the WA (or something softer) or of a pivot to Remain .

[Deleted User]

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU are afraid that it will, that's why they are trying to hamstring it.

Aye, that sly EU outmanoeuvring the UK at every turn with their static position.

Stacksofwacks

So is that it, is it over?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46856149

dublinman1990

In all honesty; when it's described that a "No Brexit" will be "democratically catastrophic" for the UK if the HoC votes against the deal again this week; How could it framed be that way if things do stay as intended while the UK remains as part of the EU?

The EU in this case acts as a greater form of security to help out a member if they wanted things to remain stable for a member state i.e. the UK. When I say it's a greater form of security; I would describe it as being in a club that gives you much needed increases for improving your own reputation & increased prosperity towards a country over a longer or significant period of time. To simply throw that reputation & prosperity away by saying things like "No Deal" after negotiating a vote from the British public could give plenty of impressions to people that leaving the EU without a deal will be democratically catastrophic for the UK. This is because the amount of risks involved that are attached to a no deal brexit are too high to be realistic for TM's government to fall back if it was a safety net. TM has to learn that there is no safety net attached when leaving a big club like the EU. If TM fails the vote in the HoC & backs off with a no deal Brexit; that decision will rest on her shoulders for the rest of her political career. She has plenty to lose in her own reputation as British PM as she could resign from Government very swiftly if her party's ambition to leave the EU was defined a big economic & social failure in the not too distant future.

If a "No Brexit" was the final outcome of this rotten political period for the UK. I would make some suggestions here of what could happen if No Brexit was final.

And if I could begin with being realistic here; If Brexit does not happen at all for the Tories when they are currently in government could also be described as a political disaster because they have a lot of political power to lose if No Brexit was their final choice in deciding to leave the EU or not. Their own premise of staying on as the ruling party in the HoC was built up on the task of implementing Brexit from an agreed referendum decision of Leave from the British people. This had first happened during their time in government when DC as PM introduced the referendum to them before the result officially came up as Leave a few years ago.

I don't know how the British public could actually tolerate that position of the Tories of being more authoritarian in government then they will ever become in their lifetime if they ever fully implemented with a no deal scenario. I think that ambition from the British public to could be too much to justify for a realistic political reality to make their country better than staying in the EU.

There are other political implications for the DUP as well if they stuck in a government that decides that they would not want to do Brexit at all. The DUP in this case will rally the call of members in their own party to say to the Tories that they will leave the British government if their agenda of going ahead with Brexit was not happening under any circumstance. I would say this because the DUP are not so forgiving when a big policy does go to their intended fruition. They will not like it one bit. Their own time of ruling in the British government will become much shorter than expected if Brexit was not going to happen at all for all of the people living in the UK.

The other big probable negatives here would be that the global stock markets around the world may or may not like the tactics of TM's decision when "No Brexit" is decided upon. The stock markets had given a big shock of having losses across the major markets when the UK voted to leave the EU. I have no idea how a "No Brexit" will sound to them if they hear that the UK will stay in the EU after all. Also; a lot of the British people who had voted with the original intentions to leave the EU when they had their cast their votes in the referendum will probably have a big salty taste in their mouth to increase the likelihood of having a GE vote to eventually get the Tories out of government in the HoC. On the other hand; this may not count towards every person who voted on that day of the referendum. Some of these voters may feel that their voting decision that day was given on the back of a false premise in that the ideological outcome of Brexit maybe not so true after all.

If those things happen within a week if "No Brexit" is decided upon in the UK. They could be saying hello to JC as British PM in future.

So my summary on a choice of "No deal" Brexit is Tories out. DUP out. Hello Labour. If "No Brexit" happens. The same outcome will apply.

Zubeneschamali

dublinman1990 wrote: »

If Brexit does not happen at all for the Tories when they are currently in government could also be described as a political disaster because they have a lot of political power to lose if No Brexit was their final choice in deciding to leave the EU or not. Their own premise of staying on as the ruling party in the HoC was built up on the task of implementing Brexit from an agreed referendum decision of Leave from the British people.

You are giving them way too much credit.

May has been staying on as PM by the simple plan of ignoring humiliation, Westminster precedent, and the unwritten constitution, clinging on to power by her fingernails.

If No Brexit gets her an extra week in #10, she will have no hesitation at all.

nice_guy80

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are giving them way too much credit.

May has been staying on as PM by the simple plan of ignoring humiliation, Westminster precedent, and the unwritten constitution, clinging on to power by her fingernails.

If No Brexit gets her an extra week in #10, she will have no hesitation at all.

no-one else wants the gig
that's the main problem

DOCARCH

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

So is that it, is it over?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46856149

That's just TM's 'project fear', directed towards Brexiteers. Vote from my plan or else risk no Brexit (as no deal is unlikely to be allowed happen).

FrancieBrady

Have the 'letters of reassurance' been published anywhere?

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have the 'letters of reassurance' been published anywhere?

Not yet. Expected later today. In the meantime all you have is this story on them filed by Tony Connolly.

He seems to have more information about what will be in the EU's letter than about what will be in the UK's letter (which isn't surprising). Doesn't sound as though there will be anything very startling in it.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have the 'letters of reassurance' been published anywhere?

I found this on Reddit:

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not yet. Expected later today. In the meantime all you have is this story on them filed by Tony Connolly.

He seems to have more information about what will be in the EU's letter than about what will be in the UK's letter (which isn't surprising). Doesn't sound as though there will be anything very startling in it.

So, basically it doesn't amount to much more than the agreement for slow learners?
Can't see it convincing anyone.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, basically it doesn't amount to much more than the agreement for slow learners?
Can't see it convincing anyone.

Doin't think anyone thinks it will convince anybody. But if Tory MPs who vote against the agreement tomorrow are later going to change their minds when the pound starts to descend and the stock marke wobbles and the businessmen who fund the party and make up the backbone of its local organisation start to persuade them that, no, the adverse consequences of No Deal are not just project fear, they need some kind of a figleaf to which they can point to justify their change of mind. These letters will form part of that.