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

murphaph

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

May would never have risked the 2018 election if she thought she was going to lose it.

Labour were in disarray, thus the opportunity for a greater Tory majority.

Labour are a mess right now and Corbyn is to blame for that mess.

I agree he's useless but he's not the only reason Labour have a big problem....many of their heartlands voted for something that will make their deprived areas even worse and Labour don't know how to get that message across to them without alienating voters.

Almost the entire political system in the UK is broken at present. The only remotely functioning part seems to be Holyrood.

FrancieBrady

If the UK request an extension, I know we won't object. Who is most likely to emerge from left field to object in the EU, if anyone?

[Deleted User]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are saying that if Corbyn were a stronger leader, the Labour Party would be in a worse position in Westminster and the Tories a better position.

That is the exact opposite of what a stronger Labour leader means.

May would never have risked the 2018 election if she thought she was going to lose it.

Labour were in disarray, thus the opportunity for a greater Tory majority.

Labour are a mess right now and Corbyn is to blame for that mess.

Tacitus Kilgore

Risteard81 wrote: »

Deleted post.

So-called? Good stuff. Pretty sure it's just called the EU.

Enemy of Ireland? Would you care to elaborate on this point?

Enemy of the world? Again, could you elaborate for me please.

Risteard81

SNIP. Cut out the one-liners please.

seamus

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!

I think most clearly illustrated yesterday by the commentary from a number of MPs that, "Parliament has had their say, now the EU needs to come up with something else".

They still don't get that the EU is not subservient to the UK parliament and that the UK is not calling the shots here.

They clearly believe that the EU "will not allow" a no-deal Brexit to happen. This is a guy in a mini playing chicken with a train.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

You are saying that if Corbyn were a stronger leader, the Labour Party would be in a worse position in Westminster and the Tories a better position.

That is the exact opposite of what a stronger Labour leader means.

FrancieBrady

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!

Sammy Wilson yesterday being their primary spokesman.

VinLieger

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....

DOCARCH

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!

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted and sanctions issued.

FrancieBrady

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.

c.p.w.g.w

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

Thomas_IV

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.

L1011

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

LeinsterDub

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

nc6000

Amprodude wrote:

United Ireland may not be that far away now.

Great, how are we going to pay for that?

[Deleted User]

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.

doc_17

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

Zubeneschamali

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.

Zubeneschamali

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.

Thomas_IV

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.

Peregrinus

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.

Zubeneschamali

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.

fash

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.

Peregrinus

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.

Peregrinus

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.

Amprodude

United Ireland may not be that far away now.

Tell me how

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.

prinzeugen

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

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