Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk · 07-08-2019 10:34AM

The worrying thing for me is that right now we are seeing the same lies and deception that we saw with the Leave campaign, but now it is the UK Government with the propaganda.

https://twitter.com/the3million/status/1158744074138128384?s=20

So that is the Brexit Department tweeting that the UK has guaranteed the rights of EU Citizens and it is time for the EU to do the same. The reply is that this is a lie, nothing has been written into law and there is actually a bill in parliament right now to do the opposite.

Add to that the shambles of the NHS funding,

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1158450781575684096?s=20

The funding is not new, it is funds that trusts saved with cost cutting and was told that they would be able to spend on capital when they reached their targets. To no surprise the UK then went back on the agreement and didn't allow them to spend the money.

Now Johnson is claiming that he is giving the NHS much needed funds. This is another lie. I hope the journalists are aware of this trend and will this time be more aware of it and hold those spouting these lies to task.

Shelga · 07-08-2019 10:40AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a solution at the moment, it is of huge value:

To the rest of the EU
To London
And to us.

Each of the above benefit differently and to varying degrees.

Anything less than around 56-58% voting in favour of reunification with Ireland, and you’ll see huge trouble. I think we’re a long long way off those kinds of numbers.

A reunification referendum in the north that has a 50.2% result in favour of a united Ireland, will bring us years and years of trouble and strife. Dare I say, civil war?

I’d say wait 5+ years after a no deal Brexit, minimum, let’s just see what happens long-term.

murphaph · 07-08-2019 10:41AM

storker wrote: »

A United Ireland could well turn out to be as much of a money-pit for Dublin as Northern Ireland has been for London.

It would be in the beginning without a doubt. Might well be for a generation afterwards and I would have almost certainly voted against a UI before Brexit was a thing as I saw no huge benefit. Now I would vote for a UI if it meant eliminating an ugly hard border in Ireland caused by Brexit.

Ben Done · 07-08-2019 10:41AM

^Always appreciate your posts Enzo - good sources, and good analysis from yourself.

murphaph · 07-08-2019 10:42AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think Ireland's veto is that valuable to us since in the case of future negotiations between the UK and the EU, Ireland will want an FTA more than the EU as a whole.

But the UK will want one even more than Ireland.

Ben Done · 07-08-2019 10:43AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think the only way the wind can be taken out of the sails of these maniacs/ fanatics (and their deluded followers) is for them to have their hard Brexit. Once they stand in the ruins, they will know they were wrong.

Should they feel 'cheated' out of it, we'll never hear the end of this sh1te.

This doesnt mean those of right mind should bow down to Brexiteers or give over to them, but im not sure there is actually enough determined, concerted resistance to avoid what is seeming like the inevitable now. People are just worn down and fed up of it. Anything to make it 'end' (of course we all know this will be ongoing).

A referendum at this stage is a non runner I think, not before a GE anyway. A GE might be the only alternative to a crashout Brexit.

It is literally unbelievable how the UK government are behaving right now, they are every bit as bad as Trump, and in some ways worse. Trump is a bit 'off', but people like Gove are clever. Sneaky and deceitful, but clever.

The UK have gone full in on Cummings method now - manipulating people with populist 'us against them', nationalist rhetoric. It was very disturbing to see when Johnson, Raab, Javid and Gove all kept repeating the new mantra: 'the undemocratic backstop'. They will keep repeating it untill it is the first thing anyone (particularly Brexiteers) think when they hear the word 'backstop' (undemocratic). It's Goebbels stuff.

Gove also trying to frame the UK bluff as the EU refusing to negotiate is utterly contemptible, but that seems to be official UK policy now - play the biggest game of chicken there ever was - look how big our massive British balls are. Well, they are risking the livelihoods and welfare of millions of UK and EU citizens, and for what? Nonsense. Very few adults in the room and no saving them from themselves. The longer this goes on and the worse the rhetoric gets, the less you actually want to save them from themselves /rant

One of the best posts on this thread - thanks.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 07-08-2019 10:44AM

Enzokk wrote: »

I know, but it was linked on the thread and I wanted to highlight some of the points the piece raises about Brexit. It is good to hear the opposing side, we have been accused of being an echo chamber here so seeing what is an opinion on the other side is at the very least interesting.

I look at it this way, if the argument put forward has some merit and is not veiled behind clever language or dubious use of statistics then we are bound to listen to it. The argument in that piece was not in any of the categories that made me sit up and reevaluate if there is merit in the policy being followed by the UK right now. So I agree there isn't a lot of value in it and seeing as it is from the 3rd August and has not attracted attention it seems that most have ignored it or others has not seen it fit to share it around.

OK fair enough I suppose.

storker · 07-08-2019 11:01AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a solution at the moment, it is of huge value:

To the rest of the EU
To London
And to us.

Each of the above benefit differently and to varying degrees.

As a short-term political solution to the current Brexit-related crisis, perhaps it looks tempting, but to my mind the more short-term the implementation, the more dangerous is it in terms of costs and violence. When it comes to the idea of a United Ireland, there seems to be a "sure won't it be great" mentality that glosses over some serious risks, and I've yet to see them addressed in a realistic manner.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:02AM

Shelga wrote: »

Anything less than around 56-58% voting in favour of reunification with Ireland, and you’ll see huge trouble. I think we’re a long long way off those kinds of numbers.

A reunification referendum in the north that has a 50.2% result in favour of a united Ireland, will bring us years and years of trouble and strife. Dare I say, civil war?

I’d say wait 5+ years after a no deal Brexit, minimum, let’s just see what happens long-term.

Nah you won't. I mean, a hundred years on from Carson's threat to mobilise the Ulster Volunteers and we're still afraid of kowtowing to the loyalist fringe.

Give over.

BobbyBobberson · 07-08-2019 11:03AM

One thing Brexit has shown is that there needs to be a very clear plan post referendum before people go to the poll on a UI.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:05AM

storker wrote: »

As a short-term political solution to the current Brexit-related crisis, perhaps it looks tempting, but to my mind more the short-term the implementation, the more dangerous is it in terms of costs and violence. When it comes to the idea of a United Ireland, there seems to be a "sure won't it be great" mentality that glosses over some serious risks, and I've yet to see them addressed in a realistic manner.

How is a UI a "short-term political solution"?

Shelga · 07-08-2019 11:06AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Nah you won't. I mean, a hundred years on from Carson's threat to mobilise the Ulster Volunteers and we're still afraid of kowtowing to the loyalist fringe.

Give over.

You really think a 50.2% majority will go down well?

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:06AM

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

One thing Brexit has shown is that there needs to be a very clear plan post referendum before people go to the poll on a UI.

Which there will be. For all of our faults as a nation, we do referenda very well.

Varadkar's comments at Féile na Phobal in Belfast last night indicate as much that the process of that discussion is beginning.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:08AM

Shelga wrote: »

You really think a 50.2% majority will go down well?

In your hypothetical scenario are the 49.8% minority all rabid loyalists with KAT tattoos all over their body?

As I said. Give over.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:15AM

The Indo at it again this morning.

Now an inconsequential letter from April is the source of the "pressure" and that Leo was "warned" about the triple with the backstop.

Mon dieu. (Also, they can't even get the original Brexit date right ffs)

Indo wrote:

The EU's former negotiator in the war in Bosnia warned Taoiseach Leo Varadkar about the Brexit backstop, it has emerged.

Lord David Owen wrote to Mr Varadkar saying the backstop, designed to avoid a hard Border in Ireland, could represent a "basic contradiction" in the Brexit deal between Theresa May and the EU.

He added that it is "at the core of the dispute between our countries".

Boris Johnson is now demanding that the backstop be scrapped, but this has been met with refusal by the EU and Ireland.

The intervention by Mr Owen, who was the EU's negotiator in the Balkans from 1992-1995, came after the March 31 deadline for Brexit was missed.

Brexit
Former Bosnia negotiator warned Taoiseach of backstop problems

Cormac McQuinn
7 August 2019 2:30 AM

1
Claim: Lord David Owen said there is a basic contradiction at the core of the backstop dispute. Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images
The EU's former negotiator in the war in Bosnia warned Taoiseach Leo Varadkar about the Brexit backstop, it has emerged.

Lord David Owen wrote to Mr Varadkar saying the backstop, designed to avoid a hard Border in Ireland, could represent a "basic contradiction" in the Brexit deal between Theresa May and the EU.

He added that it is "at the core of the dispute between our countries".

Boris Johnson is now demanding that the backstop be scrapped, but this has been met with refusal by the EU and Ireland.

The intervention by Mr Owen, who was the EU's negotiator in the Balkans from 1992-1995, came after the March 31 deadline for Brexit was missed.

The former UK foreign secretary, who supported the Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum, said he believed the EU was "dysfunctional" and becoming a 'United States of Europe'.

His letter to Mr Varadkar was released under Freedom of Information laws.

He wrote: "I wish to urge you to carefully consider a possible basic contradiction within the EU-UK Withdrawal Treaty which has so far prevented a majority of British MPs approving it in its present form."

The letter says UK attorney general Geoffrey Cox had determined that the terms of the agreement "could prevent the UK from ever leaving the Irish backstop".

Mr Owen adds: "As a politician I am sure you can understand that this basic contradiction is now at the core of the dispute between our countries.

"Unless this potential basic legal contradiction is grappled with at the highest political level it is hard to see the Withdrawal Treaty being agreed."

Mr Owen suggested the European Court of Justice could consider the issue of the backstop.

He added that he was sending the letter to all EU heads of government, European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/former-bosnia-negotiator-warned-taoiseach-of-backstop-problems-38381697.html

---

It really makes you wonder what they want if this is the sort of stuff that they're seeking under FOI.

There's a stench of an FF drip drip nature to it all.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 11:24AM

murphaph wrote: »

But the UK will want one even more than Ireland.

True but our veto is a power we have within the EU to prevent the EU doing a deal however, in general, we will want that deal more than the EU as a whole. This is why our veto power isn't as useful to us as we might imagine.

LeinsterDub · 07-08-2019 11:33AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

True but our veto is a power we have within the EU to prevent the EU doing a deal however, in general, we will want that deal more than the EU as a whole. This is why our veto power isn't as useful to us as we might imagine.

Why would we accept any deal that has a hard border. We will have already suffered the majority of the economic damage by the time a deal is close to being signed. No deal doesn't change the facts of the border it only removes 1 option. Revoking A50.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 11:34AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The Indo at it again this morning.

Now an inconsequential letter from April is the source of the "pressure" and that Leo was "warned" about the triple with the backstop.

Mon dieu. (Also, they can't even get the original Brexit date right ffs)

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/former-bosnia-negotiator-warned-taoiseach-of-backstop-problems-38381697.html

It really makes you wonder what they want if this is the sort of stuff that they're seeking under FOI.

There's a stench of an FF drip drip nature to it all.

I don't think there's harm in knowing that moderates in the UK are trying their best to resolve problems.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 11:38AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would we accept any deal that has a hard border. We will have already suffered the majority of the economic damage by the time a deal is close to being signed. No deal doesn't change the facts of the border it only removes 1 option. Revoking A50.

Well I think the scenario proposed would be that the UK is already out of the EU without a deal and now seeking an FTA. In such a scenario, the EU might take a hard line against the UK seeking as many concessions as possible and dragging negotiations out. This make sense from an EU perspective. They have the power to do that.

But in the meantime we in Ireland already have the hard border and tariffs between the two countries hurting small businesses. So in such a situation it is hard to see how we can use our veto power to our advantage as the poster earlier was suggesting.

lobbylad · 07-08-2019 11:38AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Which there will be. For all of our faults as a nation, we do referenda very well.

Varadkar's comments at Féile na Phobal in Belfast last night indicate as much that the process of that discussion is beginning.

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

FrancieBrady · 07-08-2019 11:42AM

storker wrote: »

As a short-term political solution

Short term?

If the UK intend to stay out of the EU, a UI represents the best LONG TERM solution to critical and potentially catastrophic problems for:
The EU,
London,
and Dublin.

FrancieBrady · 07-08-2019 11:43AM

lobbylad wrote: »

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

There simply isn't a political lobby for an independent NI. Nobody is looking for one, only those trenchantly against a UI, mostly partitionists in the south.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:44AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think there's harm in knowing that moderates in the UK are trying their best to resolve problems.

Is Lord Owen a moderate?

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 11:47AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is Lord Owen a moderate?

Founder and former leader of the SDP (now part of the Lib Dems), yes he would be considered a moderate in the UK.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:49AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Founder and former leader of the SDP (now part of the Lib Dems), yes he would be considered a moderate in the UK.

I'll try that again, why do you think he's a moderate?

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 11:51AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'll try that again, why do you think he's a moderate?

Just from following politics over the years, he's not generally known for taking a hard line on things. Middle of the road pragmatic politician for the most part.

BonnieSituation · 07-08-2019 11:53AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just from following politics over the years, he's not generally known for taking a hard line on things. Middle of the road pragmatic politician for the most part.

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

LeinsterDub · 07-08-2019 11:53AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the scenario proposed would be that the UK is already out of the EU without a deal and now seeking an FTA. In such a scenario, the EU might take a hard line against the UK seeking as many concessions as possible and dragging negotiations out. This make sense from an EU perspective. They have the power to do that.

But in the meantime we in Ireland already have the hard border and tariffs between the two countries hurting small businesses. So in such a situation it is hard to see how we can use our veto power to our advantage as the poster earlier was suggesting.

Simple any border == NO FTA

storker · 07-08-2019 11:55AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Short term?

If the UK intend to stay out of the EU, a UI represents the best LONG TERM solution to critical and potentially catastrophic problems for:
The EU,
London,
and Dublin.

If implemented in the short-term is what I meant. As someone else has already pointed out, the Brexit fiasco shows that you can't rush such significant changes. Simply moving a line on a map isn't always the fix that it;'s often imagined to be. History shows that quite well.

Short term implementation of a United Ireland is likely to lead to long-term trouble. It might solve an immediate political/legal conundrum, but that that's a long way from guaranteeing no problems on the ground, where extremists aren't necessarily impressed by "solutions" created at higher levels.

FrancieBrady · 07-08-2019 11:57AM

storker wrote: »

If implemented in the short-term is what I meant. As someone else has already pointed out, the Brexit fiasco shows that you can't rush such significant changes. Simply moving a line on a map isn't always the fix that it;'s often imagined to be. History shows that quite well.

Short term implementation of a United Ireland is likely to lead to long-term trouble. It might solve an immediate political/legal conundrum, but that that's a long way from guaranteeing no problems on the ground, where extremists aren't necessarily impressed by "solutions" created at higher levels.

I don't think anyone is talking about less than a 2 year lead in to a poll, same as Scotland had.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments