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

EdgeCase

I've been quite taken aback by comments on that topic in Britain over the years. A lot of people don't seem to have any idea of the circumstances of our leaving the UK back in the 1910s and assume that it was just some kind of amicable divorce.

I actually had one guy talking to me in a pub who seemed to be under the impression that our leaving the UK was something to do with the EU !?!?!

But in general, they seem to think that Ireland is somehow 'family' and should be on ultra warm terms with them.

There's a similar complete lack of awareness about the colonial era around the world and an assumption that various places that actually had wars of independence against them are going to be rushing to re-join some kind of Empire 2.0.

I don't think it's (in most cases) an attitude that comes from any kind of nasty place, rather just absolute ignorance of history. There's a tendency to see the imperial period in this very oddly positive way as if it were some kind of act of friendship and benevolence. It's really quite odd.

Also a lot of people in England genuinely don't seem to understand that Ireland is not in the UK.
I remember having a discussion with someone in a health centre there about how I didn't have a national insurance number because I was Irish. She argued : But you're British if you're from Ireland, how do you not have one...
It actually took a significant amount of explaining before she accepted that it was actually a different country.

None of that, however, can excuse that level of ignorance from someone presenting a flagship current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4. It's not a chat in a pub.

The BBC for decades was above politics and a benchmark of quality current affairs broadcasting. It's depressing to see it losing is standards.

McMurphy

Anyone a link to the McEntee interview?

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I was impressed with Helen McEntee this morning in her interview on the bbc. As has been said she could have easily fallen for the bait of getting angry but she let the presenter do it, and there noticeable pauses after the questions.

Humphrys' question about Irexit was definitely arrogant but I can't decide if it was also a form of trolling or if it was also wilful ignorance.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Folks, I know that tensions are running high as Brexit is in its final stages, but there has been a serious deterioration of the quality of posts on this thread over the last few weeks. The mods have had given out 12 cards and some bans over the last 3 days and it's not acceptable.

Be civil to other posters. Don't needle them, misrepresent their posts, soapbox about pet topics, deliberately evade the topic at hand etc.

downcow

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes you did, twice that I could find:

That is why I asked which way you would have voted. If you were neutral you would not have voted. That would have been in contradiction of your post stating you are a democrat though. Hence my comment to own that you are a leaver and to stop telling us that you were neutral on the issue as it is apparent that you are not neutral. There is nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend that you are not fighting a corner when you most assuredly are.

You are concerned about 6% of parliament's budget, 1% of the EU administration budget and 0.1% of the entire EU budget? That is a reason to possibly cause misery for people in the UK?

I think you'll find the example you have given are where i said i was neutral ie back in 2016. I have been clear about this and that i am not quite so neutral now. I am not sure why you are finding it so difficult to accept that views change - its healthy you know not to lock yourself in a positing and close your eyes.

and as for the example i gave of how eu doesn't run very efficient. i guess you think thats a fine way to run an operation

Itssoeasy

I was impressed with Helen McEntee this morning in her interview on the bbc. As has been said she could have easily fallen for the bait of getting angry but she let the presenter do it, and there noticeable pauses after the questions.

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Of course it was partisan, he was only invited by the government because it was known that his speech would favour one party in the Referendum, the Remainers, whose campaign was supported by the government and the majority of MPs.

Ben Rhodes, who accompanied Obama to his meeting with Cameron, has placed on record that Obama was requested to make his "back of the queue remark" and happily accepted

Was Obama partisan, no-one can seriously deny it.

So we are to be upset by a government who support Remain asking somebody to underwrite that position?

Did Leavers invite both opinions to address their meetings? I must have missed that non- partisanship gesture. :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

downcow wrote: »

How about this as a wee example
"a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.

On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.

A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France." :mad:

you can read it all here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg

Oddly most leaders of the european union, members of parliament, the commission and council would 100% agree with you that this should be done away with.

But ironically for people banging on about how europe has far too much control and that the sovereignty of individual nations are under risk, it's actually because of the sovereignty of an individual nation that they cannot stop this process.

To stop this monthly move they require the unanimous approval of all member states

and one country obviously doesn't want it to stop. France. Most of the spending involved in the move goes to the french economy.

It could be resolved if something was offered to France in exchange but it's so low down on the priorities list for all the other EU members. So no one really has the will to negotiate.

ThePanjandrum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How was it 'partisan' before the people had decided?

He didn't break into parliament and start shouting, I assume he was invited to give his opinion, which again wasn't an order.

You are a bit all over the shop in defining yourself a 'democrat' and I suspect defining Obama's speech as partisan gives the lie to your protestations that you were in any way neutral. Someone who is neutral would value ALL opinion.

Of course it was partisan, he was only invited by the government because it was known that his speech would favour one party in the Referendum, the Remainers, whose campaign was supported by the government and the majority of MPs.

Ben Rhodes, who accompanied Obama to his meeting with Cameron, has placed on record that Obama was requested to make his "back of the queue remark" and happily accepted

“And as Obama was saying that, somebody on the British side said: 'We'd end up being at the back of the queue,' and everybody laughed and Obama said 'That is exactly right'.

"Then he was asked: 'It would be good if you could repeat that point in the press conference', and of course he did."

Asked whether it was Mr Cameron who made the request, Mr Rhodes said: "Yes. To be fair to Cameron, I don't know that Cameron was suggesting the exact phrase that had been used on his side, but that is what was put forward. Obama said: 'Yes, I'm here to be helpful.'

Was Obama partisan, no-one can seriously deny it.

Odhinn

J Mysterio wrote: »

This was briliiant, thanks. With Coveney and Varadkar, McEntee has been great on Brexit. Very good considered responses to imflammatory, ignorant questioning by the belligerent Humphrys.

Horrific line of 'thought' by Humphrys - like something from the comments section of the Daily Mail.

J Mysterio

Tell me how wrote: »

I have long said that I have been impressed with the consistent performance of our key players on Brexit. Chiefly Simon Coveney but also Leo Varadkar, (with this week showing just how much of a knife edge it is to say anything), (Micheal Martin deserves a mention also for not trying to initiate a GE). They all have performed in a manner which I think is in the countries best interests (in terms of Brexit) and which shows their ability to maintain a professional manner and not allow themselves to resort to the blather which we are seeing across the water.

The latest example of this was Helen McEntee on BBC Radio 4 this morning. She was being interviewed by John Humphrys. There were several points in the interview which it would have been easy to get emotive and to respond to his points (position) (08:58 for the pinnacle of this)with outright derision but Helen consistently remained balanced and responded in a level but forthright manner. Such interviews I think involve the interviewer trying to provoke a comment which will be used to project a weakness in the Irish or EU position and thankfully this is one more where they have failed to get what they wanted.

Let's hope no one from the BBC puts a microphone in front of a Healy-Rae and asks them what do the Irish really think of the English.

This was briliiant, thanks. With Coveney and Varadkar, McEntee has been great on Brexit. Very good considered responses to imflammatory, ignorant questioning by the belligerent Humphrys.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I fail to see how this thread is about anything other than the relevance of Ireland in the context of Brexit, but if the "Republic of Ireland" wishes to continue to be a State without a hard border on this island then I guess we should capitulate to our British masters.

Mod note:

FreudianSlippers banned. If people insist on dragging a thread way off topic after a mod warning, that is the only thing we can do to prevent it from being derailed.

FreudianSlippers

downcow wrote: »

How about this as a wee example
"a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.

On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.

A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France." :mad:

you can read it all here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg

This is a significant amount, though it corresponds to just 6% of Parliament’s budget, or 1% of the EU’s administrative budget or just 0.1% of the entire EU budget.

Quelle surprise

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I think you know my problem that the government invited on side into parliament. Had they brought another world leader with another position then fine. Any trhe UK population saw right through the pr campaign

Weren't the government backing Remain though?

On the one hand you decry politicians for not acting and holding referendums and now when they back their beliefs and try to convince the electorate, that is wrong too.

You really are revealing the fact that you were not 'neutral'. Because a neutral person would have no problem with different opinions.

Perish the thought that the government would back a Remain vote eh?

P.S. 48% of the UK pop had no issue with Obama expressing his opinion...so quit with the 'UK population saw right through it' nonsense.

Hurrache

Tell me how wrote: »

I
The latest example of this was Helen McEntee on BBC Radio 4 this morning. She was being interviewed by John Humphrys. There were several points in the interview which it would have been easy to get emotive and to respond to his points (position) (08:58 for the pinnacle of this)with outright derision but Helen consistently remained balanced and responded in a level but forthright manner. Such interviews I think involve the interviewer trying to provoke a comment which will be used to project a weakness in the Irish or EU position and thankfully this is one more where they have failed to get what they wanted.

Let's hope no one from the BBC puts a microphone in front of a Healy-Rae and asks them what do the Irish really think of the English.

Humphry's is getting slated by sensible Brits for that interview, and McEntee phrase for her remarkable restraint in dealing with the clown.

First Up

downcow wrote:

no you asked for an example and i gave you one. I cant really win can I

Not if that's the best example you can come up with

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Did i say I am neutral?
Own it? I think i have been very clear that am believe the referendum should be implemented.
That sounds like a mind change to me but you know my mind best

Yes you did, twice that I could find:

downcow wrote: »

It is quite logical
I am a democrat (i feel it necessary to specify that, as many on here seem to be happy to disregard democracy)
I didn't vote - Just emphasising that I was fairly neutral on the issue and was over in France enjoying the Euro champs (the irony :-)
I don't believe in referendums - i thought by this stage you would have got this one. We elect politicians to spend their time digesting the facts on issues like brexit at a much deeper level than we have time to and then we expect them to make the decisions and not pass the ones they don't have the balls to make back to the public to have a stab at

downcow wrote: »

You just arnt hearing me.
I was neutral
I don’t believe in referendums but there was a democratic decision to hold it
I didn’t vote
My people voted out
I am a democrat
Still neatral in that I don’t think economically in or out is going to make much difference
Backstop situation is totally unacceptable so I with the UK and leaving

You might not like it but that’s where me and many others are

That is why I asked which way you would have voted. If you were neutral you would not have voted. That would have been in contradiction of your post stating you are a democrat though. Hence my comment to own that you are a leaver and to stop telling us that you were neutral on the issue as it is apparent that you are not neutral. There is nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend that you are not fighting a corner when you most assuredly are.

downcow wrote: »

How about this as a wee example
"a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.

On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.

A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France." :mad:

you can read it all here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg

You are concerned about 6% of parliament's budget, 1% of the EU administration budget and 0.1% of the entire EU budget? That is a reason to possibly cause misery for people in the UK?

downcow

First Up wrote: »

You think the UK should leave the EU over that?

no you asked for an example and i gave you one. I cant really win can I :rolleyes:

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How was it 'partisan' before the people had decided?

He didn't break into parliament and start shouting, I assume he was invited to give his opinion, which again wasn't an order.

You are a bit all over the shop in defining yourself a 'democrat' and I suspect defining Obama's speech as partisan gives the lie to your protestations that you were in any way neutral. Someone who is neutral would value ALL opinion.

I think you know my problem that the government invited on side into parliament. Had they brought another world leader with another position then fine. Any trhe UK population saw right through the pr campaign

downcow

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have no problem being openly a fan of Obama and black people in general.

Oh dear oh dear! and from the person who brought Obamas ethnicity into the discussion. i guess you may even have a friend who is black.

If i was you I would throw away the shovel and stop digging. the reality is fairy obvious

First Up

downcow wrote:

How about this as a wee example "a Â£130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

You think the UK should leave the EU over that?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

No problem him having an opinion. but a foreign power speaking in our parliament in such a partisan manner at such a time was out of order - but the irony is he pushed the vote towards brexit

"Barack Obama will jet into the UK next month and use his star power to convince Britons they should vote to stay in the European Union.

from the independant at the time
The timing of the US President’s intervention, a major coup for the Remain campaign, is revealed by The Independent on Sunday, as a ComRes poll for this newspaper finds that Boris Johnson, unofficial leader of the Leave campaign, matches David Cameron on “trust” – suggesting that the referendum could be closely fought. Asked which of the two they trust more to do what is best for Britain, 35 per cent say Mr Cameron and 34 per cent Mr Johnson."

Bob Corker, the chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, said last month that Mr Obama was planning “a big, public reach-out” to persuade British voters of the merits of staying in the EU. But several government and Remain campaign sources have now confirmed the timing and added that he will fly into the UK to make a direct appeal to the British electorate.

How was it 'partisan' before the people had decided?

He didn't break into parliament and start shouting, I assume he was invited to give his opinion, which again wasn't an order.

You are a bit all over the shop in defining yourself a 'democrat' and I suspect defining Obama's speech as partisan gives the lie to your protestations that you were in any way neutral. Someone who is neutral would value ALL opinion.

downcow

lawred2 wrote: »

How is 'Europe' run? And what were your particular issues?

How about this as a wee example
"a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.

On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.

A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France." :mad:

you can read it all here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg

FreudianSlippers

downcow wrote: »

I think that statement says more about you than me.

As my mum used to say "As you live yourself, you dread your neighbour"

I have no problem being openly a fan of Obama and black people in general.

downcow

Enzokk wrote: »

So you are not neutral, you are most likely a leaver as this is how you would have voted. In the time since then you are most definitely a leaver as I am sure you have not changed your mind or you would not have said we should leave as well. Own it.

Did i say I am neutral?
Own it? I think i have been very clear that am believe the referendum should be implemented.
That sounds like a mind change to me but you know my mind best

[Deleted User]

McEntee missed a chance to point out Humpheys' lies. How the **** the baseline Brexit shifted from EEA to basically crashing out. Before the vote most talk involved staying in the single market.

downcow

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Something tells me it has a lot nothing to do with melanin.

I think that statement says more about you than me.

As my mum used to say "As you live yourself, you dread your neighbour"

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

I honestly would have struggled with it. I was naturally prob very slightly remain but had huge issues with how Europe is run. But the intervention of Obama and the likes, combined with our government spending millions on a propaganda leaflet telling us to vote remain would have probably been enough to push me to vote for Brexit. I know i had a smile to myself when i heard the vote coming through in France - I felt thats one up for the ordinary man

So you are not neutral, you are most likely a leaver as this is how you would have voted. In the time since then you are most definitely a leaver as I am sure you have not changed your mind or you would not have said we should leave as well. Own it.

You haven't answered a previous question I posed to you. You asserted that remainers think they know more than the public, but what option would leave your country worse off?

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Obama ,??

This stuff is hilarious. I'm finding myself highly amused. What about Obama saying the UK should be sensible and stay in an economic union tickled your fancy. Or what about Obama irks you

You claim to be a democrat

No problem him having an opinion. but a foreign power speaking in our parliament in such a partisan manner at such a time was out of order - but the irony is he pushed the vote towards brexit

"Barack Obama will jet into the UK next month and use his star power to convince Britons they should vote to stay in the European Union.

from the independant at the time
The timing of the US President’s intervention, a major coup for the Remain campaign, is revealed by The Independent on Sunday, as a ComRes poll for this newspaper finds that Boris Johnson, unofficial leader of the Leave campaign, matches David Cameron on “trust” – suggesting that the referendum could be closely fought. Asked which of the two they trust more to do what is best for Britain, 35 per cent say Mr Cameron and 34 per cent Mr Johnson."

Bob Corker, the chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, said last month that Mr Obama was planning “a big, public reach-out” to persuade British voters of the merits of staying in the EU. But several government and Remain campaign sources have now confirmed the timing and added that he will fly into the UK to make a direct appeal to the British electorate.

lawred2

Tell me how wrote: »

I hope that ordinary man isn't an aircraft worker supplying parts to Airbus.

I can't get over the shortsightedness of decrying Obama giving an opinion on something saying has no right to have an opinion while simultaneously saying Trump is right to be "America First".

It is evident in the UK though as well, every time Tony Blair opens his mouth on Brexit, he emboldens remainers even more even though he is talking sense.

leavers?