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

Prince William

Calling an election and leaving the mess to jezza to clean up with be a masterstroke

sandbelter

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The EU would or course have to help us subsidize the north if a United Ireland ever came to pass. I can't see most people in the UK missing the North if it left.

Nope, they'll simply tell the Irish to collect their company taxes.

It's for the Irish to make Ireland work.

FrancieBrady

sandbelter wrote: »

Nope, they'll simply tell the Irish to collect their company taxes.

It's for the Irish to make Ireland work.

Nonsense: there would be loads of help available to make it work. The EU invests in their members. Look around you.

wiggle16

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense: there would be loads of help available to make it work. The EU invests in their members. Look around you.

No, it's up to us to make it work. I don't doubt there would be some assistance from the EU but they cannot be expected to pay for a UI.

I think a UI is way too much of a conjecture at this stage. Yes Brexit is conceivably an event that could trigger a move towards a UI, it certainly looks like the UK may break up in the next 10 years over this. That doesn't mean reunification for Ireland and if it ever does happen it will get ugly before it gets better.

sandbelter

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense: there would be loads of help available to make it work. The EU invests in their members. Look around you.

Nope, I think your underestimate the stakes the game is being played on the continent, they have bigger fish to fry.

In Greece I think is still on one pain killer per surgical procedure, Spain still hasn't recovered from the crash, and the right wing is on a rise in Europe, so they are playing for much higher states.

From a European perspective Ireland is a country that deals with its problems and moves on (that might comes a shock to some of you). To boot we have the second highest highest GDP per capita in the Eurozone.

We'll be paying for NI and also more to the EU, and frankly its a good problem to have, without the EU we wouldn't be this well off.

They're be diplomatic support, the odd grant, but I expect we'll do 97% of the heavy lifting. We're seen to have the money ....that how 4% of the EU population ending up with 90% of the EU bailout bill.

J Mysterio

wiggle16 wrote: »

No, it's up to us to make it work. I don't doubt there would be some assistance from the EU but they cannot be expected to pay for a UI.

I think a UI is way too much of a conjecture at this stage. Yes Brexit is conceivably an event that could trigger a move towards a UI, it certainly looks like the UK may break up in the next 10 years over this. That doesn't mean reunification for Ireland and if it ever does happen it will get ugly before it gets better.

A year ago I was very positive about an outcome that led to a United Ireland in the short term. But things have degenerated so badly and got so out of hand - worse than could have been conceivably forseen - that I'm quite worried about it now.

We're in dangerous times and as things deteriorate further, which is highly likely, big ructions such as a No Deal Brexit would raise emotions significantly and could lead to violence, border or no border. It's an ugly situation.

Obviously we will need to see how things play out but I think a call for a border poll is premature and we should wait for the outcome of Brexit for sure and even then should probably allow a period for things to settle, some years at least. Should a clamour arise in NI with a strong majority a UI at some point in the future, great, but we absolutely should not precipate that or agitate for it. It should be allowed to happen naturally.

Brexit is a momentous thing and all jurisdictions concerrned will experience a fall out, we need to see where we stand after it.

I think Ireland will be in a strong position globally from this in the long term, but there may be some pain in the short term. For the UK, it is much, much more serious than that.

wiggle16

J Mysterio wrote: »

A year ago I was very positive about an outcome that led to a United Ireland in the short term. But things have degenerated so badly and got so out of hand - worse than could have been conceivably forseen - that I'm quite worried about it now.

I agree. While I think things are obviously far more grave for the UK in the (likely) event of a No Deal, I do think it is going to hurt us quite badly and more than most people anticipate. In both the long and short term we will be in a better position than the UK but that's only a relative position.

Figures can be bandied around about how much or how little of our trade is with the UK, but as things stand, 50% of our beef and 56% of our pork exports go to the UK - there's a lot of jobs in and connected with those industries (not to mention the actual communities that depend on them). If the UK and the EU begin to hardball each other on trade, and they almost certainly will and at the UK's instigation, we will be the ones to suffer. And that's without considering the practical impact of a hard border on the island itself. Out of the EU 27 we have by far the most to lose from Brexit.

Which is what makes it even more frustrating to listen to the bollox and jingoism put out by the UK media, the carry on in Westminster and the unlettered Rule Britannia crap coming out of the mouths of people such as on Question Time the other night etc - their ignorance and lack of any foresight is going to have a direct effect on us. There's no way to counter that, it's their business, but it's infuriating.

We're in dangerous times and as things deteriorate further, which is highly likely, big ructions such as a No Deal Brexit would raise emotions significantly and could lead to violence, border or no border. It's an ugly situation.
Obviously we will need to see how things play out but I think a call for a border poll is premature and we should wait for the outcome of Brexit for sure and even then should probably allow a period for things to settle, some years at least. Should a clamour arise in NI with a strong majority a UI at some point in the future, great, but we absolutely should not precipate that or agitate for it. It should be allowed to happen naturally.

You're spot on. A border poll or any kind of move towards a UI is absolutely premature.

I've said that the UK may not be around in ten years - I should say that we have no idea what might replace it.

Scotland has been shown definitively now that they do not have a voice in the UK. A large element of the discussion during the independence referendum was their position in the EU should they secede from the UK and the ambiguity surrounding that - in the Brexit vote they clearly chose to remain and put their foot firmly in Europe's camp, and for the lick of difference it made they're now being dragged out of it against their will. It's clear now, if it wasn't before, that the constituent nations of the UK only have a voice in its affairs when they tow the line held by whatever party is ruling England - DUP being case in point. The SNP has an even better mandate now than it did before to push for independence.

However, an independent Scotland does not mean NI is out of the union - if anything it would make the DUP more ardent. A broken up UK doesn't mean a UI - for all we know the UK could end up in some kind of federal arrangement - so it's not really possible to speculate (notwithstanding that that's what I'm doing

)

I'm not that bothered about a UI and never have been, it would be nice under peaceful circumstances but I don't lose sleep over it. But even if I were, I agree, it should not be agitated for at this stage. Without being alarmist about it, I honestly think there is a very real risk of a return to violence in the event of a hard border, that a lot of people have (I believe) unwisely dismissed. A hard border tears up the GFA, it nullifies the right to peaceful self-determination that the GFA established. Everyone knows this, but everyone who has any say in this debacle has conveniently forgotten that the people who planted the Omagh bomb, and the people who killed Stephen Carroll, are still alive and are still out there.

marno21

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1086386435039604737

I can't be the only one that thinks that this Tweet by Keir Starmer could also apply to his own leader. The toothlessness of his "opposition" is beyond depressing

Tell me how

I wonder has the EU reached a point where they expect no positive movement from the UK to actually help themselves and so they will be more steadfast in refusing to allow for an extension to A50, should it be requested.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are thinking that enough is enough and the shock of a No deal is what is needed to provoke some reality hitting home.

I read that May spoke with EU leaders, including Merkel and that they were in a degree of disbelief at the requests they were hearing for action on the EU side.

Infini

In fairness the level of stupidity from the British is such that at this point those on this side probably feel that no amount of warnings or that will get through the thick ignorance of toxic British politics. They arent gonna listen until some economic shocks are fired across their bow to make them realise how serious things are.

Akrasia

Tell me how wrote: »

I wonder has the EU reached a point where they expect no positive movement from the UK to actually help themselves and so they will be more steadfast in refusing to allow for an extension to A50, should it be requested.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are thinking that enough is enough and the shock of a No deal is what is needed to provoke some reality hitting home.

I read that May spoke with EU leaders, including Merkel and that they were in a degree of disbelief at the requests they were hearing for action on the EU side.

The UK would need an extension to A50 even if Mays deal somehow passes miraculously. They simply don't have enough time to enact the legislation required to enable a withdrawal agreement.

All of this pussyfooting around is even making a 'managed no deal' scenario less likely. They're on target for the hardest possible crash out where they don't even have enough good will with the EU to allow planes to fly and trucks to drive on the continent.

Which is why i think the HOC will step up and withdraw A50 before 29th of march. It will be a private members motion that pulls A50 entirely in the days before crunch time. The only way this wouldn't result in riots on the streets is if it included a clause calling for another referendum. (There would probably still be riots though, just not as many)

By doing it this way, it changes the default from Crashing out of Europe, to keeping things the way they are now. Or to use the logic of brexiteers, if you've in negotiations you need the option of walking away, in this case, the option is walking away crom Brexit, not the EU.

FrancieBrady

sandbelter wrote: »

Nope, I think your underestimate the stakes the game is being played on the continent, they have bigger fish to fry.

In Greece I think is still on one pain killer per surgical procedure, Spain still hasn't recovered from the crash, and the right wing is on a rise in Europe, so they are playing for much higher states.

From a European perspective Ireland is a country that deals with its problems and moves on (that might comes a shock to some of you). To boot we have the second highest highest GDP per capita in the Eurozone.

We'll be paying for NI and also more to the EU, and frankly its a good problem to have, without the EU we wouldn't be this well off.

They're be diplomatic support, the odd grant, but I expect we'll do 97% of the heavy lifting. We're seen to have the money ....that how 4% of the EU population ending up with 90% of the EU bailout bill.

I think you may need to research just what the EU have contributed towards peace on this island so far (I think we are at Peace 4 funding now)
Also research what matching funds the UK have given as well.

A successful UI would be in everyone's interests - therefore massive structural funding would be available.
As I said, it would be seen as 'investment' not 'handout'.

Tropheus

marno21 wrote: »

I can't be the only one that thinks that this Tweet by Keir Starmer could also apply to his own leader. The toothlessness of his "opposition" is beyond depressing

Corbyn is in a no win situation. If there was a clear mandate for a second referendum or to cancel Brexit, things may be more straight forward and Labour could move in that direction.

However, that's not the case. If there was a second referendum, would remain win? It's questionable. Amazingly, there is still a significant percentage of the electorate that still think a hard Brexit is a good idea.

This is a problem of the Tories making and if I was Corbyn, I'd leave then to it.

[Deleted User]

Not even one of my many English friends cares about Northern Ireland in the slightest. The Unionists are an odd bunch.. Their only attachment to Great Britain is written in paper. Neither Ireland nor Great Britain wants them.

Enzokk

marno21 wrote: »

I can't be the only one that thinks that this Tweet by Keir Starmer could also apply to his own leader. The toothlessness of his "opposition" is beyond depressing

I believe Johnson is lying here. Unless you can show where Corbyn has blatantly lied and is trying to rewrite history then it is in no way comparable.

You have an argument on what use Corbyn would be if he was PM, but AFAIK he has not openly lied like Johnson is now.

backspin.

Tropheus wrote: »

Corbyn is in a no win situation. If there was a clear mandate for a second referendum or to cancel Brexit, things may be more straight forward and Labour could move in that direction.

However, that's not the case. If there was a second referendum, would remain win? It's questionable. Amazingly, there is still a significant percentage of the electorate that still think a hard Brexit is a good idea.

This is a problem of the Tories making and if I was Corbyn, I'd leave then to it.

Judging by the reaction of the Question Time audience the other night in middle England I think leave would be favourites.

Kalyke

backspin. wrote: »

Judging by the reaction of the Question Time audience the other night in middle England I think leave would be favourites.

It took place in Deby which voted 57 percent to leave.

Infini

Akrasia wrote: »

The UK would need an extension to A50 even if Mays deal somehow passes miraculously. They simply don't have enough time to enact the legislation required to enable a withdrawal agreement.

All of this pussyfooting around is even making a 'managed no deal' scenario less likely. They're on target for the hardest possible crash out where they don't even have enough good will with the EU to allow planes to fly and trucks to drive on the continent.

Which is why i think the HOC will step up and withdraw A50 before 29th of march. It will be a private members motion that pulls A50 entirely in the days before crunch time. The only way this wouldn't result in riots on the streets is if it included a clause calling for another referendum. (There would probably still be riots though, just not as many)

By doing it this way, it changes the default from Crashing out of Europe, to keeping things the way they are now. Or to use the logic of brexiteers, if you've in negotiations you need the option of walking away, in this case, the option is walking away crom Brexit, not the EU.

I would say this is a good possibility of playing out. The simple truth is the British political establisment is gonna continiue to play ignorant and refuse to see reason up and until theyre forced to confront the hard consequences of a Hard Brexit. The only reason we havent seen the most serious consequences of this is because markets and such simply cannot believe a nation would inflict such a self defeating policy on itself though it is looking more and more likely. Their currency is down a 1/3 since June 2016 though and investment has stalled but these are just the first stages. Its like a bank run as when it starts for real it will hit like a torrent.

It'll only be in the days before Brexit takes effect that they'll finally cop on and realise the game is up.

Capt'n Midnight

Regarding a possible Article 50 extension. There's this comment.

On 1 April 2019 new EU regulations on money laundering come into force. Might this be a reason for selecting 29 March as Brexit day?

briany

Tropheus wrote: »

Corbyn is in a no win situation. If there was a clear mandate for a second referendum or to cancel Brexit, things may be more straight forward and Labour could move in that direction.

However, that's not the case. If there was a second referendum, would remain win? It's questionable. Amazingly, there is still a significant percentage of the electorate that still think a hard Brexit is a good idea.

This is a problem of the Tories making and if I was Corbyn, I'd leave then to it.

Corbyn's tactic of appealing to Old Labour, ie those in the North, more likely to have voted for Brexit, is crazy. It ignores a huge swathe of the electorate.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

Not even one of my many English friends cares about Northern Ireland in the slightest. The Unionists are an odd bunch.. Their only attachment to Great Britain is written in paper. Neither Ireland nor Great Britain wants them.

Do we not want "them"?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Necro

Here's the thing that I wonder most regarding the possibility of a No Deal Brexit (and apologies if this has been discussed before).

Given that the HoC can't even decide what direction to take with a Crash Out looming, how on earth can any of the parties - Labour, Tories - whoever is in charge in the aftermath - be trusted or deemed competent to negotiate trade deals with other nations?

Most of the countries that would yield a return to some form of normality after an extended period of hardship and chaos in the UK must be licking their lips at the thought of dealing with... May (Probably unlikely), Corbyn (also unlikely) - or whoever is PM/Foreign Secretary.

How will it ever be resolved without an entire revamp of UK politics?

Spanish Eyes

I've googled, but it's not clear...

Does anyone know if A50 is withdrawn would HOC have to vote on it first, or can May just send a letter to Brussels?

Tell me how

Necro wrote: »

Here's the thing that I wonder most regarding the possibility of a No Deal Brexit (and apologies if this has been discussed before).

Given that the HoC can't even decide what direction to take with a Crash Out looming, how on earth can any of the parties - Labour, Tories - whoever is in charge in the aftermath - be trusted or deemed competent to negotiate trade deals with other nations?

Most of the countries that would yield a return to some form of normality after an extended period of hardship and chaos in the UK must be licking their lips at the thought of dealing with... May (Probably unlikely), Corbyn (also unlikely) - or whoever is PM/Foreign Secretary.

How will it ever be resolved without an entire revamp of UK politics?

I've been thinking about this also.

I'm no student of history but I wonder if it could be said that most significant changes in political structures and major players were initiated by some form of conflict.

Scary thought if so. I'm sure some parties develop organically but usually in parallel with the major players. While many are despondent with what is going on in the UK, it remains to be seen if it results in change. We saw the death of the PD's in Ireland in 2009 after they were eviscerated in the 2007 election.

Think people also though that many party loyalists become entrenched and so are resistant to change even though the outside perception might be that they should (DUP for instance).

LeinsterDub

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I've googled, but it's not clear...

Does anyone know if A50 is withdrawn would HOC have to vote on it first, or can May just send a letter to Brussels?

May can do it herself, however it's stated in law that the UK will leave on the 29th of March. If it's not repealed it could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Necro

Tell me how wrote: »

I've been thinking about this also.

I'm no student of history but I wonder if it could be said that most significant changes in political structures and major players were initiated by some form of conflict.

Scary thought if so. I'm sure some parties develop organically but usually in parallel with the major players. While many are despondent with what is going on in the UK, it remains to be seen if it results in change. We saw the death of the PD's in Ireland in 2009 after they were eviscerated in the 2007 election.

Think people also though that many party loyalists become entrenched and so are resistant to change even though the outside perception might be that they should (DUP for instance).

I just don't see how this gets resolved under the current chicken coop system that is the HoC. Even IF there is a Crash Out, and IF there is a trade deal negotiated - I don't see how any of it can possibly favour the UK.

It's why I just can't see a No Deal happening.

Tell me how

Necro wrote: »

I just don't see how this gets resolved under the current chicken coop system that is the HoC. Even IF there is a Crash Out, and IF there is a trade deal negotiated - I don't see how any of it can possibly favour the UK.

It's why I just can't see a No Deal happening.

That will be some debate and vote if she moves to repeal A50.
Some of the speeches will be fairly no holds barred at that stage

ancapailldorcha

Necro wrote: »

Here's the thing that I wonder most regarding the possibility of a No Deal Brexit (and apologies if this has been discussed before).

Given that the HoC can't even decide what direction to take with a Crash Out looming, how on earth can any of the parties - Labour, Tories - whoever is in charge in the aftermath - be trusted or deemed competent to negotiate trade deals with other nations?

I can't say where I got this from but DoIT's current objective is trying to mitigate as much damage as possible. The issue won't be signing new trade deals, it's going to be trying to preserve as much of the current deals as possible as other countries will be angling for renegotiations given that the EU negotiated them on its members' behalf.

Even the Ukraine is looking for a renegotiation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-ukraine-welcome-progress-on-trade-relationship

Necro

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't say where I got this from but DoIT's current objective is trying to mitigate as much damage as possible. The issue won't be signing new trade deals, it's going to be trying to preserve as much of the current deals as possible as other countries will be angling for renegotiations given that the EU negotiated them on its members' behalf.

Even the Ukraine is looking for a renegotiation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-ukraine-welcome-progress-on-trade-relationship

Jaysus, that could be even worse if the current attitude to the WA is carried over into negotiations over trade. Can you imagine the current rabble and their rhetoric towards a Ukrainian trade deal that is in any way productive?

And that's Ukraine. The US and China will destroy them in negotiations, even if the EU doesn't (and that will likely be the easier one of the three big deals)

ancapailldorcha

Necro wrote: »

Jaysus, that could be even worse if the current attitude to the WA is carried over into negotiations over trade. Can you imagine the current rabble and their rhetoric towards a Ukrainian trade deal that is in any way productive?

And that's Ukraine. The US and China will destroy them in negotiations, even if the EU doesn't (and that will likely be the easier one of the three big deals)

Well, the DoIT is brand new. The civil service is completely new to negotiating trade deals so it gets worse whereas the US and China are much more experienced in this regard. The cheap talk of Trump's Scottish mother will evaporate when it comes to negotiations.