Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger · 30-07-2019 01:14PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1156127793840869376

Neale Richmond rightly nailing this.

Hes right behind Coveney as being impressively informed when discussing Brexit on British media.

ambro25 · 30-07-2019 01:23PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see exit deal marked there anywhere either.

That will be because you are (and all Leavers were, and most still are) unfamiliar with the wording of Article 50 TEU, the fundamental and sole provision upon which the Leave option of the 2016 referendum was hinged. The specific bit you're looking for is in paragraph 2.

Note also the express and crystal clear reference to that agreement being a "withdrawal" agreement (aka 'the divorce deal'), not the final trade agreement deal, whereby the UK-EU negotiations in the context of Art.50 were *always* going to be 2-staged (negotiate divorce deal, brexit, negotiate final deal post-Brexit).

Of course, lending an ear to experts (legal ones...although in this instance, no real need of expertise, just a passing familiarity with statutes and reading/comprehension) might have helped.

But you can't ever help those who refuse to help themselves so, for those, there's always Darwin.

FrancieBrady · 30-07-2019 01:27PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Hes right behind Coveney as being impressively informed when discussing Brexit on British media.

Mairead McGuinness, Simon Coveney, Neale Richmond, Helen McEntee, Leo Varadkar...in that order, have been well briefed and consistently en pointe.

eagle eye · 30-07-2019 01:27PM

ambro25 wrote:

But you can't ever help those who refuse to help themselves so, for those, there's always Darwin.

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

MadYaker · 30-07-2019 01:27PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see exit deal marked there anywhere either.

The basic point he’s making is that during the referendum campaign the idea of crashing out of the EU without a deal was never on the table and even the pro brexit side always talked about leaving via a withdrawal agreement or deal because anything else is madness and would do huge damage to the UK. In order to sell brexit they had to reassure people. Unfortunately things have gotten steadily crazier since 2016 and now it seems to be an option.

FrancieBrady · 30-07-2019 01:29PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

The point is it is wrong to be claiming there is a mandate for No Deal when there is an agreed deal on the table. Totally disingenuous and wrong to do that.

54and56 · 30-07-2019 01:31PM

lola85 wrote: »

FF always put the party first.

Using Brexit as an excuse to get one up on FG is absolutely ridiculous.

All parties need to be united at the moment.

I hate FF, snakes.

So do I as a generalisation but I have to say MM is rising above the "FF First" self interest and I for one respect him for that which in turn will alter my previous hatred for all things FF but only if MM can keep his colleagues in line.

Any perceived cracks between the common agreement on Brexit amongst the main political party's will be pounced on by those who seek to tear up the backstop. Given that FF are the self styled "Republican Party" I find it ironic that it is their members and not fringe FG or Labour Party members who are putting the self interest of generating a few controversial headlines ahead of national interest.

Lackadaisical · 30-07-2019 01:32PM

I would suspect all that FF will do with statements like that is increase the Sinn Fein vote. It's extremely miscalculated opportunism.

ambro25 · 30-07-2019 01:47PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

No, there isn't indeed, and you are right, there is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.

There isn't even a mandate tor leaving in the first place, once you take the advisory character (statutorily so) of the 2016 ref into account. There is a (barely) majority opinion, from a subset of the general population, supporting it in an official nationwide poll.

Therefore there isn't any more of a mandate for the WA, as there is for no deal, contrary to Johnson's claim that he has a mandate for 'no deal'.

Glad we eventually cleared that up.

Now Johnson is PM, so he can pursue whatever Brexit policy he chooses. But he doesn't get to claim a 'mandate' for it.

I'm not bothered about what your reasons for Brexit are (if you are pro-Brexit, as that's not clear to me), I'm 100% equal opportunities in my contempt, where Leavers are concerned.

johnnyskeleton · 30-07-2019 01:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is it is wrong to be claiming there is a mandate for No Deal when there is an agreed deal on the table. Totally disingenuous and wrong to do that.

There isn't a clear mandate for anything, which of course is the U.K's biggest problem at the moment.

Seth Brundle · 30-07-2019 01:54PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

The reality is that the British public did not make an informed choice.
There were no details on what would happen upon leaving before the vote and three years later, there still are few details.
There was no mandate for a deal or a no deal scenario. People were given a binary choice and told that everythign would be great if they left.
The referendum was corrupted by both political incompetence and to an extent some political scheming e.g. Aaron Banks.
The campaign manipulated the public through various online campaigns partially funded by dubious sources.
Coupled with a biased media, the people were never actually told the truth on the possible outcome of the referendum. They were not told that Art 50 was the timer and they needed to have a plan in place before the expiry date.
The electorate weren't told that they would lose all the benefits of EU membership because they generally weren't told of those benefits - like the roaming charges, the Westminster politicians took credit for all the wins provided by the EU.
British politics is rotten to the core and the apathy by the public is allowing it to fester.

So yes, the Brits do not have a mandate for a deal. Nor is there a mandate against a deal. There is a vaccuum where people can claim what they want pretty much unchallenged!

setanta1000 · 30-07-2019 02:01PM

mikep wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that...with Cummings on board every trick in the book will be used to get them out by the 31st if possible..

I'm wondering is the plan to make Bojo and co. look like the hardest brexiteers in order to win a snap election in a few weeks, dump the DUP and revert to the NI only backstop when suddenly it will become a non issue, according to them, as they will soon do a great deal with the EU therefore no need to worry....

For what it's worth I think this is exactly what B Johnson and Cummings are planning - they would gladly sell the DUP down the river if it gets "England" out of the EU - their problem is the Scots and the arithmetic of getting a majority without Arlene and her Band of Merry Men

Inquitus · 30-07-2019 02:23PM

setanta1000 wrote: »

For what it's worth I think this is exactly what B Johnson and Cummings are planning - they would gladly sell the DUP down the river if it gets "England" out of the EU - their problem is the Scots and the arithmetic of getting a majority without Arlene and her Band of Merry Men

Well that was the same problem for May she would have sold out the DUP if she could have, instead she had a disastrous election and had to give her soul and £1bn to them!

Strazdas · 30-07-2019 02:31PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see no deal mentioned anywhere here.

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

VinLieger · 30-07-2019 02:34PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

Indeed but its because they are absolute novices at conducting referenda also this was only an advisor referendum so unlike ours there wasn't the requirement for strict legal text that would be applied in the case of it passing

Call me Al · 30-07-2019 02:37PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1156127793840869376

Neale Richmond rightly nailing this.

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

VinLieger · 30-07-2019 02:39PM

Call me Al wrote: »

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

Absolutely pointless to do so now, its out there and available for everyone to see in various ways. How do the parties still not have competent and technically proficient social media advisors?

Sam Russell · 30-07-2019 02:42PM

In the last 5 years GBP has gone from $1.69 to $1.21, that is over a 30% fall in value.

Against the Euro, in the last four years it has gone from €1 = 70p to €1 = 91.5p, that is a fall of about 25%.

Those are massive numbers. They should have joined the Euro after the crash. To prop up the GBP over the last few years, they had to introduce higher interest rates.

KildareP · 30-07-2019 02:44PM

Call me Al wrote: »

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

I'd say his phone must have gone into meltdown, both with the response in his original tweet and then the amount of times he was tagged in responses to Micheál Martin's clarification. Not to mention the amount of calls I'm sure he was getting!!!

They ran a piece on it on the News at One on RTÉ Radio 1 where they commented they had attempted to contact Dooley a number of times but he was not responding to them.

Christy42 · 30-07-2019 02:46PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Absolutely pointless to do so now, its out there and available for everyone to see in various ways. How do the parties still not have competent and technically proficient social media advisors?

Imagine it is a way of saying he no longer holds this position (because he has been told not to but still) without having to announce it directly.

ancapailldorcha · 30-07-2019 02:47PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

What's gone nearly completely uncommented on is the terrifying precedent the referendum sets.

Let's assume that the whole thing was played out fairly, ie there were no malign foreign influences involved. Ok. Now what we're left with is the fact that the government tried to address a split in its party by kicking the issue to the electorate who then proceeded to kick it right back.

There was a legitimate reason to hold the 1975 referendum though it was called for the same reason, to allay the growing schism in the Labour party. However, both parties supported EEC membership and the decision to call a referendum was not made lightly.

The concern now is that future governments will kick complicated issues to the electorate in order to protect themselves. The country is divided and I'm a tad worried that any future government with a tiny majority might be tempted to use this option.

Strazdas · 30-07-2019 02:51PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed but its because they are absolute novices at conducting referenda also this was only an advisor referendum so unlike ours there wasn't the requirement for strict legal text that would be applied in the case of it passing

Yes, the UK is going to hell in a handcart over an advisory referendum and a ballot paper which could have been written by an 11 year old in primary school.

Strazdas · 30-07-2019 02:53PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's gone nearly completely uncommented on is the terrifying precedent the referendum sets.

Let's assume that the whole thing was played out fairly, ie there were no malign foreign influences involved. Ok. Now what we're left with is the fact that the government tried to address a split in its party by kicking the issue to the electorate who then proceeded to kick it right back.

There was a legitimate reason to hold the 1975 referendum though it was called for the same reason, to allay the growing schism in the Labour party. However, both parties supported EEC membership and the decision to call a referendum was not made lightly.

The concern now is that future governments will kick complicated issues to the electorate in order to protect themselves. The country is divided and I'm a tad worried that any future government with a tiny majority might be tempted to use this option.

Though there is the counter argument that the UK will never hold a national referendum on any subject ever again, so discredited has the 2016 example been.

Robert McGrath · 30-07-2019 03:03PM

This might be a stupid question, but is the WA divorce bill designated in € or GBP?

Nate--IRL-- · 30-07-2019 03:06PM

There is no number agreed - just a method of calculation - any number you see is an estimate. The payment will be due in Euros though.

Nate

FrancieBrady · 30-07-2019 03:07PM

Robert McGrath wrote: »

This might be a stupid question, but is the WA divorce bill designated in € or GBP?

It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

FreudianSlippers · 30-07-2019 03:07PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

European Union has been "defined" since Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and 2009 when enacted.

ancapailldorcha · 30-07-2019 03:09PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

European Union has been "defined" since Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and 2009 when enacted.

I think the point is how the EU was defined on the ballot. Or, rather wasn't defined, ie should the UK leave all of the EU's institutions or try and pick and choose a favorable and acceptable combination. Just another lesson in why kicking complex questions to the electorate is an incredibly bad idea.

Quin_Dub · 30-07-2019 03:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

Bit cynical · 30-07-2019 03:11PM

It should really be called the Withdrawal Proposal (WP) though rather than Withdrawal Agreement. Although it was signed by Theresa May and her team, an agreement between the UK and the EU based on the proposal was never concluded. Such an agreement would have required a vote of the UK Parliament which was not forthcoming.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments