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

road_high

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just reading through from last night and haven't read anything else so far this morning, so I was going to ask what crap the indo has published today.

Anyone else getting suspicious about the mendacious nature of the stories? Qui bono?

RT funneling a load of cash to Talbot Street?

Was headline in their app version- I can’t seem to copy paste it to here! It was an article about taxation and Davos conference.

Yea, definitely something or someone is trying to create a chasm between us and europe.

BonnieSituation

road_high wrote: »

More Indo **** stirring this morning- apparently we are “Under Siege” due to our corporation tax. We might as well call give up as a country if you take the Indo literally

Just reading through from last night and haven't read anything else so far this morning, so I was going to ask what crap the indo has published today.

Anyone else getting suspicious about the mendacious nature of the stories? Qui bono?

RT funneling a load of cash to Talbot Street?

Hurrache

Car crash interview with Tim Martin of Wetherspoons as to what his issues are with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/25/owen-jones-meets-tim-martin-wetherspoons-no-deal-brexit-poverty-wages-dont-ask-childish-questions-video

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Was debunked by Wednesday afternoon but no correction from the Indo!

They're taking a different attacking approach today. I think someone needs to take a trip to the editors office to check they're not all being held in there by a Brexiteer expedition force.

Under Siege: world leaders take 'tax haven' swipe at us

josip

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If not for the snap election giving the DUP ridiculous power, the whole border issue would have been done and dusted in December 2018, with the agreed backstop meaning no hard border.

Perhaps, but in that scenario the ERG and other hard Brexiters would have found another mast to nail their colours to.

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

We do not have a government. It collapsed over 2 years ago.

Because one party steadfastly refuses to recognise the democratic will expressed by the people and are supported in taking party positions when they have been mandated to do otherwise.

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

No, it did not mean I voted for SF. But I do not expect the DUP to drop their mandate to represent me and the other remainers.
They are thankfully not the government of NI and so do not have to abide by the outcome of the vote.
It might be short sighted of them not to do so, but that is their call.

They are 'partners' in the government of northern Ireland and steadfastly refuse to implement the will of the people.
This isn't just the case with Brexit, they have done the same with regard to decisions made by the majority who voted for the GFA, resulting in that process stalling and the denial of rights enjoyed by everyone else on these islands.

Thomas_IV

lawred2 wrote: »

A real politician worth any salt would have called their empty bluff

Quite right, but unfortunately the HoC these days is more comparable to the Muppet Show than to a serious Parliament that cares about the future of the country and the population.

It's either that there are less or no real politicians worth any salt or they are not heard. Fact is, neither May nor Corbyn fit in that description of a politician, more the selfish ones like.

lawred2

funkey_monkey wrote: »

As said in post above, the ideal outcome for NI was scuppered at the last minute when TM was standing in Brussels ready to sign. DUP got cold feet and the whole thing toppled resulting in the deal you are talking about.

A real politician worth any salt would have called their empty bluff

Thomas_IV

funkey_monkey wrote: »

No, it did not mean I voted for SF. But I do not expect the DUP to drop their mandate to represent me and the other remainers.
They are thankfully not the government of NI and so do not have to abide by the outcome of the vote.
It might be short sighted of them not to do so, but that is their call.

Still the problem remains, NI has presently no government because of the refusal of the DUP to resume power-sharing with SF and form a NI govt. The DUP deprives NI of her say in this Brexit mess as the NI Assembly can't work either and either approve or reject that Brexit (deal or no-deal).

Thomas_IV

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM lost the vote on the deal buy the largest margin in the historyu of the HoC. Her government has been found in contempt. And yet they refuse to change course.

Do you really think a tight win would have suddenly seen a change from TM?

You might believe it but that doesn't make it plausible

Other governments had been toppled for less but due to this Brexit mess and the fact that all her big mouth opponents, BoJo and JRM are not to take over from her cos neither of them will ever get a majority of their own to topple her (as all their failed attempts prove).

Although there is always - theoretically - a last minute chance that they manage to avoid a no-deal crash out, I am convinced by now that Brexit will end this way, a no-deal crashing out of the EU. That with a bashing of the UK economy on the financial market of which the turmoil of the days after BrexitRef was probably just a prelude of what might come.

But they are all in this together, May, BoJo, JRM, DD, Corbyn, Foster like every MP that voted against that proposed deal (not to forget the SNP). This deal is just a 'bad deal' because the first one of December 2017 was rejected by the DUP by threatening the UK govt to drop the backing up of it if that deal would be accepted. May did her u-turn because of them and the result is this deal which was voted down on a scale indeed never seen in the HoC ever before.

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

You think the gov would have taken the same path on NI on a 10/1 split as it would have on a 10/8 split. I don't.

TM lost the vote on the deal buy the largest margin in the historyu of the HoC. Her government has been found in contempt. And yet they refuse to change course.

Do you really think a tight win would have suddenly seen a change from TM?

You might believe it but that doesn't make it plausible

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

Ill not call any of you politicians liars as we all know what would happen
I would like to see gay marriage introduced in NI but it is a devolved matter and the crazy structures that the gfa set up means it can’t happen at this time. Abortion is much more complicated for me but I have a slight leaning to pro choice. But not sure why any of this is relevant. We have this situation because of the gfa which now everyone in Eu except those living in NI think is the greatest thing since sliced bread

OT, but none of that is the fault of the GFA. Equality is not in place simply because the DUP will not allow it. That is on the voters of NI. Abortion exactly the same.

The GFA tried to create this zombie voting system whereby the Unionist would struggle to ever actually lose power, but at the same time give the nationalist some semblance of it.

BUt even with that the UUP and then DUP could have brought in equality anytime they wanted, SF wanted it, so the only thing stopping it is themselves, not the GFA.

IN terms of what it achieved it is a pretty amazing feat. It stopped violence, it gave people previously denied a voice a voice. IT started the normalisation of politics in the North. The major flaw is that the voters and politicians in the North have not yet moved away from the past and are stuck in their narrow self interest voting patterns.

But that is not the fault of the GFA.

LeinsterDub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Was debunked by Wednesday afternoon but no correction from the Indo!

As James O'Brien says these sort of lies have gone around the world twice before the truth has had time to put it's pants on

road_high

More Indo **** stirring this morning- apparently we are “Under Siege” due to our corporation tax. We might as well call give up as a country if you take the Indo literally

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU has decided, effectively, that a hard border, i.e. something that is the natural consequence of leaving the customs union, is unacceptable and therefore no transition deal is possible.

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that. Therefore leaving the EU is worse than staying in, not because the EU is a fine and great institution, but because the EU actively makes it hard to leave.

The Commission actually said that it is obvious there would be a hard border in the event of a no-deal Brexit; regardless of whether Ireland implements one, the UK will need to implement one and, if they do that, then there will be a hard border.

It logically follows that Ireland would also conduct checks there, but it is not as necessary as the UK-side hard border.

FreudianSlippers

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Welcome to Wednesday morning.

Do keep up dear boy.

Was debunked by Wednesday afternoon but no correction from the Indo!

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Where did I say it was a vote for a particular party?

Here:

Yes, I am well aware of that. I was one of those who voted to remain.
The point I am making is that it is not up to the DUP to represent those who voted for another party - one that stands on an abstentionist manifesto. Their voices are not being heard due to they themselves voting SF.
The DUP, for reasons best known to themselves, stood on a leave platform, and that is what they are following through on.

You voted Remain...does that mean you voted Sinn Fein?

If we here in Ireland voted Yes in a referendum is the governing party allowed to actively pursue the No option just because they were on the No side?

A referendum is not a mandate for a party, it is supposed to be the voice of the people.

FrancieBrady

megatron989 wrote: »

Anyone with any understanding of how the world works knows that a 'hard' boarder is coming and always has been. The fact Leo or May say otherwise is only because neither wants to be first to admit it.
On ships it's often a rule that no one whistle, as it could cause a storm (whistle up the wind) and the boarder is a similar situation. Who ever speaks about it first will get the blame for it after the fact. Although the blame lies fully and completely with the UK.
The Irish / northern irish boarder is also an EU frontier and must be protected. Thanks UK.

Why would you ever blame an Irish Taoiseach for a border created by the British?

That border is still there, and is there at the minute btw. You can blame an Irish leader for helping to secure it (and various leaders here did)or making it harder but you cannot blame them for creating it.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It hasn't always been coming and it will only come if the UK leave on terms that require it to come

If not for the snap election giving the DUP ridiculous power, the whole border issue would have been done and dusted in December 2018, with the agreed backstop meaning no hard border.

LeinsterDub

megatron989 wrote: »

Anyone with any understanding of how the world works knows that a 'hard' boarder is coming and always has been. The fact Leo or May say otherwise is only because neither wants to be first to admit it.
On ships it's often a rule that no one whistle, as it could cause a storm (whistle up the wind) and the boarder is a similar situation. Who ever speaks about it first will get the blame for it after the fact. Although the blame lies fully and completely with the UK.
The Irish / northern irish boarder is also an EU frontier and must be protected. Thanks UK.

It hasn't always been coming and it will only come if the UK leave on terms that require it to come

megatron989

Anyone with any understanding of how the world works knows that a 'hard' boarder is coming and always has been. The fact Leo or May say otherwise is only because neither wants to be first to admit it.
On ships it's often a rule that no one whistle, as it could cause a storm (whistle up the wind) and the boarder is a similar situation. Who ever speaks about it first will get the blame for it after the fact. Although the blame lies fully and completely with the UK.
The Irish / northern irish boarder is also an EU frontier and must be protected. Thanks UK.

spacecoyote

https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1073221524545363973

A very good thread that's not too long talking about the realities of WTO trading rules.

Pretty much kills every point the likes of JRM were claiming about the benefit to the UK

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU has decided, effectively, that a hard border, i.e. something that is the natural consequence of leaving the customs union, is unacceptable and therefore no transition deal is possible.

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that.

A transition deal is not a natural consequence, it is not a thing a country leaving the EU is entitled to. It is not guaranteed by A50. The UK is asking for a transition deal.

The EU is, naturally, looking out for its own interests and saying that we will give you the transition deal you want in return for you giving us things we want: 40 billion, reciprocal rights for citizens and a guarantee of no hard border in Ireland.

There is nothing whatever stopping the UK walking away and taking the natural consequences, except that a New Bronze Age is probably not an optimal outcome.

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course it should be an option to leave.

However, if a club or an organisation is to work, then it should be worse for those who leave than those who stay. The UK will learn how bad after March 29.

However the EU has decided, effectively, that a hard border, i.e. something that is the natural consequence of leaving the customs union, is unacceptable and therefore no transition deal is possible.

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that. Therefore leaving the EU is worse than staying in, not because the EU is a fine and great institution, but because the EU actively makes it hard to leave.

I would point out the UK has also repeatedly declared a hard border unacceptable.

Admittedly they seem to be trying to get one but that is what they agreed to. It would also hurt the UK to have a hard border (admittedly just the bit a lot of them forget about).

Why is it up to the EU to manage the UK leaving? They are a grown country who should be able to manage their own decisions. If I decide to leave a rented apartment then my landlord is under no obligation to ensure that I get a safe place to stay. That is my responsibility. Similarly if a country leaves the EU it is their responsibility to be able to look after their own affairs.

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

we'll stay in the EU if you agree that we can discuss x, y, z in the coming months with a view to constructive reform of the EU in line with the 4 freedoms and in a manner that doesn't undermine the fundamental purpose of the EU, I think the EC would agree.

Here is wikipedia on the changes Cameron negotiated, addressing reforms the Tories wanted. The UK voted Leave anyway, because sovrinty innit.

The fact is that Leave voters do not understand the existing EU, and don't care about proposed reforms. They just want their blue passports and bendy bananas back.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

if you 'feel European'.

One odd thing is that it is the same suspects, Bannon, Farage and the Right wing, who are convinced that there is a long term war between The West and the Eastern Hordes with Funny Religions.

Yet here they are undermining the institutions of The West and denying that Europe is a thing.

Enzokk

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

That's her, I think she has lied 90% of the time she spoke. Find it interesting that she is pro brexit, control our borders...

Suella Braverman is no stranger to massaging the facts. Here she is calling the divorce bill a project fear manifestation.

https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/999258109506916352

And here she is giving evidence about that same Brexit Bill.

Brexit minister Suella Braverman confirms UK will be legally bound to pay ‘divorce bill’ regardless of nature of future trade deal

Here is a tweet with a video combining her two comments.

https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/999580307044098049

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that. Therefore leaving the EU is worse than staying in, not because the EU is a fine and great institution, but because the EU actively makes it hard to leave.

No, it is not making it hard to leave. The UK can leave but it cannot just forget its international obligations to the GFA. This is really simple and I have to wonder why we are getting stuck on this. If Hungary were to leave the EU it would be very simple because they have not signed an international treaty that maintains peace between two countries that relies on continued membership of the EU. They would negotiate the divorce bill and citizen rights and once that is done on the date of article 50 Hungary would leave and border would go up.

If Hungary decides it still wants to be part of EU institutions it would be able to negotiate participation of those on a case by case basis and it would pay to participate in those they can. If they decide to draw up all bridges then it is full border around Hungary with the EU.

But the UK has a problem and it had this problem before the vote and will still have the problem until it goes away in a vote for a UI. They are paying right now for the decision not to relinquish Belfast to the Irish because it was a powerhouse city at the time. If they only knew what waited for them 60 years later they probably would have let it go.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU has decided, effectively, that a hard border, i.e. something that is the natural consequence of leaving the customs union, is unacceptable and therefore no transition deal is possible.

...The UK itself made that one of its red lines.
The border and the NI region is different and is subject to special considerations. The fact that Ireland is talking about having checks in the Celtic sea shows that.
Furthermore, an FTA needs unanimous consent of the EU members (just ask Canada or Wallonia) - why should Ireland be happy with the UK putting up a border- who would feel "railroaded" and aggrieved in that case at their concerns regarding a hard border not being listened to? Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that. Therefore leaving the EU is worse than staying in, not because the EU is a fine and great institution, but because the EU actively makes it hard to leave.

I can agree that for those countries that have very significant and problematic territorial disputes which were resolved by being a member of the EU, that on leaving the EU without the other EU member state who is party to the dispute simultaneously leaving, it can be complicated to leave. That is not however the EU intentionally making it hard to leave.

The EU is only doing what it was requested to do by Ireland. The. UK said all along it has a plan to avoid putting in a hard border in NI and that nobody was talking about putting up a hard border. They have guaranteed it and promised it
during the campaign, at every level of government and in parliament. They accept that it is required for the GFA.
All anyone is asking for is to see this plan. That is all the backstop is.

Bit cynical

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course it should be an option to leave.

However, if a club or an organisation is to work, then it should be worse for those who leave than those who stay. The UK will learn how bad after March 29.

However the EU has decided, effectively, that a hard border, i.e. something that is the natural consequence of leaving the customs union, is unacceptable and therefore no transition deal is possible.

The EU says on the one hand that countries are free to leave its institutions but, on the other hand, do not accept the natural consequences arising from that. Therefore leaving the EU is worse than staying in, not because the EU is a fine and great institution, but because the EU actively makes it hard to leave.