Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The backstop with the process to review is the fudge. The border cannot become a bargaining chip in trade talks which is why any time limit implies that it can be. To give here, crossing red lines means giving at Dover Calais. Such would be unacceptable to France. It comes back to this outdated thinking that the big boys decide things while the smaller ones fall into line. The whole point of the EU with common rules and seats at the table for all PMs of member states is the opposite, deliberately, for what reigned in Europe before (and all those wars with different groups manoeuvring for power).

It is up to the UK to come to a solution, given they're the ones leaving and want a deal with the larger remaining bloc.

I think something like that was agreed back in March between the EU and May. The UK Attorney General advised it still didn't give enough legal guarantees the UK could leave the backstop unilaterally. This was enough to swing the vote to another defeat in the HoC.

Hence the reason for a clear legally guaranteed timeline for exiting the backstop, probably after a referendum on the issue or something like that.

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

Everything bar saying no to a no deal Brexit does not have enough support in HoC, but that won't stop no deal. Forget about everything else, what does the UK want? I've still no idea beyond cake and eat it, on both sides, which no non EU country will ever get. It's better for us to accept a temporary border, than signing anything that leads to a permanent one.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Because it made No Deal a much greater possibility

No Deal suits the SNP, since it will bring about the end of the UK through Scottish Independence. Same reason SF are keeping pretty quiet, let the Tories/DUP do the damage, builds pressure to escape from incompetent Westminster rule later.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ah I knew a post like this was coming. I point out the facts and someone like you says I'm defending it.

Its like pointing out the facts of a serious crime in the past, and then being accused of condoning it.

Deal with the facts. You can ignore countless votes in the HoC all you like. They are still facts that you have to deal with.

Facts will always trump opinion.

What facts did you mention?

I'm not sure there is anything worth engaging with here to be honest. You like to use metaphors and such but there is no substance and you didnt address my response to your point on the vote. I'm not sure we will be able to debate in a purposeful manner, but - as I mentioned - it was not a legitimate vote and can't be considered one - would you care to address that point?

That point aside, there are several other issues.

It was actually an advisory (non-binding) referendum which was overly simplistic and did not provide a specific mandate. Yes/No for an extremely complex issue with far reaching implications that weren't sufficiently clear. It certainly did not instruct the government to behave like a clown academy and steer toward a crash out brexit.

The referendum itself was run in an unbelievably cavalier manner: no proper oversight as to the conduct of the respective campaigns and no proper referendum commission providing impartial, factual information. You see, the UK arent used to running referendums, and it shows.

Part of the problem was that barely anyone in the UK even knew what the EU was at the point. Many still don't. There were certainly some vague notions that they outlawed bananas of a particular shape. Theresa May bravely triggered Article 50 in a patriotic flourish... but 'without a sketch of a plan'.

The mandate is bollocks. The far right types have been literally making it up as they go along, becoming progressively more obtuse and obdurate. They are spurred on by some bizarre exceptionalism and a nasty, nationalistic media.

trellheim wrote: »

Ah lads - pull back from the Brink and THEN GE is what was said. read the article ffs

In fairness, the BBC article is so short that it is unclear exactly what Corbyn is saying.

Here is the whole speech:
https://labour.org.uk/press/29461/

Excerpts:

But first, we face the threat of No Deal which would decimate industry and destroy people’s jobs in those very same regions.

...

So, first we must come together to stop No Deal. This week could be our last chance.

We are working with other parties to do everything necessary to pull our country back from the brink.

Then we need a general election.

...

And in that election, Labour will give the people the chance to take back control, and have the final say in a public vote, with credible options for both sides including the option to remain.



So my read is first, stop Tory shenanigans trying to cause No Deal by default.

Second, hold an election, with a 2nd referendum including Remain in the manifesto.

Third, win the election.

Fourth, hold a 2nd referendum with Remain as an option.

Anyone see Politics live on BBC today?

We'll that was quite spiky at the end lol

Tikki Wang Wang wrote: »

Any chance you could reference what was said maybe ?

https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6082564310001/Brexit-Owen-Jones-brands-BBC-discussion-self-indulgent

Murph76 wrote: »

So what about the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland? There is no way that they would be able to watch the myriad of streets connecting the two, would they?

No. The last time, roads were blown up, blocked or marked as 'unapproved'. Didn't stop smuggling and all the other illegal crossings by paramilitaries etc.

Ok, I'm going to save myself the bother with you I think. I'm not even sure you know what it is you are arguing.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

I disagree. Jacob has been quoted that they won't have another election as they wouldn't get the same result... hmmm.. doesn't sound like democracy to me.. and what if, they work out more than one deal option, publish them online then run a referendum with the options: stay as is or leave with options a,b or c. Could be done by oct 25th easily. Now THAT would be democracy..

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

You have no basis for stating all this. I have little basis for offering the opposite, but as of now, all bets are off.

It’s is it not completely hilarious to hear brexiteers saying that UK customs will just wave lorries through? I thought brexit was about retaking control of the borders??