Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Irish Praetorian · 08-04-2019 6:31pm

listermint wrote: »

Ukraine isnt in the EU though.

Where on earth did you get the impression that I was suggesting the contrary?

Tell me how · 08-04-2019 6:34pm

^^^^
The part where you said Ukraine had the confidence that 26 other nations had their back when they were being invaded implied that they did so because they were members of the EU.

Scoondal · 08-04-2019 6:36pm

listermint wrote: »

Ukraine isnt in the EU though.

EU can say that a peace agreement of a member country will be broken by a "no deal brexit". UK can revoke article 50 before Friday if EU says no more extensions. An EU hardline now should get positive results in the long term.

lawred2 · 08-04-2019 6:43pm

road_high wrote: »

How ridiculous does that sound?

At this stage of Brexit and every thing that's gone before us over the last three years... I'd say it sounds just about right really.

Almost predictable.

Enzokk · 08-04-2019 6:45pm

Seems like conversations with Labour is going well,

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1115299051858268160

Here is a couple of links about the state of play in the UK at the moment. Both major parties are either antisemitic or Islamaphobic. That doesn't leave a lot of choice for voters, unless they prescribe to either of those views I guess.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1115278802937155584

This is a thread about more suspensions in the Tory party, the outbursts they made is quite colourful to get them suspended. Note they are only suspended and not thrown out of the party.

As for Labour, there was this story yesterday following up on a Sunday Times article,

Jewish Labour Movement passes no-confidence motion on Corbyn

I am going to highlight some of the figures that the Sunday Times claimed,

The development came as sources close to the leader and senior sources elsewhere in the party were at loggerheads over the accuracy of figures cited by the Sunday Times, which reported that Corbyn’s office had been involved in approving, delaying or blocking at least 101 complaints of antisemitism.

Out of 863 complaints, 454 were said to be unresolved, including 249 where the party had not started an investigation. Out of 409 cases where a decision was reached, 191 members faced no further action, 145 received a formal warning and fewer than 30 were expelled.

At the moment it seems that Labour is disputing the figures and not the story, but how can Corbyn's office get involved in any antisemitic case? Does anyone in his office have a few brain cells to rub together to know they should stay clear of any complaints?

A pattern I have seen which is disturbing from Labour supporters is that those that you know are not antisemitic but so wedded to Labour and in particular Corbyn now will do anything to defend the leader and party. The attacks on Rachel Riley to try and discredit her by using old tweets when she talks about antisemitism now is ironic and actually sad for those commentators.

What a state the UK is in at the moment, and a perfect example is the farmer who needs immigration from the EU for his livelihood and yet seems unchanged in his opinion about the EU. The EU referendum let the genie out of the bottle and I don't know how you get it back.

Irish Praetorian · 08-04-2019 6:58pm

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
The part where you said Ukraine had the confidence that 26 other nations had their back when they were being invaded implied that they did so because they were members of the EU.

No what I said was "they had the support of more than 26 European countries" which is drawing a contrast to the 26 countries that comprise the EU by referring to 'more than' that, I.E. the wider world including (most notably) the USA.

Professor Moriarty · 08-04-2019 7:04pm

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like conversations with Labour is going well,

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1115299051858268160

Here is a couple of links about the state of play in the UK at the moment. Both major parties are either antisemitic or Islamaphobic. That doesn't leave a lot of choice for voters, unless they prescribe to either of those views I guess.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1115278802937155584

This is a thread about more suspensions in the Tory party, the outbursts they made is quite colourful to get them suspended. Note they are only suspended and not thrown out of the party.

As for Labour, there was this story yesterday following up on a Sunday Times article,

Jewish Labour Movement passes no-confidence motion on Corbyn

I am going to highlight some of the figures that the Sunday Times claimed,

At the moment it seems that Labour is disputing the figures and not the story, but how can Corbyn's office get involved in any antisemitic case? Does anyone in his office have a few brain cells to rub together to know they should stay clear of any complaints?

A pattern I have seen which is disturbing from Labour supporters is that those that you know are not antisemitic but so wedded to Labour and in particular Corbyn now will do anything to defend the leader and party. The attacks on Rachel Riley to try and discredit her by using old tweets when she talks about antisemitism now is ironic and actually sad for those commentators.

What a state the UK is in at the moment, and a perfect example is the farmer who needs immigration from the EU for his livelihood and yet seems unchanged in his opinion about the EU. The EU referendum let the genie out of the bottle and I don't know how you get it back.

The irony that Javid is an avid supporter of Israel is lost on the Tory Islamophobes.

prawnsambo · 08-04-2019 7:10pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, according to this article, because parliament gave May the power to invoke A50, it also gave her the power to revoke A50. Essentially, she just has to write a letter.

I get the logic there. But when parliament gave her the authority to invoke, the authority to revoke wasn't established. That didn't happen until almost two years later. So you could argue that parliament couldn't give something that wasn't envisaged at the time. Also the authority to invoke was carried by a vote of parliament for that express purpose. And was something that had to be established by law. The article suggests that she had the authority to negotiate and therefore revoking would be considered part of that right. But that right was never in doubt in the first place. She was the leader of the government and therefore it was her responsibility.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 7:11pm

Scoondal wrote: »

Okay. But could Ireland not bring it up at general assembly and see what support we have? I think that an international peace agreement is important in UN.

Probably a totally unrelated coincidence but Ireland is campaigning to be on the UN security council for two years 2021-22.

Which is when the WA is due to finish if there isn't a hard Brexit.

Brochure from the good folk at the Dept of Foreign Affairs
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/ourrolepolicies/unitednations/Campaign-Brochure-July-2018.pdf

Professor Moriarty · 08-04-2019 7:19pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I get the logic there. But when parliament gave her the authority to invoke, the authority to revoke wasn't established. That didn't happen until almost two years later. So you could argue that parliament couldn't give something that wasn't envisaged at the time. Also the authority to invoke was carried by a vote of parliament for that express purpose. And was something that had to be established by law. The article suggests that she had the authority to negotiate and therefore revoking would be considered part of that right. But that right was never in doubt in the first place. She was the leader of the government and therefore it was her responsibility.

Dunno TBH, I'm not a lawyer He seems very sure that she retained the right to revoke especially as parliament subsequently rejected the deal.

An Ciarraioch · 08-04-2019 7:19pm

UK European election writ formally moved:

http://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1115313921798418432

road_high · 08-04-2019 7:23pm

So taking back control consists of complying with EU law to take part in said elections! I honestly didn’t think they’d be at the stage where they’re taking part in the elections but here we are it seems

BarryD2 · 08-04-2019 7:33pm

So May trying to sucker Labour into a corner. Argue for a short extension on basis that she nearly has a deal cut. Not much chance of either EU or Lab falling for that. She’s gone past hopeless.

Why on earth could she not see the reality staring her in the face a year ago and gone to the country again? Vanity? Stubbornness? Power trip?

bilston · 08-04-2019 7:34pm

There are questions as to why there were no resignations from May's cabinet after she announced she was going to hold talks with Corbyn and rule out no deal.

It may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but maybe May isn't serious about the talks with Labour and she will go to the EU with precisely nothing to offer as a way forward thereby tempting the EU into refusing an extension meaning the default position of a no deal Brexit will occur on Friday. She can then turn round and blame the EU for not extending while appeasing the hard-line Brexiteers.

It is far fetched, but again it surprises me that there were no high profile Brexiteer resignations from her government last week.

Infini · 08-04-2019 7:40pm

Thing is though the EU has been clear on the reasons and the requirements for an Extention. They arent outright going to refuse one they'll simply set the conditions so that if the UK crashes out it's purely by their choice alone in that they refused to meet said conditions and they brought about their own downfall not the EU.

My guess is that IF a no deal Brexit were about to happen a hastily called session of parliment to revoke A50 will happen before they plunge into the Abyss. No deal is not a plan its a failure of the state itself and it will disintegrate shortly after.

Also...

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1041274/

Its being made pretty clear that a no deal Brexit meand no deals at all for the UK till the previous issues are sorted and in a no deal it will be far less favourable later than if theyd agreed now.

Strazdas · 08-04-2019 7:45pm

bilston wrote: »

There are questions as to why there were no resignations from May's cabinet after she announced she was going to hold talks with Corbyn and rule out no deal.

It may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but maybe May isn't serious about the talks with Labour and she will go to the EU with precisely nothing to offer as a way forward thereby tempting the EU into refusing an extension meaning the default position of a no deal Brexit will occur on Friday. She can then turn round and blame the EU for not extending while appeasing the hard-line Brexiteers.

It is far fetched, but again it surprises me that there were no high profile Brexiteer resignations from her government last week.

Her whole behaviour has been extremely odd. Some pundits picked up on the fact that she wrote to Tusk requesting a 2-3 month extension at around the same time she announced the talks with Corbyn ie. she didn't even wait to see what Corbyn might say and rushed off a letter to Tusk, when the EU would have been more than prepared to wait for a few days.

God knows what she's really up to.

prawnsambo · 08-04-2019 7:45pm

bilston wrote: »

There are questions as to why there were no resignations from May's cabinet after she announced she was going to hold talks with Corbyn and rule out no deal.

It may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but maybe May isn't serious about the talks with Labour and she will go to the EU with precisely nothing to offer as a way forward thereby tempting the EU into refusing an extension meaning the default position of a no deal Brexit will occur on Friday. She can then turn round and blame the EU for not extending while appeasing the hard-line Brexiteers.

It is far fetched, but again it surprises me that there were no high profile Brexiteer resignations from her government last week.

More importantly she can blame Labour. Because deep down it's all about the party and power. And being able to blame brexit on Labour intransigence would be the perfect solution for her.

serfboard · 08-04-2019 7:52pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Why on earth could she not see the reality staring her in the face a year ago and gone to the country again? Vanity? Stubbornness? Power trip?

Because Teresa May has two objectives:

1. Doing whatever is necessary to keep herself in power for one more day, one more week, one more month. Calling an election would put that in jeopardy.

2. Keeping her party together and trying to prevent defections to UKIP. Don't forget that in 2015, UKIP got four million votes - not enough to win seats (well they did get one), but enough to stop Tories from winning seats. As an example of how that plays out, in the recent Newport West by-election, someone who has joined UKIP from the Tories (Neil Hamilton), prevented the Tories from winning the seat there.

Infini wrote: »

Thing is though the EU has been clear on the reasons and the requirements for an Extention. They arent outright going to refuse one they'll simply set the conditions so that if the UK crashes out it's purely by their choice alone in that they refused to meet said conditions and they brought about their own downfall not the EU.

Ara that's far too easy for the Brexiteers to bat away. They'll say that it's the evil EU's fault for deliberately setting conditions that they knew they UK couldn't abide by, because they want to punish the UK etc. etc.

woohoo!!! · 08-04-2019 8:47pm

serfboard wrote: »

BarryD2 wrote: »

Why on earth could she not see the reality staring her in the face a year ago and gone to the country again? Vanity? Stubbornness? Power trip?

Because Teresa May has two objectives:

1. Doing whatever is necessary to keep herself in power for one more day, one more week, one more month. Calling an election would put that in jeopardy.

2. Keeping her party together and trying to prevent defections to UKIP. Don't forget that in 2015, UKIP got four million votes - not enough to win seats (well they did get one), but enough to stop Tories from winning seats. As an example of how that plays out, in the recent Newport West by-election, someone who has joined UKIP from the Tories (Neil Hamilton), prevented the Tories from winning the seat there.

Infini wrote: »

Thing is though the EU has been clear on the reasons and the requirements for an Extention. They arent outright going to refuse one they'll simply set the conditions so that if the UK crashes out it's purely by their choice alone in that they refused to meet said conditions and they brought about their own downfall not the EU.

Ara that's far too easy for the Brexiteers to bat away. They'll say that it's the evil EU's fault for deliberately setting conditions that they knew they UK couldn't abide by, because they want to punish the UK etc. etc.

Sure, they think they hold the cards, but all they have is jokers. EU wins every single time they try some clever wheeze confrontation. Their hubris prevents them from realising when in a hole, stop digging.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 8:57pm

serfboard wrote: »

Because Teresa May has two objectives:

1. Doing whatever is necessary to keep herself in power for one more day, one more week, one more month. Calling an election would put that in jeopardy.

2. Keeping her party together and trying to prevent defections to UKIP. Don't forget that in 2015, UKIP got four million votes - not enough to win seats (well they did get one), but enough to stop Tories from winning seats. As an example of how that plays out, in the recent Newport West by-election, someone who has joined UKIP from the Tories (Neil Hamilton), prevented the Tories from winning the seat there.

Ara that's far too easy for the Brexiteers to bat away. They'll say that it's the evil EU's fault for deliberately setting conditions that they knew they UK couldn't abide by, because they want to punish the UK etc. etc.

She will be unassignable as Tory leader until December unless the both the ERG and Labour agree to trigger an election, or get the 1922 committee etc. to change the Tory rulebook or go against her in a vote of confidence. But not worth the risk of Corbyn becoming PM or undermining the 1922 committee.

I can't see defections to UKIP, the Tories have extended, embraced and extinguished them by adopting their moderate policies. So conservative voters don't need to stray anymore.

UKIP have had to take a stronger stance since alienating them from conservatives. So unless they are expelled from the party I can't see many if any Tories defecting because they know their voters might not follow them. Especially the ones in safe seats.

BarryD2 · 08-04-2019 8:58pm

Infini wrote: »

My guess is that IF a no deal Brexit were about to happen a hastily called session of parliment to revoke A50 will happen before they plunge into the Abyss. No deal is not a plan its a failure of the state itself and it will disintegrate shortly after.

Well if the Cooper bill is passed by the Lords and signed etc., then May will be forced to agree to a long extension or revoke. This government is being boxed into a corner, whether willingly or unwillingly is not clear but only a fool at this stage would let them squeeze out.

serfboard wrote: »

Because Teresa May has two objectives:

1. Doing whatever is necessary to keep herself in power for one more day, one more week, one more month. Calling an election would put that in jeopardy.

2. Keeping her party together and trying to prevent defections to UKIP.

I don't quite buy that. I can see why both may be important to her but it would be madness to throw your country's economy into utter turmoil for what are narrow motives. She is the PM at the end of the day, the leader of her U.K., albeit not a very united U.K., but that's still her primary responsibility.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch · 08-04-2019 9:01pm

ERG has cracked, wow

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1115339460512821250

road_high · 08-04-2019 9:09pm

Sounds like the Labour Tory talks are not going well. She’s meeting the EU leaders Wednesday without absolutely nothing to tell them only “talks are ongoing”. How long the inevitable extension will be is the next question. Unless the more hardline EU leaders refuse, I don’t yhibk that will happen though listening to the Varadkar mood music

10000maniacs · 08-04-2019 9:15pm

One interesting and positive Barnier comment from todays meeting. Just paraphrasing but he said something like this. "In a hard Brexit, the EU won't do any business with the UK until the Border and the GFA are protected."

Vex Willems · 08-04-2019 9:19pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

One interesting and positive Barnier comment from todays meeting. Just paraphrasing but he said something like this. "In a hard Brexit, the EU won't do any business with the UK until the Border and the GFA are protected."

It's amazing that that even needs to be said but then this is brexit!

Charles Babbage · 08-04-2019 9:19pm

road_high wrote: »

I’ve a feeling it’s going to go on and on ...

The Brexit thread may outlive Boards.ie.

Vex Willems wrote: »

It's amazing that that even needs to be said but then this is brexit!

It needs to be said, the Brexit mob frequently claim that if there is no deal that there will subsequently be a FTA with no mention of a backstop.

Strazdas · 08-04-2019 9:22pm

Millie Delightful Molding wrote: »

ERG has cracked, wow

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1115339460512821250

One wonders if the behaviour of Francois and Bridgen has played a part in this. The two of them have sounded like a pair of complete fruitcakes for the last few weeks in their numerous media appearances (how have those two even managed to become so prominent in the media?).

Laois_Man · 08-04-2019 9:29pm

serfboard wrote: »

As an example of how that plays out, in the recent Newport West by-election, someone who has joined UKIP from the Tories (Neil Hamilton), prevented the Tories from winning the seat there.

Well saying UKIP caused the Tory's from losing that seat is a bit of a stretch!

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It needs to be said, the Brexit mob frequently claim that if there is no deal that there will subsequently be a FTA with no mention of a backstop.

Some genuinely think the German car industry will make Merkel come and beg the UK for a deal, Merkel will then issue the order to the EU27, and like magic, it will be done!

prawnsambo · 08-04-2019 9:33pm

Strazdas wrote: »

One wonders if the behaviour of Francois and Bridgen has played a part in this. The two of them have sounded like a pair of complete fruitcakes for the last few weeks in their numerous media appearances (how have those two even managed to become so prominent in the media?).

Francois is the vice-chair of the ERG iirc. But he's not exactly the sharpest knife in a drawer of rusty knives.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 9:42pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well if the Cooper bill is passed by the Lords and signed etc., then May will be forced to agree to a long extension or revoke. This government is being boxed into a corner, whether willingly or unwillingly is not clear but only a fool at this stage would let them squeeze out.

Lords have passed it.

Passed it back to the commons.

But that's normal, not a Brexit thing.

https://twitter.com/UKHouseofLords/status/1115325251217428480

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments