Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

briany wrote: »

I do not agree with Mogg's approach to Brexit, but he can easily draw a line through his reasoning. He can still say he hates May's deal, but that he hates it less than a certain alternative.

That's is very true, but he is asked how they would have ended up in a different place?

What has TM, and the rest of the cabinet, three different Brexit ministers, done wrong that would deliver something notably different?

They are great at claiming that things could have been different, without ever putting forward how that would be achieved. Do carry out with his line of argument, he thinks that TM has done a terrible job, a job that will lead to the UK being 'slave's' to the EU for at least 2 years. Yet only a few months ago he voted confidence in the government.

How would be get around the problem of the Irish backstop, apart from magical thinking? He knows the EU won't accept that, so what is the alternative and how come TM won't accept that alternative?

His line of thinking is very easy to understand. He has given up all pretence that Brexit will actually be the success that he, and many others, claimed it would be, and instead if accepting the reality that things will be worse outside the EU than inside yet they have created another monster to fear that is the cause of all of this, TM.

Before the Ref it was all the EU fault, now it lies with TM. So lets get rid of TM and that will sort it out.

One must also consider that the cabinet is totally split on this. TM has no authority and has already handed in her resignation, she will be gone either shortly at at the latest by 2022.

The governing party is split, the HoC is split and the country as a whole is split.

Yet the EU are supposed to give extensions based on that? The only sane way forward is that the UK accepts they made a collective mess of the whole thing, revoke A50 with a view to having a full, open and nationwide debate. An independent commission is required to be set up (I think Benn committee seemed to do quite well so maybe something like that).

Maybe call it a 3 year extension (so as to avoid having to revoke A50 and the public outrage that will cause), where everything stays at it currently is. UK remains a full member, partakes in EU elections, pays into the EU budget and plays a full and active role. During this time the UK continues on with its internal dialogue about the EU and tries, through a series of ref's, to come to some sort of consensus.

Accept that there are issues such as the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights that need to be resolved. Accept that no matter what deal they get things will be harder than they currently are. Accept that stopping FoM means issues for those living overseas and will result in more Non-Eu immigration (not a problem in of itself, but something to consider).

mayordenis wrote: »

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

There's something unsettling about that. You'd think someone spouting two contradictory positions within seconds of each other is a spoofer or a moron, but there could be another layer to it - saying everything without really saying anything and frustrating your opponent into throwing their hands up and walking away. The verbal equivalent of a smokescreen. The documentarian Adam Curtis did a brilliant bit about the emergence of a new type of political 'theatre' where contradictions are flung about, and no-one knows what's real, and that leads to apathy and political disengagement.

You'd think that the solution would be just to pin such blusterers down on the facts, but if the blusterers supporters are not interested in facts, what good does it do?

mayordenis wrote: »

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

That guy mentions imports, exports & "the war" a few times, what war is he on about? A currently non-existent trade war?

Don't get me started on the "We SavEd EuRopE iN tHe Waaaaarrrmaaaate" guy...


It's really quite concerning how fast the revolt against intelligence, knowledge and fact is spreading worldwide, being pushed along by & carrying with it - political extremism (both left and right)


The longer this goes on the risk of this fascist crap spreading here and across the EU seems to be getting higher and higher, what with JRM snuggling up with the AFD, and a LOT of British folk sharing same drivel on social media at the moment.

The extreme left also hates the EU, so there's no really noisy opposition to anything that promotes the end game for each viewpoint.

Excellent Chatham House panel discussion from Friday here:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/file/state-brexit-brexit-day#

No talking over or arguing, just people from different spectrums offering their own takes on the issues around Brexit. Excellent questions from the audience too with almost no grandstanding.

In terms of a new takeaway, the idea that a permanent customs union will solve the matter seems incredibly incorrect and economically illiterate. Also that “No Deal” being a destination or permanent state is massively wrongheaded too: new negotiations would commence within weeks in that scenario.

Sir Ivan Rogers yet again comes across really well, though an anecdote he shares about 44 mins in around the perception of Swiss negotatiators on dealing with the EU betrays why he will never hold office himself.

josip wrote: »

My problem with this is that the UK's role within, and impact on, the EU is toxic and malignant.
Even more so since they invoked article 50.
It's best that they leave.

I totally understand, and agree, with this POV. I was talking about from the UK POV rather than the impact on the EU. The UK really need to call a halt to this, solely because it has been handled terribly. Maybe a stronger PM, a more united party, a more focused HoC, maybe a better Brexit can be achieved. But not right at this minute.

But it takes not only some words, but real actions. The UK would have to admit that there is a significant problem, they would have to agree to a way forward to try to deal with those problems, and agree that it will take time.

None of that is even on the radar in the UK, never mind get done, but it is the only sensible way forward.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So the people that voted to stay, those who've realised the folly of their decision, EU migrants here, Irish farmers and exporters and those who couldn't vote should just be thrown under the bus?

Voters on the losing side of any election/ref get 'thrown under a bus'. Unfortunately, unless the country as a whole stands up for itself then the 'will of the people' does need to be respected. The argument,, of course, is what what 'will' actually means, and it seems to mean everything to everybody.

We saw with Corbyn's election to Labour leader, that grassroots can have a clear impact on the parties. UKIP appear to be doing a similar thing within the Tories (Greive vote last week). So where are all the young people, the people out marching last weekend, the remainers, why have they not joined the Tories and demanded their voice be heard? The Brexiteers are willing to get their hands dirty but the remainers seem intent on marches and posters.

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Don't get me started on the "We SavEd EuRopE iN tHe Waaaaarrrmaaaate" guy...

That's the nonsense that's in their school history books!

josip wrote: »

My problem with this is that the UK's role within, and impact on, the EU is toxic and malignant.
Even more so since they invoked article 50.
It's best that they leave.

Well there was always a vociferous anti-EU faction in the UK who went out and voted for anti-EU candidates.....but maybe the pro-EU faction has grown considerably now because of all the nonsense over the last year in particular, and the UK could conceivably end up electing less anti EU MEPs than before!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't really get your point about young people joining the party that has done everything to screw them from tuition fees to strangling the housing market to Brexit. They're supposed to reward this with what little cash they've left.

Join it to change it, not to endorse it.

People joined Labour in order to vote for Corbyn. If people want the Tories to change they need to act on that. Stop letting the over 70's white drive policy.

joe40 wrote: »

Why is only in Britain that there seem to be this narrative that they have to obey EU rules, like they were being governed by a foreign power.
Germas, French, Irish, Belgians..... we all obey the same rules.

Maybe the same level of discontent about the EU exists in other countries and I'm simply not hearing it.

The question is never posed by the British press, but if EU membership is so harmful why are other countries, including big economies like France and Germany not trying to leave. Everyone is subject to the same conditions even moreso than Britain.

There was a great documentary on Netflix a few years ago called winter on fire. It covered the pro EU street demonstrations in Ukraine in late 2013.
It followed the protests as the police gradually upped the ante from using batons to rubber bullets to eventually real bullets. This level of violence was on the level of Bloody Sunday or anything that happened in the troubles.
These were people out on the streets of Kiev getting shot dead agitating for closer relations with the EU.

SNP will vote for Common Market 2.0 if ranked tonight - but that only brings it up to 223 votes.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the UK could domestically produce all of the goods it currently imports?

No, of course not. I’m just saying if you’re going to criticise the Brexiter side, criticise them for the right thing. What yer man said was inaccurate, but he didn’t contradict himself within 6 seconds as was implied above

josip wrote: »

When I said 'it's best that they leave', I meant, 'it's best for the EU that they leave.
The EU has to look after its own citizens.
All those you listed are UK citizens and it's the responsibility of HMG to look after their interests, not the EU's responsibility.

Irish farmers and exporters haven't been UK citizens for a century.