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

LuckyLloyd

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, I am no fan of Corbyn but he has been vindicated not meeting May for "compromise talks" to help get a deal that is best for the UK. It is now obvious there was never going to be any listening to other parties and the plan is not to get Labour, SNP or Libdem support but to get her own MPs and the DUP to get the deal through. She is a liar who's words mean nothing.

Corbyn's position of 'take No Deal off the table first as a national imperative' is actually the right position.

farmchoice

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Corbyn's position of 'take No Deal off the table first as a national imperative' is actually the right position.

i dont understand exactly how May can take no deal off the table except by withdrawing article 50. can she do this unilaterally without parliamentary agreement?

Leroy42

Is that paragrapgh 50, basically handing all final regulatory decisions over to NI? Because what it says to me is that the UK will ensure that there is no difference, hence if Sormont decide that the current regulations cannot change (ie the EU ones) to whatever a new trade deal with US for example requires, then the deal can't go through?

It certainly reads to me that NI will have the final say on any UK parliament in terms of regulations. Is that really what the UK voted for? To move away from a seat at the EU table, to now being beholden to NI?

lawred2

farmchoice wrote: »

i dont understand exactly how May can take no deal off the table except by withdrawing article 50. can she do this unilaterally without parliamentary agreement?

put it in legislation that no deal is no longer the default option

as it stands - May and her cabal of loons can simply let the clock tick down to no deal

LuckyLloyd

farmchoice wrote: »

i dont understand exactly how May can take no deal off the table except by withdrawing article 50. can she do this unilaterally without parliamentary agreement?

Propose a new law that says in the absence of concluding a withdrawal agreement with the EU the UK remains in the EU as a default - i.e. revokes Article 50.

She'll never do this as the ERG would tear the Conservative party down, but Corbyn is completely correct to advocate it.

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

There, in one off the cuff interview, the Dutch PM ask the very question that no "get rid of the backstop" of "time limit the backstop" has been able to answer.

What happens when the time limit is reached? Say 5 years. If no deal is agreed within that timeframe will the UK put up a hard border, despite claiming that it won't?

Not sure if this was posted, but Leo basically said the exact same thing in an interview with US journalists:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-01-25/irish-pm-varadkar-says-we-re-open-to-compromise-on-brexit-video

He's asked what about the five-year idea, he responds, "And what then?" and is met with silence.

This is why there is no moving on this idea. Because you cannot oppose the backstop while also opposing a hard border. If you oppose the backstop, it's because you want the freedom to be able to erect a hard border.

farmchoice

lawred2 wrote: »

put it in legislation that no deal is no longer the default option

as it stands - May and here cabal of loons can simply let the clock tick down to no deal

the only way to avoid a no deal scenario in the absence of an agreed WA is to either agree an extension with the EU or withdraw article 50, as an extension is not the UK's to simply get this is no good for legislation so it would have to mean that the ticking clock goes from ticking down to no deal to ticking down to revocation of article 50.

EdgeCase

It would be enormously helpful if Stormont actually functioned. The fact that the assembly is out of action and there's no Northern Ireland government has massively impacted this.

lawred2

farmchoice wrote: »

the only way to avoid a no deal scenario in the absence of an agreed WA is to either agree an extension with the EU or withdraw article 50, as an extension is not the UK's to simply get this is no good for legislation so it would have to mean that the ticking clock goes from ticking down to no deal to ticking down to revocation of article 50.

yeah but that's entirely the point

the majority of Parliament don't want the madness of No Deal and in the absence of a mutually agreed deal then either extend or revoke

Hurrache

In a way it's heartening to see much analysis and criticism of some elements of the English media's treatment of Irish government and dail representatives, particularly the BBC, over the last couple of weeks. There's been a few articles about it and many twitter threads.

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1089625761148010496

And our media given credit too, (I'm sure it doesn't include the Indo.)

IF Brexit has taught us anything, it’s that we need more Irish media in our lives. At a time when Westminster’s political commentators stagger around like punch-drunk bums trying to keep up with the chaotic strategies of a warring and fractured Conservative Party, some of the best and most incisive writing has come from Dublin.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17386843.irelands-media-is-a-vital-counter-to-london-based-brexit-bampottery/?ref=twtrec

ancapailldorcha

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

ArmaniJeanss

It says a lot that Dutchman Mark Rutte has a far better understanding of the UKs position than most UK politicians and commentators do.
And is able to articulate and argue it perfectly in what is presumably only his second or third language.

EdgeCase

I think that there's also a realisation in the EU of how patronising and aggressive an element of British politics is towards Ireland. I mean most people had heard about it but perhaps didn't think it was as blatant as it has been during this process.

It's really not helping the UK diplomatic effort.

Also some of the haranguing media interviews where continental politicians are basically just asked inane questions that make no sense and clearly have no understanding of the subject and are all about getting a reaction. See whag happened to Mark Rutte. That kind of media doesn't tend to exist much outside the UK. It's closer to heckling than interviewing.

None of this is helping the UK's case. It's just burning bridges and affirming stereotypes.

ancapailldorcha

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Dyr

Hurrache wrote: »

In a way it's heartening to see much analysis and criticism of some elements of the English media's treatment of Irish government and dail representatives, particularly the BBC, over the last couple of weeks. There's been a few articles about it and many twitter threads.

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1089625761148010496

And our media given credit too, (I'm sure it doesn't include the Indo.)

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17386843.irelands-media-is-a-vital-counter-to-london-based-brexit-bampottery/?ref=twtrec

It's true to a degree that British Journalism has dropped it's standards

The thing about the Irish media on Brexit is they have no skin in the game when it comes to the UK, so they can be objective. UK journalists have contacts and relationships (and biases) with all the Westminister parties, those relationships are reciprocal and they're trying to maintain them. Aside from that they're too close to it all, they're part of the soap opera drama of Westminister. Just look at how much stock the BBC put on behind the scenes he-said-she-said gossip that's fed to them

We know what Irish journalism looks like on domestic issues, it's not that different. Spin doctors hold huge sway.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

I think we are being to happy clappy with ourselves over here. We have had plenty of total failures in government. The 2008 crash being the clearest and most recent example. There are plenty of examples of failure in Ireland.

The fault with Brexit is not the parliament system, not the ref, not the parties. All these are certainly playing their part in exacerbating the problems, but are not the fundamental issue.

At the end of it all, the fault lies with weak politicians and a total lack of any leadership. A stronger PM, for example, would have laid out the realities to the country and HoC far earlier rather than try to trick the HoC, through a deadline, into voting her way.

An honest outlining of the real issues. The cost to people, the cost to jobs, the realities of global trade.

What is happening in the UK could easily happen anywhere, we have sen examples in the past. People become fed up and lose faith in the process and will grab onto to anything that promises to make things better (Trump in the US being another example). Its the lack of critical analysis that kills a democracy.

[Deleted User]

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

Certainly. Even looking at the nature of the EU both at EU level and for the individual nations there's always compromise, negotiation, coalitions etc. All you have to do is look at how the EU is presented in Europe. It's one thing. Is it a friend? Well, no, it "tells us what to do". Therefore it must be an enemy. If it's not us it's an enemy. Irish politics can fall into a similar silly pattern at times but this whole debacle has shown we understand how working together can be mutually beneficial, perhaps from years of working within and with the EU.

Dyr

EdgeCase wrote: »

It would be enormously helpful if Stormont actually functioned. The fact that the assembly is out of action and there's no Northern Ireland government has massively impacted this.

Stormont is f***ed, the DUP's shenanigans mean a lot of Catholics don't see any point, there'll be no pressure on SF to get that show back on the road.

Hurrache

Bambi wrote: »

Just look at how much stock the BBC put on behind the scenes he-said-she-said gossip that's fed to them

Katya Adler of the BBC being one of the worse for this. She basically tweets any oul crap fed to her.

Leroy42

Hurrache wrote: »

Katya Adler of the BBC being one of the worse for this. She basically tweets any oul crap fed to her.

I agree, although on the last Brexitcast even she seemed to have turned a corner. She mentioned a number of times that the EU have no reason to change course, no reason to give on the backstop, that whilst the UK see this as a slight against them, the EU see it as sticking up for a member country on not overly concerned with the internal politics of a third country (as the UK will soon become).

She still doesn't appear to have completely got it but, IMO, there was a noticeable shift in her stance.

Laura, in comparison, is still working on the basis that the UK are in full control and once the HoC sorts itself out then everything will be solved.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

Indeed. However, the Dáil has a situation that actually proves your point about Westminster. The only comparable divide in the Dáil is Mary Lou and Leo. As things stand, there is zero chance of FG and SF forming a coalition, and so their leaders are free to attack each other. Which they do regularly and quite viciously.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty full-on, alright. I think UKIP are underestimating the amount of British folk who just want the whole thing done with one way or another. People only have so much heart for this kind of emotional language, and after two years of it, the British must be feeling wholly drained.

seamus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Using direct threats and coercion to influence people's votes?

Seems like there's probably a law or two against that...

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Is there any chance that is photoshopped? It looks extreme, even for UKIP.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fault with Brexit is not the parliament system, not the ref, not the parties. All these are certainly playing their part in exacerbating the problems, but are not the fundamental issue.

It's certainly part of the problem. When you have a parliament that's almost one third made up of members who literaly cannot be voted out unless de-selected by their party, then that's a good chunk of democracy gone. And an electoral system that effectively sidelines minority parties to the extent that their national share of the vote barely translates into seats in parliament and you have a completely internally focused party system which pays scant attention to the wishes of the electorate, you have a pretty dysfunctional system. Don't forget that brexit is a direct result of an internal party squabble. It should never have arrived at a point that that squabble would translate into a narrowly lost advisory referendum and an end game that cannot but massively harm the economy for possibly decades. That's just bizarre.

otnomart

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

lawred2

otnomart wrote: »

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

ok Ms May - when do you expect the NI Executive and Assembly to reconvene?

Hurrache

Another view from someone influential on the BBC's apparent editorial decision on how to approach the backstop.
https://twitter.com/SimonFraser00/status/1089825562393223168

murphaph

otnomart wrote: »

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

Isn't this the backstop on steroids? It would satisfy the DUP because they don't really care about Brexit but this is 100 times worse for the ERG types surely?

trellheim

Exact text of the joint report from December 2017 ( this is what moved the talks onwards to WA and resulted in the Backstop)

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United
Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998
Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct
arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United
Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's
businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

I should add that sneakily they are not mentioning Para 49

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible
with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve
these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible,
the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique
circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United
Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the
Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.