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

ancapailldorcha

The other thing I don't understand is the sheer lack of long term self-interest in the Conservative party.

I mean, if the UK crashes out on a no-deal Brexit, employers & capital will leave en masse. It won't be a Mad Max-style dystopia but it will make for a severe recession and the Conservatives will be holding the bag. They triggered the referendum, they made no plans for a Leave win and they voted down the deal that Theresa May secured from Brussels. The soundbytes of Labour overspending and opening the gates to Eastern European migrants will pale by comparison, never mind the Lib Dems and tuition fees.

The Conservative party bears the entirety of the responsibility for this and the electorate, especially its younger segments who can't afford the basic necessities their parents could know this. They face being electorally irrelevant for a generation and few if any seem to realize and/or care.

10000maniacs

Hurrache wrote: »

Why do you think, firstly, that those 3 countries will chime in, particularly as the Netherlands have said the opposite on more than one occasion.

And secondly, that they don't understand that the backstop is not the issue, when publicly at Davos yesterday the former PM of Finland said that the backstop is not the real issue in the British government.

The EU aren't stupid, they know what's what.

You are reading what I said incorrectly. The British know that the backstop is an issue, but whenever they give this as the reason why Mays deal is a bad deal, it is basically hyperbole on their part. And if the backstop was taken out, May's deal would still be rejected.

Hurrache

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are reading what I said incorrectly. The British know that the backstop is an issue, but whenever they give this as the reason why Mays deal is a bad deal, it is basically hyperbole on their part. And if the backstop was taken out, May's deal would still be rejected.

Ah yes, I took up that line wrong.

Leroy42

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

i believe there is a lot to this. brexit is a bad bad idea and whatever deal they get this is going to become very apparent very soon.
the brexiteers are then going to get the blame in a very big way.
the brexiteers can now see this ( i think a lot of them are so intellectually lacking they truly did not realize all the consequences of their actions) and what to save face and need a bogey man to use.

if it wasn't the backstop it would be something else. they only picked the backstop because the dup were on the scene and were prepared to go to war over the backstop because it really did mean something to them.

the arch brexiteers could not give a damn about NI backstop or no backstop.

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

Sir Ivan Rogers makes the same point at the outset of his speech from earlier this week at UCL. Essentially Brexit breaks down once they have to define what Brexit they want. They all seem to know what they don't want (well, at a high level) but there is an impossibility of being able to unite for a specific Brexit vision. And that's why we've reached No Deal as serious policy suggestion: it is the best way to kick the can as a Brexiteer right now.

I think the EU are smart enough to realise this, hence my belief that an extension or renegotiation are extremely unlikely outcomes from here.

Inquitus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The other thing I don't understand is the sheer lack of long term self-interest in the Conservative party.

I mean, if the UK crashes out on a no-deal Brexit, employers & capital will leave en masse. It won't be a Mad Max-style dystopia but it will make for a severe recession and the Conservatives will be holding the bag. They triggered the referendum, they made no plans for a Leave win and they voted down the deal that Theresa May secured from Brussels. The soundbytes of Labour overspending and opening the gates to Eastern European migrants will pale by comparison, never mind the Lib Dems and tuition fees.

The Conservative party bears the entirety of the responsibility for this and the electorate, especially its younger segments who can't afford the basic necessities their parents could know this. They face being electorally irrelevant for a generation and few if any seem to realize and/or care.

I get the feeling that given the disaster that Brexit is, and has been, for 2 years, they feel emboldened by the fact this hasn't translated into any meaningful change in the Polls. It may be arrogance, but I think they assume no matter what they do they have a good chance of keeping #10 regardless, with Corbyn at the helm of Labour.

Leroy42

Also, I should have added, voted against something is far easier to defend that voting for something. The default in crash out, if that happens every MP, well apart from the ERG and a few others, will stating that they never wanted a crash out and never voted for it. It happened despite their efforts.

So as such a vote against TM deal was a win-win. Win in that they get to say they voted against a terrible deal from a UK perspective vs what they currently have, and win as it means they can't be accused of voting for anything and thus it not their fault.

Not only are we seeing a complete lack of leadership in the UK, we are also seeing a complete lack of integrity across the entire political system.

MrMusician18

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny since no deal is many times worse than Mays deal.

farmchoice

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny since no deal is many times worse than Mays deal.

they dont really want no deal either but cant be seen to admit they were wrong so will rail against the dea, rail against betraying brexit, all the while hoping the adults in the room do them a favor and take no deal off the table.

then they will call those who do that all the traitors and brexit betrayers under the sun.

john9876

if the DUP & the brexiteers support Mays deal, will it pass?
Or are there enough remainers who will still vote against it to defeat it?

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny since no deal is many times worse than Mays deal.

True, but a No deal can be blamed on the EU. That the ensuing chaos was never part of the BRexit plan because it was thought the EU would act honourably etc.

So No deal is not the fault of Brexit. TM's deal really was pretty close to what Brexit actually meant. And it was totally unpalatable. In nearly every aspect it is worse then they have now so vote for it was to accept that reality and thus one can be held to task on Brexit.

There is of course the added part that many really do believe that TM deal is only the first round offer and the EU is simply waiting till 11pm to make the real offer

Mezcita

Inquitus wrote: »

I get the feeling that given the disaster that Brexit is, and has been, for 2 years, they feel emboldened by the fact this hasn't translated into any meaningful change in the Polls. It may be arrogance, but I think they assume no matter what they do they have a good chance of keeping #10 regardless, with Corbyn at the helm of Labour.

The Lib Dems continued poor performance is interesting though. I would have thought that they would have gained more support by being anti Brexit.

Hurrache

The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.

An Ciarraioch

Inquitus wrote: »

I get the feeling that given the disaster that Brexit is, and has been, for 2 years, they feel emboldened by the fact this hasn't translated into any meaningful change in the Polls. It may be arrogance, but I think they assume no matter what they do they have a good chance of keeping #10 regardless, with Corbyn at the helm of Labour.

Noticeable now on Electoral Calculus, that even a mere 1% lead now sees Labour overtake the Tories on seats, where that hadn't been the case in previous polls. That said, unless the current stalemate is broken dramatically, neither come remotely close to a parliamentary majority.

EdgeCase

Mezcita wrote: »

The Lib Dems continued poor performance is interesting though. I would have thought that they would have gained more support by being anti Brexit.

It's difficult to underestimate just how tribal British politics is and also people tend to buy into the notion that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote wasted.

Ireland used to be quite tribal around post civil war FF Vs FG but that has melted away and the PR-STV voting system has blossomed and operates as one of the (if not the) longest running example of proportional democracy in the world.

At times I don't think we fully comprehend just what you're dealing with in the UK in much the same way as they try to see Irish politics through an English political lens and get it badly wrong too.

In England you still have a lot of identity politics caught up in how people vote too - largely about self applied class labels and regional labels and so on.

It makes any emergence of a 3rd party very difficult.

farmchoice

john9876 wrote: »

if the DUP & the brexiteers support Mays deal, will it pass?
Or are there enough remainers who will still vote against it to defeat it?

that is the question. personally id say she would get it passed, most of the soft brexit torys would have to back her or face ending their careers. even if a handful still voted against a similar number of labour rebels will probably vote with the government so it would be very close.

if labour were to present a realistic alternative then perhaps, in particular a second ref with a labour whip to support it.

in that case how many tory rebles would be needed, 6/8? off the top of my head, grieve, sourbry, nicky morgan, ken clarke, the younger johnson, antoinette sandbach, sarah wollenston and there are t least 3/4 more.

then again they might just be relieved to get away from no deal, and at the end of the day may's deal is a good one all things considered.

prawnsambo

Mezcita wrote: »

The Lib Dems continued poor performance is interesting though. I would have thought that they would have gained more support by being anti Brexit.

It's not really. In a situation where the stakes are so high, voting for a party that hasn't a hope of being in government in a system that just doesn't give seats to minority parties is seen as a wasted vote. So it's possible government against possible government and devil take the hindmost. Labour or Tory or spoiled vote effectively.

Inquitus

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not really. In a situation where the stakes are so high, voting for a party that hasn't a hope of being in government in a system that just doesn't give seats to minority parties is seen as a wasted vote. So it's possible government against possible government and devil take the hindmost. Labour or Tory or spoiled vote effectively.

Yep they are a victim of FPTP, a vote for them is a wasted vote especially when the stakes are high and the policy gap between the 2 main parties is as wide as this.

An Ciarraioch

farmchoice wrote: »

that is the question. personally id say she would get it passed, most of the soft brexit torys would have to back her or face ending their careers. even if a handful still voted against a similar number of labour rebels will probably vote with the government so it would be very close.

if labour were to present a realistic alternative then perhaps, in particular a second ref with a labour whip to support it.

in that case how many tory rebles would be needed, 6/8? off the top of my head, grieve, sourbry, nicky morgan, ken clarke, the younger johnson, antoinette sandbach, sarah wollenston and there are t least 3/4 more.

then again they might just be relieved to get away from no deal, and at the end of the day may's deal is a good one all things considered.

As Hurrache says, however, the basic thrust of Tom Newton Dunn's piece is that they will support it on the basis of a time limit, which, given the tendency of trade discussions to over-run, would be useless.

RobMc59

I work in a Chemical facility and we use chemicals only available from Holland or Germany,we have tanker deliveries twice a week via Harwich of around 50,000 tonnes-I asked the Dutch driver what's been said to them about Brexit and he said the border customs at harwich said there maybe changes after 29th march but can't tell them anymore than that!-frightening!The driver predicts massive gridlock at the ports...

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.

that would truly be a smash face into keyboard moment

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

I work in a Chemical facility and we use chemicals only available from Holland or Germany,we have tanker deliveries twice a week via Harwich of around 50,000 tonnes-I asked the Dutch driver what's been said to them about Brexit and he said the border customs at harwich said there maybe changes after 29th march but can't tell them anymore than that!-frightening!The driver predicts massive gridlock at the ports...

Can you stockpile? I'm guessing no by the quantity and frequency of deliveries, but it would seem to be the logical alternative.

road_high

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Independent through some of it's false reporting in recent weeks has actually done some damage to Ireland's perceived position. The Independent had two headlines that were picked up in the UK press and run with.

One was that Varadkar said to other party leaders at a meeting that checks would have to be put between the EU mainland and Ireland. Even Sinn Féin came out and said that was a completely false take.

There was another one but can't think of it off my head.

But both either total lies or incompetent journalism that Brexiteers seized on as showing division between us and the EU.

Shoddy "journalism"

Definitely some agenda going on- either foreign influence or anti FG stuff or both. I couldn’t care less about the party, this is all far more important to the nation- the last thing needed is a so called national paper of record continually trashing the country and our positions.

Shelga

How has it come to this? How was an issue of this overwhelming complexity ever put to the people, with no plan whatsoever in the case of a Leave vote?

What I find so unfair is that Leave voters chose to impose their will on millions of innocent people; to have an immediate and negative impact on their everyday lives as they go about their normal business.

If you voted Yes in our referendum on the eighth amendment last May, your choice didn't have any impact whatsoever on the daily lives of the people who voted No. I know it's a totally different topic but it's the only recent parallel I can think of in our country. Same goes for the SSM referendum.

Does the average Brexit voter not care about the impact their vote is having on business people, British nationals who live all over the EU, future students, people who work in universities, people who benefit from EU funding, etc etc? I struggle to accept that they really think this is going to benefit them.

It was such an incredibly selfish, short-sighted, arrogant vote.

FreudianSlippers

Hurrache wrote: »

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.

Maybe the Indo needs to read the comprehensive posts on this forum by myself and others that attempted to explain the difference between corporation tax rates and corporation tax bases to some... let's just say more difficult posters on here.

It often felt like we were taking turns bashing our heads against the wall.

FreudianSlippers

Hurrache wrote: »

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

Let me guess without clicking through:

- "sovereignty"
- "undemocratic"
- something about fisheries / agriculture policy (?)
- "Britain first"

?

FreudianSlippers

funkey_monkey wrote: »

We are starting to sidetrack this thread. I certainly don't disagree about the DUP being an abhorrent party - I'm stuck in one of their 'safe seats' so I know all too well about them.
Although, SF are no angels either. But let's not detail this thread.

Honestly, we may as well enjoy the break since the ****show will restart on the 28th (29th?) :pac:

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let me guess without clicking through:

- "sovereignty"
- "undemocratic"
- something about fisheries / agriculture policy (?)
- "Britain first"

?

The laughable thing is he couldn't answer and told the interviewer it was a childish line of questioning. His basic gist is that he can't differentiate EU and British laws but couldn't specify what EU laws he has issues with. He didn't take kindly when the poor wage he pays his staff came up either.

ancapailldorcha

I read an argument the other day defending Tim Martin because, despite taking the hit he is supporting British businesses by eschewing EU brands in his chain and only serving drinks from British brands. Not sure how credible this is because he can't move his pubs abroad and continue his business in the UK.