Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Infini · 16-01-2019 02:09AM

The simple truth at this point the UK has 3 (or 4) choices like they always have had:

1) Leave without a deal and all the consequences of what that folly entails including trade & transport disruption of an unprecedented scale as well as severe diplomatic fallout from such a reckless decision.
2) Accept the WA in another vote as its the ONLY deal on the table and weather they like it or not that backstop will be part of any agreement in the future as they have burnt all trust with the EU and will not get anything without it.
3) Accept the simple truth that if they cannot accept the WA and have any collective sense left of duty to their country that they request an A50 extention pending a 2nd Brexit Referendum as this is one of the few things the EU WILL allow an extention of A50 on.
4) Parliament considering the utterly damaging implications of a no deal crash, the lack any more time for any other options, the simple truth that the EU will only countenance an extention of A50 for a 2nd vote and even the lack of time to organise even that, decides that the one and only option left barring a crash out is to simply bite the bullet and vote to cancel A50 entirely. There would likely be a political crisis on this but the key difference is a national political crisis is not an ECONOMIC crisis which is a far more damaging in scope and scale.

The one thing right now is the wildcard chance of a no confidence vote passing and a confidence vote failing. Would the Brexiteers in order to try pushing their last hand try and paralyse parliament long enough to cause a no deal Brexit by bringing down the government with no time to try other options to get what they want?

Even if May survives this she's politically dead to rights and is unlikely to last since her authority is shot and she's lost by such a huge margin. Corbyn is likely a waste of space and is just as complicit in all this by not doing his job by being an active opposition and not willing to push remain as a last resort option in case of failure.

The simple truth in all this is that Remain is the only option available if the WA is unpalatable because crashing out of the EU will likely trigger off a chain of event's that will likely lead to the end of the UK as country with a United Ireland, a Republic of Scotland and a leftover Kingdom of England and Wales a likely makeup 10 year's from now. Those who are there today will likely be remembered as those who brought a nation down for the sake of petty ideology and idiocy and refused to listen.

EdgeCase · 16-01-2019 02:09AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

The UK standards were lowered in the 90s. Remember the kitemark? None of the krud sold today would pass that test.

Then you have the kids costumes. Sold as toys under EU law. Highly flammable. Illegal now in the UK but fine to sell in Ireland.

A lot of items in those days wouldn't have fallen under Kytemark testing requirements either but, I think there's been far, far too much push towards self certification and light touch product safety legislation.

I honestly don't see that changing in the UK as the whole push has been from the same people who want to abolish red tape. One person's red tape and bureaucracy is someone else's fire safety regulations.

Look at what happened at Grenfell and that was triggered by lax national regulation, poor inspection regimes and poor building regulations. it would not have happened in Germany for example as the materials aren't allowed to be used in tall buildings.

At EU level the UK has been one of the strongest proponents of cutting regulation and the tabloids on the one hand will rant and rave about European regulations and on the other blame the EU when the regulation isn't tight enough.

You can't win!

wiggle16 · 16-01-2019 02:23AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

Do reading. The Scottish vote was by council, not constituency area.

Honest question: what is the relevance of that distinction?

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 02:35AM

wiggle16 wrote: »

Honest question: what is the relevance of that distinction?

How do you do a facepalm on a tablet? Different statistics. Same in NI.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 02:45AM

Infini wrote: »

The simple truth at this point the UK has 3 (or 4) choices like they always have had:

1) Leave without a deal and all the consequences of what that folly entails including trade & transport disruption of an unprecedented scale as well as severe diplomatic fallout from such a reckless decision.
2) Accept the WA in another vote as its the ONLY deal on the table and weather they like it or not that backstop will be part of any agreement in the future as they have burnt all trust with the EU and will not get anything without it.
3) Accept the simple truth that if they cannot accept the WA and have any collective sense left of duty to their country that they request an A50 extention pending a 2nd Brexit Referendum as this is one of the few things the EU WILL allow an extention of A50 on.
4) Parliament considering the utterly damaging implications of a no deal crash, the lack any more time for any other options, the simple truth that the EU will only countenance an extention of A50 for a 2nd vote and even the lack of time to organise even that, decides that the one and only option left barring a crash out is to simply bite the bullet and vote to cancel A50 entirely. There would likely be a political crisis on this but the key difference is a national political crisis is not an ECONOMIC crisis which is a far more damaging in scope and scale.

The one thing right now is the wildcard chance of a no confidence vote passing and a confidence vote failing. Would the Brexiteers in order to try pushing their last hand try and paralyse parliament long enough to cause a no deal Brexit by bringing down the government with no time to try other options to get what they want?

Even if May survives this she's politically dead to rights and is unlikely to last since her authority is shot and she's lost by such a huge margin. Corbyn is likely a waste of space and is just as complicit in all this by not doing his job by being an active opposition and not willing to push remain as a last resort option in case of failure.

The simple truth in all this is that Remain is the only option available if the WA is unpalatable because crashing out of the EU will likely trigger off a chain of event's that will likely lead to the end of the UK as country with a United Ireland, a Republic of Scotland and a leftover Kingdom of England and Wales a likely makeup 10 year's from now. Those who are there today will likely be remembered as those who brought a nation down for the sake of petty ideology and idiocy and refused to listen.

Rubbish. You have been reading to much RTE or RT. Or just copy and pasted it.

Its hilarious how most of the posters here are ok with EU rule but are "independent" .

Donald Trump · 16-01-2019 02:47AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

Punishment. But there is a wee flaw in the EU plan.

As one poster said "exploding toasters". The likes of Lidl and Aldi will be fecked.

The standards in the UK have always exceeded the EU standards. Cheap **** from China sold by Lidl etc would become illegal.

Surely EU standards are a minimum rather than a maximum standard.

Edit: You even give the example yourself of children's costumes being allowed in Ireland after passing EU standards, but being banned in UK.

Listened to an interview with JRM about importing beef grown with hormones. Which are banned under EU standards but used in Australia. Said he was fine with it and that people could choose for themselves. Complained about EU rules and standards increasing prices for people

Peregrinus · 16-01-2019 02:56AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

The UK standards were lowered in the 90s. Remember the kitemark? None of the krud sold today would pass that test.

This is nonsense. UK standards were not lowered in the 1990s. The kitemark was never a mandatory standard; it was a marketing device which manufacturers could (for a fee) put on their products to show that they had been tested by the BSI and were compliant with relevant standards, but manufacturers were free to sell, and consumers were free to buy, products which had not been tested by the BSI and did not carry the kitemark.

The kitemark scheme did not change at all in the 1990s. It still operates today exactly as it has operated since the 1950s; as an entirely voluntary marketing scheme that is based on quality assurance. All that changed in the 1990s was a requirement that, whether or not they had been tested by the BSI and/or carried the kitemark, products had to comply with the relevant European Standard.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Then you have the kids costumes. Sold as toys under EU law. Highly flammable. Illegal now in the UK but fine to sell in Ireland.

This is complete nonsense. I don't know what website you're getting this tripe from, prinzeugen, but you had better stop reading it, because it is lying to you, and you are being made a fool of. I'm guessing you won't like that.

The facts:

1. There is a European flammability standard for toys. The BSI tests to this standard, and awards the kitemark to toys which meet this standard. There is no separate BSI standard. Manufacturers are free to have their toys tested by the BSI, and to badge them with the kitemark but, whether or not they do that, their toys must comply with the standard.

2. Same goes for nightwear; there is a European flammabilty standard; the BSI tests, and awards the kitemark, based on this. Testing by the BSI and carrying the kitemark is voluntary, but compliance with the standard is not.

3. The problem: costumes are tested to the flammability standard for toys, not nightwear. The nightwear standard is (a) tougher, and (b) arguably more appropriate for something worn as a garment.

4. A number of large retailers in the UK have announced that they will only sell costumes which have been tested to the nightwear flammability standards. This it not a legal requirement. Not all retailers have made this decision. Selling costumes which have not been tested to the nightwear standard remains legal, so long as they comply with the toy standard. The BSI will still award the kitemark to costumes which comply with the toy standard. Such costumes are still sold in the UK, albeit that some retailers choose not to sell them.

jm08 · 16-01-2019 03:02AM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

a
In fact it's incredibly depressing to bring to your attention that the UK alone could have blocked Juncker from being commission president as he only won by a few seats.

but almost half of all meps (conservative and UKIP meps) from the UK abstained from voting and they also made clear prior to the election that they wouldnt vote, so they made no attempt to even use their votes as leverage or to negotiate.

They simply threw them away and Juncker who people in the UK continue to complain about walked to the commission seat unchallenged

This will repeat itself this year so if you are not in the UK and in Ireland my advice is dont vote fine gael in the european elections, we dont need an EPP commission president for another 5 years, fianna fail or labour will put a vote for the other 2 major candidates, Sinn Fein as part of GUE I dont think put a candidate forward either.

honestly if you want to be tactical vote labour in the european elections. With mostly centre right governments in national office putting a centre left candidate as the commission president would be a good way of keeping EU policy in check in a lot of areas.

Juncker's vote in the European Parliament. It wasn't close.

422 members voted in favour, 250 against, 47 abstained. The total number of votes cast was 729, 10 of which were non valid.

Incidentally, Juncker defeated Barnier for the EPP nomination.

The vote from the European Council was 26-2 for. Cameron & Orban voted against him.

The issue that the UK / Cameron had with Juncker was that Cameron wanted the European Council to continue to select and control the Commission President. The Lisbon Treaty changed that and invested more power/control in the European Parliament. Merkel would have supported Cameron until he upped sticks from the EPP and joined the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).

I think people are being taken in by the demand for EU reform - from what I can see these reforms are generally to do with the UK telling everyone else what to do and not be answerable to the European Parliament or anyone else for that matter.

Incidentally, Juncker defeated Barnier for the EPP nomination.

Not sure voting for an EPP candidate just because they will vote for an EPP nominated person actually works. Its a centre right grouping who gets the most votes, so surely that is more representative of the peopel of Europe. Mairead McGuinness is in that grouping, and from what I can see she is a very able politician - in fact from what I've seen of the Irish MEPs, they all look to be fairly decent (except Ming, who is who you are suggesting we should be voting for so that he can vote for some socialist Commission President!).

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 03:26AM

2 posts which look like copy and paste jobs...

Essays that could have only been written by Tony Connolly or the KGB.

Tell me how · 16-01-2019 03:59AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

2 posts which look like copy and paste jobs...

Essays that could have only been written by Tony Connolly or the KGB.

Why don't you counter the content of the post with examples of links or objective evidence rather than trying to denigrate it by implying it was written by the KGB.

If the KGB are doing anything on this, it's likely to be whispering in Farages ear.

Amprodude · 16-01-2019 04:04AM

United Ireland may not be that far away now.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2019 04:37AM

Bambi wrote: »

I think the odd thing here is that May has been revealed to have absolutely no game plan whatsoever, not even a Baldrickian cunning plan.

I'm not sure how much of a revelation this is, though. The WA has been cruising to a massive defeat in this vote for months, now. If May were willing to countenance a more palatable alternative, it was very much in her interests to do that before being publicly humiliated, not afterwards. So, if she didn't do it before the vote, there was never much reason for optimism that she would do it after the vote.

What we know about May is that, if she were a superhero, her superpower would be clinging to things with the tenacity of a fossilised limpet. There's general agreeement that this WA is pretty much the only one possible give, (a) the EU's strategic advantage in negotiations, (b) the EU's priorities, and (c) May's red lines. Only one of these is within May's control but, happily for her, the EU has long made it clear that if the red lines shift, all sorts of things become possible in the WA that are currently impossible. Unhappily for May shifting the red lines requires her to let go of the position she has adopted, and that's the precise opposite of what she is good at doing.

So it seems to me the options are:

1. May shifts her red lines, which is difficult and scary for her personally, and also not without political risk (though, N.B., her own party can't challenge her leadership before next December).

2. May resigns, and allows in another leader who will shift the red lines. This also involves May letting go, in this case of her office rathe than her political position, but that's equally difficult for her. Shifted red lines allows the WA to be negotiated but, NB, only to make it softer, not harder.

3. No-deal Brexit.

4. No Brexit.

As I've said before, options like "general election" or "second referendum" are just different mechanisms for choosing between the same basic options. They don't open up new possibilities that aren't in this list.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2019 04:56AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes, our government.

The thing is we gave our government, in particular the Taoiseach, praise when May and the EU agreed on a deal. Presumably had the deal passed in the HoC today, this would be further evidence of the (our) Government's effectiveness. We, with our EU colleagues, it would be said, have secured a deal that works for Ireland and Europe, guarantees an open border with the North and frictionless trade with all of the UK. Our (Ireland's) policy has worked.

Now, however, the opposite has happened. The question is, therefore, at what point do we say that our policy or our way of thinking is not working? What constitutes failure on our part?

Failure on our part would be constituted by assenting to a Brexit on terms that result in a hard border.

We can't force the UK to agree to this Brexit deal, or any Brexit deal. We never could. What we can do, and what we have done, is to work within the EU to ensure that any Brexit deal will include terms to keep the Irish border open, thus maximising the incentive for the UK to do what it needs to in order to keep the border open. But, however much we maximise the incentive, we can't force the UK to respond to it. A no-deal Brexit was always a possiblity, and there was nothing the Irish government could ever have done that would have made it not a possibility.

And it's a bit premature, I think, to say that our policy hasn't acheived its objective yet. The UK still hasn't left, and the border is still open. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

fash · 16-01-2019 07:09AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

prinzeugen wrote:

... Some brexiter lies and nonsense...

his is nonsense. UK standards were not lowered in the 1990s. The kitemark was never a mandatory standard; it was a marketing device which manufacturers could (for a fee) put on their products to show that they had been tested by the BSI and were compliant with relevant standards, but manufacturers were free to sell, and consumers were free to buy, products which had not been tested by the BSI and did not carry the kitemark.

I think prinzeugen shows that again the real issue here is never anything real or factual- her doesn't care whether or not UK standards are higher or lower than EU standards- he will just argue that EU standards are wrong (watch now as he moves to a position that as the EU safety standards being higher than UK standards are "red tape" ).
Instead the real issue is brexiters visceral and emotion-not-fact based hatred of EU - based really on that sense of historical superiority the British enjoyed.
For non-british brexiters, one has to wonder how or why they got sucked into a British superiority narrative.

Zubeneschamali · 16-01-2019 07:24AM

Enzokk wrote: »

This is an interesting development for Labour. If they lose the no-confidence motion then at least Corbyn will have to keep quiet about a new election. He will then have to start moving towards a second referendum surely.

I don't understand why people are a) mad at Corbyn and b) wondering what he is going to do.

He is implementing Labour policy as set out at Conference in September.

He will table a motion of No Confidence, and when he loses, call for a new referendum.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2019 07:39AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't understand why people are a) mad at Corbyn and b) wondering what he is going to do.

He is implementing Labour policy as set out at Conference in September.

He will table a motion of No Confidence, and when he loses, call for a new referendum.

Strong hints today that he is not going to call for a new referendum. He doesn't think Labour policy requires him to do so.

Thomas_IV · 16-01-2019 07:53AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't understand why people are a) mad at Corbyn and b) wondering what he is going to do.

He is implementing Labour policy as set out at Conference in September.

He will table a motion of No Confidence, and when he loses, call for a new referendum.

I really doubt that cos without very much pressure on him from his own Party he won't do that. As for the Labour policy of last September, the mood has changed within the Labour Party and he still prefers to ignore that. A majority of Labour Party members is for a BrexitRef2 and he knows that, still it is the 'last option' which he would only very reluctantly take on.

I have despised Corbyn not right from the start, but since a couple of months after he has been elected as leader of the LP the first time and the way he performed regarding Brexit it really has settled my negative opinion about him. He is the wrong leader at the most crucial time in British politics and instead to lead the anti-Brexit movement which would be much stronger with having the LP behind them, he was taking part in the Brexit gambling only due to his desire to become PM. This no-confidence vote in the UK govt today will be as much a failure for him like the vote to reject the WA was for May yesterday.

The EU is about to speed up her preparations for a no-deal Brexit and there is no way for renegotiating that deal which the UK govt has been told by the EU for many times and now again.

If there will be a BrexitRef2 it won't be because of Corbyn's initiative it will come from a - probably narrow - majority of MPs across all parties. He himself might even then oppose it.

Zubeneschamali · 16-01-2019 08:11AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know what website you're getting this tripe from, prinzeugen, but you had better stop reading it, because it is lying to you, and you are being made a fool of.

You are being altogether too generous. I am quite confident that the poster in question does not believe most of what he writes here.

Zubeneschamali · 16-01-2019 08:20AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And it's a bit premature, I think, to say that our policy hasn't acheived its objective yet. The UK still hasn't left, and the border is still open. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

...and even if the UK crashes out and a hard border is technically required, the Irish Governments policy is still the best one. We regretfully set about planning a hard border, will only take 20 years or so to do properly. But the UK will be on it's knees in weeks and back at the negotiating table in months under new management, because the NI border is the least of their problems, a hard customs and tariffs border with the EU will destroy them.

So before we actually do anything practical about a hard border, Keir Starmer will be negotiating with the EU, and Item 1 will be... the border in Ireland.

doc_17 · 16-01-2019 08:30AM

I know Tories will vote for her tomorrow. But she’s finished. That madness can’t carry on.

Fr Tod Umptious · 16-01-2019 08:51AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't understand why people are a) mad at Corbyn and b) wondering what he is going to do.

He is implementing Labour policy as set out at Conference in September.

He will table a motion of No Confidence, and when he loses, call for a new referendum.

I said this in the last thread.

Corbyn is a anti Euro left wing politician at heart thus he has been totally ambiguous throughout the whole Brexit era.

Had he be been a stronger leader in the early days then maybe May would not have risked the snap election last year and thus we would not have the DUP calling the shots now.

But way back when Corbyn was elected there was talk of Tories joining the Labour party for £10 just to vote for him and thus sow the seeds of cahos within Labour

If that is true look at where it got the Tories.

Had there been a stronger Labour parliamentary opposition post Brexit the Tories would still have their 2015 election majority, and the WA would have passed in December 2017 because in reality no one outside the DUP give a hoot about the constutional implications of the backdrop.

nc6000 · 16-01-2019 08:55AM

Amprodude wrote:

United Ireland may not be that far away now.

Great, how are we going to pay for that?

LeinsterDub · 16-01-2019 09:00AM

nc6000 wrote: »

Great, how are we going to pay for that?

Or good friends in Europe will tide us over for the first decade or so. By then the models say it will pay for itself

L1011 · 16-01-2019 09:02AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Or good friends in Europe will tide us over for the first decade or so. By then the models say it will pay for itself

If you mean the SF funded report, that require the UK to fund redundancy and pension costs and transfer no national debt. No chance of anybody those three

Thomas_IV · 16-01-2019 09:07AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I said this in the last thread.

Corbyn is a anti Euro left wing politician at heart thus he has been totally ambiguous throughout the whole Brexit era.

Had he be been a stronger leader in the early days then maybe May would not have risked the snap election last year and thus we would not have the DUP calling the shots now.

But way back when Corbyn was elected there was talk of Tories joining the Labour party for £10 just to vote for him and thus sow the seeds of cahos within Labour

If that is true look at where it got the Tories.

Had there been a stronger Labour parliamentary opposition post Brexit the Tories would still have their 2015 election majority, and the WA would have passed in December 2017 because in reality no one outside the DUP give a hoot about the constutional implications of the backdrop.

That is all quite right, just that Tories did their fake applications for Labour Membership in order to vote and the fee was £3 as from the outset it was just to pay the fee and no need for membership application but as the Party got notice of abusive voters (pay the fee and spoil the vote) the member ship application was added. If I recall it correctly, the LP was swamped by new member ship application on a scale of 400K around the time of Corbyn's leadership contest and election. It took them huge efforts and time to sort it out. Fact is that many Momentum and far-left people joined the LP in order to vote Corbyn in as leader.

Many of them still refuse to realise that Corbyn is in fact a Brexiter himself. There is also an anti-Corbyn faction within the LP but to no avail.

c.p.w.g.w · 16-01-2019 09:07AM

wiggle16 wrote: »

The majority of the people who voted Remain (and the overwhelming overall majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland) are not eligible to vote in UK referenda? Hmmm.
Or do you just mean opinion polls? Because as I understand it, any reputable poll of that nature will establish relevance, ie, "are you eligible to vote/over 18" etc.

The vote was only carried in England. Not a single Scottish constituency voted to Leave. Only a few constituencies in NI votes to leave and their majority was very slim. The result was also extremely slim in Wales. The result in London was a clear remain, with over 2.2 million votes in against leaving. Calling it a vote of the people in the UK is a joke.

A huge element of the Leave vote was a protest vote. A lot of people did not understand the magnitude of what they were voting in favour of and believed the out and out lies spun by Boris et al (such as the £350000000 a week to spend on the NHS plastered on the side of a [German made] bus).

The number of google searches the next morning along the lines of "what is the eu" speaks volumes about the true nature of that referendum. The result in EU funded Cornwall, where they didn't realise they would lose their EU funding if they left the EU, says it all: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/26/cornwall-fears-loss-of-funding-after-backing-brexit

The Welsh voting to leave despite their massive farming industry which is also dependant on eu money. The lack of knowledge throughout the UK about the EU was/is depressing as the folks with this lack of knowledge are costing their country and fortune.

Although I find it humorous when farmers who campaigned for leave realised their grant money would exit too. Turkeys voting for xmas comes to mind

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2019 09:18AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh you poor deluded fool.

Unless the UK calls off Brexit there'll be years of trade deals with the EU and the border/backstop/customs and immigration and all the other stuff.

There seems to be a delusion out there that this is the only bump along the road to happy ever after/little England -happy at last.

It isn't, there is still the prospect of watching the UK eat itself up whether they leave or stay.

ancapailldorcha · 16-01-2019 09:19AM

Posts deleted and sanctions issued.

DOCARCH · 16-01-2019 09:21AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There seems to be a delusion out there that this is the only bump along the road to happy ever after/little England -happy at last.

There is also delusion among Brexiteers that the UK and the EU are equal partners in negotiation, or even that the UK (in some mad/deluded way) have the upper hand!

VinLieger · 16-01-2019 09:26AM

DOCARCH wrote: »

There is also delusion among Brexiteers that the UK and the EU are equal partners in negotiation, or even that the UK (in some mad/deluded way) have the upper hand!

Dont forget the delusion that whenever its then shown the EU have the upper hand and are the stronger party in the negotiations that they are somehow cheating or being unfair....

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments