Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo · 08-03-2019 07:38PM

Well the French appear to be having something of a boom in the wine business a la brexit.
This should get them through the first few months anyway.

54and56 · 08-03-2019 07:44PM

VinLieger wrote: »

"I didn't get to vote in the 70's - I've had to wait over 40 years to get my say so "back of queue" new voters and come back when you've had 40 year plus of a system you don't support."

This bloke "Gary" (who sounds Liverpudlian) is on LBC talking to JRM right now!!

jmayo · 08-03-2019 07:50PM

Reading quotes all those **** on Twitter and a huge chunk of the QT audience makes me agree with the supervisor from Nissan who reckons a hard Brexit is necessary for Britain and British people to cop to fook on and move into the late 20th century never mind the 21st century.

Barnier's revised proposal, actually back to original idea, will not fly with the old unionist tories in the ERG and thus May will not go with it.
It would mean the breakup of the Conservatives and that worries her more than queues in Dover or British shops being empty because they have no pallets for trade.

She has illusions that she is Thatcher and thus can go off to bully Johnny Foreigners, but she hasn't two brain cells to rub together.

Even worse not alone is she absolutely cr** at negotiating boxing herself into corners, she has no concept of compromise.
And she is incapable of listening, as in how long did it take for her to get the hint about her chequer's plan ?
She personifies the arrogance and stupidity of a lot of the old British empire builders who despite themselves built an empire.

Also the old British tactic of divide and conquer hasn't thankfully worked with the EU and that is in no small part down to fact they don't appear to have cultivated any close personal links with connected people around Europe.

Someone mentioned recently how they have isolated themselves for years and thus have no real allies.

Working class heroes · 08-03-2019 08:02PM

jmayo wrote: »

Reading quotes all those **** on Twitter and a huge chunk of the QT audience makes me agree with the supervisor from Nissan who reckons a hard Brexit is necessary for Britain and British people to cop to fook on and move into the late 20th century never mind the 21st century.

Barnier's revised proposal, actually back to original idea, will not fly with the old unionist tories in the ERG and thus May will not go with it.
It would mean the breakup of the Conservatives and that worries her more than queues in Dover or British shops being empty because they have no pallets for trade.

She has illusions that she is Thatcher and thus can go off to bully Johnny Foreigners, but she hasn't two brain cells to rub together.

Even worse not alone is she absolutely cr** at negotiating boxing herself into corners, she has no concept of compromise.
And she is incapable of listening, as in how long did it take for her to get the hint about her chequer's plan ?
She personifies the arrogance and stupidity of a lot of the old British empire builders who despite themselves built an empire.

Also the old British tactic of divide and conquer hasn't thankfully worked with the EU and that is in no small part down to fact they don't appear to have cultivated any close personal links with connected people around Europe.

Someone mentioned recently how they have isolated themselves for years and thus have no real allies.

The closet they have(had) to an alloy in Europe is(was) Ireland.
Look how that’s going now!

Sam Russell · 08-03-2019 08:35PM

GM228 wrote: »

They have what is known as a non codified unwritten constitution.

Their constitution relies on precedents - and if there isn't one handy, they will invent one. Works every time.

Imreoir2 · 08-03-2019 08:38PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt was giving an update yesterday on the state of the EU negotiations. When he got to Theresa May's proposed extension, he said that they had put the proposal of a short extension to the council (of 27 remaining member states) and it was not their preferred option. There is resistance unless it is purely a technical extension to allow the parliament to pass legislation enabling the Withdrawal agreement.

Theresa May's idea that the EU will agree to a short extension without any agreement on the withdrawal agreement is likely going to run into a brick wall with the EU

I can see the votes next week going against Mays deal and against No deal, but when they come to vote for the extension, if May insists on a short extension only (and this isn't challenged by an opposition or back bench ammendment) then they're looking at running out of time as it could take a few days for the EU to reject their proposal and then a few more days for the HOC to get their sh1t together to request a longer extension.

Alternatively, the EU could already have a rejection response prepared to release moments after the HOC vote is over (as they have done in the past) and this might allow the House to move quickly enough to agree a extension request that allows for a longer extension, most likely including a referendum.

Had to smile at the mistake Verhofstadt made "An orderly withdrawl of Great Britain from the UK". That's one way to put the current backstop proposal.

SimonTemplar · 08-03-2019 08:40PM

I must say, May is annoying me as much as Johnson does at this stage. She said in her speech today that if her deal does not pass on Tuesday, Brexit may end up being different to what people voted for. But people didn't vote for any specific deal or future relationship. They voted to leave the EU, that's it. That was the question that the referendum asked. Leaving the EU but staying in a customs union would still be 100% fulfilling the result of the referendum.

Also, she is trying to paint the EU as some sort of stubborn obstacle to the UK. But the backstop was her idea not the EU's. This is a mess entirely of her making.

Zubeneschamali · 08-03-2019 08:52PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't really know what it would take to convince ardent pro-Brexit voters and supporters of Brexit that this is going to hurt.

The ardent ones don't care. They seem to be looking forward to some of that Blitz spirit rationing, telling the Huns and japs to stick their manufacturing jobs and restarting National Service to gather adequate food.

Should cut down immigration, which is the main thing.

Akrasia · 08-03-2019 08:52PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I must say, May is annoying me as much as Johnson does at this stage. She said in her speech today that if her deal does not pass on Tuesday, Brexit may end up being different to what people voted for. But people didn't vote for any specific deal or future relationship. They voted to leave the EU, that's it. That was the question that the referendum asked. Leaving the EU but staying in a customs union would still be 100% fulfilling the result of the referendum.

Also, she is trying to paint the EU as some sort of stubborn obstacle to the UK. But the backstop was her idea not the EU's. This is a mess entirely of her making.

Good point. Any kind of brexit is different from what people voted for.

Enzokk · 08-03-2019 09:07PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if it is too late. I can't see the deal passing on the 12th next week. On the 13th there will be a vote to avert no deal with a possible extension to be voted on a day after.

I am a little unclear on what happens if her vote fails next week. I know there will be further votes and one of them is to ask the EU for an extension, but to what point? And what happens if the extension is not granted? If her deal fails again and she asks for a 3 month extension until the 30th June, what will the purpose for that be? She will not negotiate a new deal in that time and it is obvious the EU will not give her the concessions she thinks she needs.

I could see the EU not agreeing to the 3 month extension if her deal fails. They would rather a longer extension with the UK participating in the EU elections and a further 2 years or so to either negotiate a new deal, after May leaves and a new leader/government takes over to get a new deal or revokes article 50. I can see an extension if her deal pass to ensure she has enough time to get all the legislation through that is needed.

Alternatively an extension would be agreed if time is needed even if it is no-deal and legislation needs to be passed as well, but then we will know it is no-deal that will happen.

MadYaker · 08-03-2019 09:14PM

Offer them a 100 year extenson or nothing? See what they say.

Irishmale0399 · 08-03-2019 09:15PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Offer them a 100 year extenson or nothing? See what they say.

Even better....make the choice for them......kick them out now and tell them to get on with it.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 09:16PM

Its like the UK can't escape the EU even if they wanted to. Its almost funny.

They voted to leave but don't know how to get out. The EU I bet are loving this. The next time a country wants to leave they will say Look to the British.

lawred2 · 08-03-2019 09:19PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its like the UK can't escape the EU even if they wanted to. Its almost funny.

They voted to leave but don't know how to get out. The EU I bet are loving this. The next time a country wants to leave they will say Look to the British.

They could leave tomorrow if they wanted. Easy as pie.

Problem is they haven't figured out how to leave while keeping all the benefits.

Kermit.de.frog · 08-03-2019 09:21PM

That's not good either.

We might also want to leave one day and don't want to be kicked around for doing so either.

janfebmar · 08-03-2019 09:33PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's not good either.

We might also want to leave one day and don't want to be kicked around for doing so either.

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

Kermit.de.frog · 08-03-2019 09:35PM

janfebmar wrote: »

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

Britain contributed only 5% of the bailout.

Britain is not allowing us pay back the loan early unlike Sweden and Denmark.

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2019 09:37PM

janfebmar wrote: »

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

Britain loaned us money to save their own banks.

janfebmar · 08-03-2019 09:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britain loaned us money to save their own banks.

They loaned us money so we could keep our lights on / pay our public servants and social welfare and pensions.

lawred2 · 08-03-2019 09:39PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Britain contributed only 5% of the bailout.

At premium interest rates. And then refused early redemption.

Largely because British banks were heavily exposed after years of casino banking on the Irish property market.

No self interest there.

lawred2 · 08-03-2019 09:41PM

janfebmar wrote: »

They loaned us money so we could keep our lights on / pay our public servants and social welfare and pensions.

Laughable nonsense.

Gerry T · 08-03-2019 09:42PM

janfebmar wrote:

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

Crap thanked that sh1t, cant unthank from my phone !! Anyway... they were such good friends they ave us money so we could pay their banks back but then they wouldn't let Irl pay back early to save interest, they stuck the boot in and said we'd have to pay penalties, great friends.

Gerry T · 08-03-2019 09:43PM

Now I thanked myself !

Spanish Eyes · 08-03-2019 09:44PM

I think there may be a revocation of A50 any day now. Let us say Monday, followed by a swift resignation by TM. All before the many votes that the Commons have been allowed to have as opposed to the NO NO NO to a People's vote. Democracy my ars.

Just having a larf. But honestly, is there anything better than that at this late stage?

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2019 09:45PM

janfebmar wrote: »

They loaned us money so we could keep our lights on / pay our public servants and social welfare and pensions.

No, they loaned us money to save themselves. Nothing altruistic in it.

CelticRambler · 08-03-2019 09:45PM

janfebmar wrote: »

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britain loaned us money to save their own banks.

And then screwed us for extra the interest when we tried to pay them back early.

Enzokk · 08-03-2019 09:46PM

janfebmar wrote: »

And next time we need a bailout, like we did not so many years ago, I doubt the British will be among the first to help us when nobody else would lend us money, like they helped us last time.

We need them more than they need us, German car makers, French wine and cheese, etc.

In other news, I could say a lot about this story but most of it is just insults towards Banks so I will not go that far.

Arron Banks 'ignored deal to stop pro-Brexit ads' after Jo Cox death

Arron Banks ordered his Leave.EU campaign group to continue promoting pro-Brexit adverts in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox, despite an agreement to suspend campaigning, according to Channel 4 News.

Immediately after the MP’s killing, politicians on both sides of the EU referendum debate agreed to the suspension, and remain and leave campaigners cancelled speeches and events.

However Channel 4 News said it had seen email sent the morning after Cox’s murder from Banks, Leave.EU’s key financial backer, to his assistant Liz Bilney, the campaign group’s chief executive, that read: “Keep pumping the McKenna video” and “up the Spend A”.

Unsurprisingly he hasn't responded to this because he is on a ski holiday.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-03-2019 09:48PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Their constitution relies on precedents - and if there isn't one handy, they will invent one. Works every time.

Or drag up stuff like the the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which allowed Henry VIIII to overrule Parliament with a swift flick of the quill.

A lot of tradition has changed recently. Look at how the role of the Speaker has changed, and how the govt have responded. In 2015, with Labour's support, he survived after a proposed rule change that was seen as an attempt to oust him by the Tory government. And he may be the first Speaker in two centuries who won't get a peerage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/order-order-the-sharp-tongued-speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-is-changing-the-rules--and-maybe-brexit/2019/01/27/ff0c18c4-1b61-11e9-b8e6-567190c2fd08_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.48bd16da2b77

Brexit has turned everything upside down, and Bercow has transformed into an extraordinary player, whose broad interpretation of parliamentary rules and upending of tradition have allowed backbenchers in Parliament to wrest partial control over which direction Brexit might go.

janfebmar · 08-03-2019 09:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, they loaned us money to save themselves.

No, the UK, IMF and EU lent us money to save ourselves.
Here is a report from Nov 2010:
"Ireland has finally been forced to take an economic bail-out from the European Union.

After a humiliating week of denying it needed help, the Dublin government succumbed to pressure from other euro zone countries and asked for a “very big” loan.

G7 and euro zone finance ministers including George Osborne, the Chancellor, held emergency telephone conference talks on a combined EU-IMF rescue package of up to £77billion.

British taxpayers now face paying a bill of at least £7billion and possibly as much as £9billion because, under a deal signed by the last Labour government, British taxpayers are liable to share in the cost of any EU bail-out.

This represents upwards of £300 for every family in the UK."

How people forget.

Leroy42 · 08-03-2019 09:56PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's not good either.

We might also want to leave one day and don't want to be kicked around for doing so either.

Nobody is kicking anyone around. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Any country can leave, as the UK are proving, but there are consequences that need to be faced.

The problem the UK have is they never actually discussed the real consequences prior to the vote, either making sweeping statements about recessions or ignoring everything based on 'Project Fear'.

So they find themselves not only having to negotiate but trying to sell the negotiation as anything other than a capitulation since they told people they could get everything they wanted. If you are promised everything than anything less will seem like a failure.

Even now, TM is twisting and turning rather than facing up, and telling the country, of the consequences of their decision. You voted for Brexit, this is what it means. instead they are blaming the EU, inparty fighting and continuing with soundbites and outright lies.

It seems it has come as a surprise that the club to which they contributed billions each year actually has some benefits, benefits that people weren't aware but don't want to give up.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments