Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia · 27-06-2019 10:13PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's a report in the Indo (online) today citing a Bord Bia survey on the Brexit preparedness of Irish companies. Selectively quoting from the beginning and the end:

Accepting that Irish food companies are intimately integrated into the UK market, imagine that kind of a shift being replicated across 26 other EU countries, and perhaps even Commonwealth countries recognising that a certain and stable market of 500-million is a safer bet than one of 60-million that doesn't know what it wants.

One way or another, if 93% of Irish businesses are ready for any kind of Brexit, suddenly that no-deal scenario doesn't look so cliff-like for us. I'm not sure the same could be said for businesses in the UK.

It's a polar opposite. Irish exporters have for so long limited themselves to a smaller market because the UK was so convenient and the supply chains were established. So the UK leaving could spark a boom in 'emerging' market exploitation (except these 'emerging markets' are the richest countries in the world)

On the other hand, the UK are shutting themselves out of the most lucrative markets in the world in favour of actual 'emerging markets' where the disposable incomes in the region are so low that they cannot afford to buy most of the things the UK have for sale.

Beechwoodspark · 27-06-2019 10:13PM

Wonder will the brexiters insult and abuse the Japanese govt for calling for a soft Brexit

Beechwoodspark · 27-06-2019 10:17PM

Typical bbc propaganda.

Saying the astra will def be built in UK then as an afterword she says quietly, if, a satisfactory deal is reached

27-06-2019 10:22PM

Hermy wrote: »

So maybe not the hot potato I thought it was.
Thanks for that.

20- 30 years ago it would have been completely different as the UK was for a period of time a nett exporter of oil, these days I doubt they even produce enough for an independent Scotland to export.

Laois_Man · 27-06-2019 11:38PM

The BBC are continuing their fine job of making sure those voting in the Tory Leadership ballot are making a well informed decision...

J Mysterio · 28-06-2019 12:33AM

That's an absolutely shocking cover page. Facepalm.

Also this on BBC editorial policy:

https://twitter.com/RCorbettMEP/status/1144369238217547776?s=20

"Over the last 10 years (in which the European Union & Brexit have been regularly debated) #BBCQT has invited UK MEPs onto its show some 50 times. Every single one has been a #Brexit supporter. Never had a Remainer. Never had a #Labour, #LibDem, Green, SNP, or PlaidCymru MEP"

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 02:58AM

First Up wrote: »

They have been one country since 1603 so quite a lot more than oil to unpick

Nitpick: Scotland and England were united in the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 03:51AM

Hermy wrote: »

In the event of Scottish independence how do they get the North Sea oil and gas?
Does London just hand it over as it's in their [Scotland's] territorial waters?
Is there a legal formality to guide the situation?
Or is it something more along the lines of a trade negotiation?

There are multilateral treaties to which the UK is a party that set out rules for determining a countries territorial waters, exclusive economic zone, and other rights in relation to adjacent seas and oceans. Unless the UK and Scotland agree something different, these rules will apply to divide the UK's existing waters, rights, etc between Scotland and the rump of the UK. The great bulk of the UK's oil reseves lie in areas which, under these rules, will be assigned to Scotland. Productive fishing grounds are more evenly divided, though I think Scotland would still get the larger share.

Enzokk · 28-06-2019 06:50AM

Caroline Flint seems to have a novel ideal for a second referendum, either take the deal or leave without a deal.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1144357973701144591

So basically a confirmation referendum to try and find out what the 52% that wanted to leave really voted for. This shouldn't be the job of Farage, who has never proposed a detailed plan for leaving or what deal he wants, or Gove and Johnson. This would be up the the electorate to decide on what they were supposed to want.

10000maniacs · 28-06-2019 07:12AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Caroline Flint seems to have a novel ideal for a second referendum, either take the deal or leave without a deal.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1144357973701144591

So basically a confirmation referendum to try and find out what the 52% that wanted to leave really voted for. This shouldn't be the job of Farage, who has never proposed a detailed plan for leaving or what deal he wants, or Gove and Johnson. This would be up the the electorate to decide on what they were supposed to want.

The problem with that is very few of the people who voted out voted for either May's deal or a hard Brexit.

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 07:14AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Caroline Flint seems to have a novel ideal for a second referendum, either take the deal or leave without a deal.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1144357973701144591

So basically a confirmation referendum to try and find out what the 52% that wanted to leave really voted for. This shouldn't be the job of Farage, who has never proposed a detailed plan for leaving or what deal he wants, or Gove and Johnson. This would be up the the electorate to decide on what they were supposed to want.

This isn't really a novel idea; it has been floating around on and off ever since it became apparent that the UK couldn't decide what kind of brexit it wanted.

It's open to an obvious objection on democratic grounds; of the three courses of action wihch are realistically deliverable - remain, the WA, no-deal - opinions polls show clearly that "Remain" is far and away the most popular, and is quite likely more popular than the other two put together. So if you exclude it, and offer the people a choice only between the other two, that's clearly a rigged poll, set up to deny the people the option they probably prefer, and force them to endorse one of two less popular options. Apart from being objectionable in principle, it's unlikely in practice to produce any kind of settled consensus. People would not regard a referendum rigged in this way as conferring any real legitimacy.

(It also wouldn't establish what kind of Brexit "the 52%" preferred since, of course, the 48% would have a vote as well.)

First Up · 28-06-2019 07:52AM

Peregrinus wrote:

Nitpick: Scotland and England were united in the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

True; the 1603 Act didn't close the deal.

maynooth_rules · 28-06-2019 08:11AM

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Cons really hate Corbyn dont they. Hes portrayed as the boogeyman lurking in the undergrowth

Everyone hates him, even a good chunk of Labour supporters. The man has been an absolute disaster. The splinters formed on his arse from sitting on the fence and not backing a second referendum will have a dreadful effect on the Labour Party. He has single handily brought the Lib Dems fully back to life.

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 08:12AM

Nitpick upon nitpick: There was no 1603 Act. All that happened is that Elizabeth I of England died, and the crown passed to her nearest relative, her cousin James Stuart, who happened already to be King of Scotland. Therefter the one person was monarch in both countries but they remained, in every way, separate countries - separate parliaments, separate laws, separate courts, separate governments, separate armies, separate currencies, separate taxes, separate treasuries, everything. None of that changed until 1707.

S.M.B. · 28-06-2019 08:21AM

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

28-06-2019 08:26AM

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Same experience for me. The longer it drags on, the more my friends think No Deal will be ok, or even better than the situation now.

One friend in particular: Vote Brexit > Massive regret > Oh no what have I done > Fuk the EU for making this difficult > Want Brexit again > No Deal will be bad but we might be ok > No Deal sounds good > Want no Deal

ancapailldorcha · 28-06-2019 08:44AM

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Nobody wants that deal. In that way, Parliament represents the nation. The deal satisfies none of the factions in British politics at the moment. The remainers want to stay in, the liberal leavers might go for it but they are too few in number to count for anything while the ERG and DUP see it as being ideologically impure.

The longer this charade persists, the greater the risk of people getting exasperated to the point where they'll opt for the course of action that will put and end to it, ie no deal. Disappointingly, the appetite and zeal to stay in is still far short of what it will take to convince enough mainstream politicians to revoke article 50.

54and56 · 28-06-2019 08:47AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't really a novel idea; it has been floating around on and off ever since it became apparent that the UK couldn't decide what kind of brexit it wanted.

It's open to an obvious objection on democratic grounds; of the three courses of action wihch are realistically deliverable - remain, the WA, no-deal - opinions polls show clearly that "Remain" is far and away the most popular, and is quite likely more popular than the other two put together. So if you exclude it, and offer the people a choice only between the other two, that's clearly a rigged poll, set up to deny the people the option they probably prefer, and force them to endorse one of two less popular options. Apart from being objectionable in principle, it's unlikely in practice to produce any kind of settled consensus. People would not regard a referendum rigged in this way as conferring any real legitimacy.

(It also wouldn't establish what kind of Brexit "the 52%" preferred since, of course, the 48% would have a vote as well.)

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

Such a strategy would work well for the Tories in that it would:-

a) Ensure a "democratic" Brexit was delivered.
b) Avoid a constitutional crisis which proroguing HoC would spark.
c) Avoid a general election which the Tories would be slaughtered in if it occurred prior to this phase of Brexit being accomplished.

The above would completely pull the rug from under Farage and the Brexit Party and give Boris a couple of years post "Brexit" to deliver some populist domestic policies before the next scheduled General Election in May 2022 by which time Farage and the whole "Remain" argument will be a speck in the rear view mirror and the election will all be about rewarding the guy who got the job done when no one else could and keeping that Marxist Corbyn out of #10.

If he plays his cards right Boris could not only deliver Brexit but he could win a Tory majority in 2022 providing a No Deal (if that was the result of the referendum) didn't destroy the economy which of course is a huge risk.

First Up · 28-06-2019 08:50AM

Peregrinus wrote:

Nitpick upon nitpick: There was no 1603 Act. All that happened is that Elizabeth I of England died, and the crown passed to her nearest relative, her cousin James Stuart, who happened already to be King of Scotland. Therefter the one person was monarch in both countries but they remained, in every way, separate countries - separate parliaments, separate laws, separate courts, separate governments, separate armies, separate currencies, separate taxes, separate treasuries, everything. None of that changed until 1707.

I wasn't around at the time so I am relying on references such as the Wikipedia piece on the 1603 Act of Union but I'm happy to stand corrected.

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 08:56AM

First Up wrote: »

I wasn't around at the time so I am relying on references such as the Wikipedia piece on the 1603 Act of Union but I'm happy to stand corrected.

Actually, you'r quite right. There was a Union of England and Scotland Act 1603, though it was an Act of the English Parliament only. Basically it appointed commissioners to explore the possibility of uniting the two countries and report back to the (English) Parliament. But the process never went anywhere. The Commissioners never presented a report to Parliament, and it was another century before anything was done to unite the two countries.

robinph · 28-06-2019 09:01AM

54&56 wrote: »

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

How legitimate would the result be if 48% of the votes cast were spoiled and had remain written across them instead?

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 09:07AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody wants that deal. In that way, Parliament represents the nation. The deal satisfies none of the factions in British politics at the moment. The remainers want to stay in, the liberal leavers might go for it but they are too few in number to count for anything while the ERG and DUP see it as being ideologically impure.

The longer this charade persists, the greater the risk of people getting exasperated to the point where they'll opt for the course of action that will put and end to it, ie no deal. Disappointingly, the appetite and zeal to stay in is still far short of what it will take to convince enough mainstream politicians to revoke article 50.

Except, of course, that a no-deal Brexit won't "put an end to it". All that it will do is move the UK onto the next phase of the process, which involves actually having to make some decisions about the future relationship they would like with the EU. and of course it's their inability to make those decisions that has them in the mess they're in now. No-deal Brexit won't solve that problem; it will just make it impossible to go on deferring it.

After Brexit, the existing range of options - Remain; May's deal; no-deal - are swept away and replaced with a new range - Rejoin; meet the EU's terms for a future relationshiop agreement; forget about a future relationship agreement. Since the EU's objectives and priorities for a FR agreement will the same as for the WA, the first three positions map pretty neatly onto the second three, and the existing paralysed indecision will continue.

Unless events change it, of course. And the obvious event that might change it is the pain, disruption, depression and hardship that will result from living in a no-deal Brexit Britain. Brexiter politicians who have steered the UK towards a no-deal Brexit have presumably thought about this, and so far as I can see their strategy for not paying a heavy political price for this will be some combination of (a) invoking the spirit of the Blitz, and (b) blaming the EU, Ireland, Remainers, the party opposite. But if those strategies don't work you could expect some bleeding of support from the "forget about a FR agreement" camp into the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

As for the Rejoin camp, that will be a long-term objective. But they will also have aspirations for the future relationship (basically, as close as possible) which will give them short-term and medium term goals that align will with the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

So, in the medium term, post-Brexit I'd expect the UK to move towards accepting a FR agreement which includes the elements that have cause them to reject the WA.

Peregrinus · 28-06-2019 09:10AM

54&56 wrote: »

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

Such a strategy would work well for the Tories in that it would:-

a) Ensure a "democratic" Brexit was delivered.
b) Avoid a constitutional crisis which proroguing HoC would spark.
c) Avoid a general election which the Tories would be slaughtered in if it occurred prior to this phase of Brexit being accomplished.

I think only devout Brexiters would be fooled by this. A referendum which excludes the option known to be the most popular option can't pass itself off as "democratic"; it's the referendum equivalent of an election in a one-party state. And since the devout Brexiters are, at most, 35% of the population, based on the EU and Council election results, this means that the bulk of the population will not buy the notion that this referendum settles the question in a fair or rational way.

54and56 · 28-06-2019 10:48AM

robinph wrote: »

How legitimate would the result be if 48% of the votes cast were spoiled and had remain written across them instead?

You can only count valid votes so yes of course it would create a lot of argument but bottom line is the valid votes would produce a result and that result would then be implemented thus avoiding a general election and IMHO the Tories want to avoid a General Election at all costs (including a flawed referendum) until Brexit is well in the rear view mirror.

bob mcbob · 28-06-2019 11:00AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, you'r quite right. There was a Union of England and Scotland Act 1603, though it was an Act of the English Parliament only. Basically it appointed commissioners to explore the possibility of uniting the two countries and report back to the (English) Parliament. But the process never went anywhere. The Commissioners never presented a report to Parliament, and it was another century before anything was done to unite the two countries.

1603 was the Union of the crowns where James VI of Scotland became James I of England (and promptly moved the Scottish court to London). Still separate countries though.

1707 was the union of the parliaments & countries. There was rioting in Edinburgh and other places when the act was passed in Edinburgh. Troops had to be moved into the city to quell them.

J Mysterio · 28-06-2019 11:01AM

Unbelievable clip here of bumbling Boris talking about the wars and trade with Portugal.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-covered-up-boris-johnson-17269174?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's truly embarrassing.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2019 11:04AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Unbelievable clip here of bumbling Boris talking about the wars and trade with Portugal.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-covered-up-boris-johnson-17269174?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's truly embarrassing.

It's like a comedy sketch.

farmchoice · 28-06-2019 11:11AM

not for one second through this whole process did i think no deal was even a remote possibility, that was until this week.
but now its like watching the whole referendum debate again, NO deal is being presented as a thing, an end in its self just like ''brexit'' was.
there is no discussion of what happens after ''no deal'' where do we go from there. the day after a no deal exit the first job of the UK government will to be to get a deal. NOBODY is discussing this, its mental.

ambro25 · 28-06-2019 11:27AM

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Considering their voting preference as you report it, allow me to doubt that very seriously.

Noises are, that Boris' ministerial team is meeting and planning, in case of Boris premiership, an emergency budget for no deal Brexit in September, including tax cuts, stamp duty overhaul and a bonfire of regulations.

Might be info, might be intox, but if true, that basically spells a bonanza for carpetbaggers and hyper-austerity for everyone else in t'UK.

After waiting patiently for over 3 years now, for the remain side to get its house and strategy in order, I see that the Himalayan levels of disinformation seen between February and June 2016 are back with a vengeance and that, in aggregate, nothing has bern learned, nor anything useful done, by the UK political class and the UK public. As evidenced, anecdotally, by your friends. I have now lost just about all of my remaining affinities with the 48% (not in view of your post of course, but that simply validates the feeling still more).

Leaver or Remainer alike, they are tomorrow's fair-turned-unfair competition on our doorstep, so best not give any commercial quarters.

54and56 · 28-06-2019 11:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think only devout Brexiters would be fooled by this. A referendum which excludes the option known to be the most popular option can't pass itself off as "democratic"; it's the referendum equivalent of an election in a one-party state. And since the devout Brexiters are, at most, 35% of the population, based on the EU and Council election results, this means that the bulk of the population will not buy the notion that this referendum settles the question in a fair or rational way.

I disagree.

I can easily see such a referendum being labelled a ”Brexit Implementation" referendum which by default cannot include an option such as remain which doesn't honour the Brexit instruction of the 2016 referendum.

It would be an obtuse argument but one easily defended by Brexiteers.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments