nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

UK 'cannot meet' EU deadline for Brexit plan and needs another year, government says
Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay says UK should be given 'until December 2020' to come up with plan for Irish border

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deadline-irish-backstop-no-deal-stephen-barclay-october-a9111756.html

Oh please no. Make it stop.

painful but better than no deal idiocy

farmchoice

lawred2 wrote: »

painful but better than no deal idiocy

he appears to be suggesting that the eu drop the backstop and that the uk exit on the 31st and head into a transition period and the eu take their word that they will have something sorted by the end of 2020.

lawred2

farmchoice wrote: »

he appears to be suggesting that the eu drop the backstop and that the uk exit on the 31st and head into a transition period and the eu take their word that they will have something sorted by the end of 2020.

oh god no - I misread

that is actually no deal idiocy

Zubeneschamali

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

UK 'cannot meet' EU deadline for Brexit plan and needs another year, government says

That can be arranged easily enough, when the UK asks for an extension until January, the EU says OK, January 2021 it is.

VinLieger

farmchoice wrote: »

he appears to be suggesting that the eu drop the backstop and that the uk exit on the 31st and head into a transition period and the eu take their word that they will have something sorted by the end of 2020.

Obviously the goal here is to have nothing prepared and then when the next deadline comes they will say "look its worked for 12 months without a backstop, we don't need anything and will just keep it as is"

The EU won't go for it because its completely transparent in its purpose, not to mention stupid and unworkable

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

painful but better than no deal idiocy

It's not a year long extension he wants, he wants the deal to be passed now by the EU without the backstop, and then they will have until the end of the implementation period to work out the border issue.

If we drop our insistance on a workable solution to the border question now, why would the UK expect us to hold firm on that point at the end of 2020? If we dont get a workable solution now, we never will.

farmchoice

i think Barclay actually out does his predecessors ( Davis and rabb) in the arrogant clown stakes.

robinph

VinLieger wrote: »

Obviously the goal here is to have nothing prepared and then when the next deadline comes they will say "look its worked for 12 months without a backstop, we don't need anything and will just keep it as is"

To which the EU should respond with, well sign up for the backstop then and after a year if you have another solution we can get rid of the backstop... exactly like the backstop is meant to operate in the first place... like a backstop.

Leroy42

I wonder will the media say that the bould Steve should've shown more restraint and stayed away from blaming the EU.

Imagine, not even the PM or a country about a 10th the size of the EU want it should do.

The arrogance.

PeadarCo

VinLieger wrote:

The EU won't go for it because its completely transparent in its purpose, not to mention stupid and unworkable

Not to mention it's being tried already. The backstop was pushed down the road to get through phase 1 of negotiations. Nothing has really changed in nearly 2 years(open to correction) on this particular issue.

[Deleted User]

It's just amazing that they can come out with stuff like that.. "We'll get it sorted in a year. Trust us." But then just say no to the backstop which is the exact same thing, except it gives them more time to achieve what they've promised.

ath262

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Letter is from the 19th of August?

thx - corrected
the link cropped up in discussion of Barkley's speech today _ I misread the reference

An Ciarraioch

Interesting to see the Lib Dems switch to revoke appears to be boosting them in the opinion polls, up 3% and 4% respectively, and actually ahead of Labour with YouGov. Of course, the problem with the British system is that they could finish a clear second percentage-wise, yet only serve to bolster the Tory seat tally.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1174460457081548802

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1174631132454895616

Strazdas

farmchoice wrote: »

he appears to be suggesting that the eu drop the backstop and that the uk exit on the 31st and head into a transition period and the eu take their word that they will have something sorted by the end of 2020.

This is just a rewording of the Brexiteer stance of the last year. The UK leaves with a WA but without signing up to the backstop - 'to be negotiated at a later date'.

The chances of Brexit UK reneging on their Irish border commitments would clearly be huge.

Kermit.de.frog

All our food comes from the British midlands according to Steve Barclay

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174639693474017281

PropJoe10

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting to see the Lib Dems switch to revoke appears to be boosting them in the opinion polls, up 3% and 4% respectively, and actually ahead of Labour with YouGov. Of course, the problem with the British system is that they could finish a clear second percentage-wise, yet only serve to bolster the Tory seat tally.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1174460457081548802

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1174631132454895616

Yeah I think Swinson has already said that she won't enter into a coalition with Labour after an election so you're probably right. It's a brave move by the Lib Dems. Be interesting to see how the next few weeks play out.

Memnoch

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Yeah I think Swinson has already said that she won't enter into a coalition with Labour after an election so you're probably right. It's a brave move by the Lib Dems. Be interesting to see how the next few weeks play out.

They received a lot of votes in 2008 based on a platform that was to the left of new labour and only served to prop up Tori austerity for a decade.

Now they're inviting those same Tories into their party. But unfortunately the propaganda against Corbyn is strong enough that they may get to do the same again.

It was austerity more than anything else that led to the climate that Ultimately enabled brexit.

Kermit.de.frog

Johnson to meet Varadkar in New York next week after phone call according to Sky News.

Strazdas

Memnoch wrote: »

They received a lot of votes in 2008 based on a platform that was to the left of new labour and only served to prop up Tori austerity for a decade.

Now they're inviting those same Tories into their party. But unfortunately the propaganda against Corbyn is strong enough that they may get to do the same again.

It was austerity more than anything else that led to the climate that Ultimately enabled brexit.

For sure, but nobody ever anticipated there would be a Tory / Lib Dem coalition. It was a surprising outcome to everyone. In retrospect, they probably regret having anything to do with Cameron and the Tories.

Leroy42

Tbf, it appears Cameron and the Tories regret having anything to do with Cameron and the Tories.

reslfj

Scoondal wrote: »

I am an EU citizen. BUT, because of this "CTA"agreement, my rights are less than other EU citizens. I say again ... that is disgusting.

You have exactly the same rights as people from within the Schengen area.

You can legally cross internal borders within the Schengen area - as can I.
You must be able to show valid ID as an EU citizens to police basically anywhere - as do I.
You will have to use your passport (or national ID if available) coming into the Schengen area or e.g. into Bulgaria, Romania - as do I.
You will have to use your passport (or national ID if available) coming into the CTA - as do I.

Your non EU citizen wife can't legally cross borders - even internal Schengen borders - if she doesn't hold a visa or is otherwise permitted - as she wouldn't be allowed if she was my wife.

E.g. refugees with a right to stay in one EU country can't legally travel within Schengen without specific permission/visa.

Lars

PS! I flew Copenhagen-Budapest once. Next to me was a young Somalian IT student - nice young man, fully integrated, spoke Danish fluently - and his teacher.
The rest of the class went by the less expensive train to Hungary. But the needed papers for this Somalian with a Danish type of 'refugee passport' to transit DE, CZ, AT/SK by train was much too much for the school and the teacher to sort out. It was expensive too. So one airticket and one visa for Hungary and he ended up in a SAS flight next to me.

PropJoe10

Joe Public, not sure where your post went but you were right and I was wrong. Apologies:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/23/jo-swinson-rules-out-lib-dem-pact-with-labour-under-jeremy-corbyn

I'm quite unsure as to why Labour are persisting with Corbyn at this point.

Joe_ Public

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Yeah I think Swinson has already said that she won't enter into a coalition with Labour after an election so you're probably right. It's a brave move by the Lib Dems. Be interesting to see how the next few weeks play out.

I havent heard her explicitly ruling out a coalition, rather she says she wont under any circumstances work with Jeremy Corbyn, which i suppose isn't all that different only it's leaving open the suggestion that they might like to think of replacing their leader. Personally, i think the revoke position is a little bit cynical, but it's understandable in the context of them seeking to enhance their electoral prospects. But it's not realistic in any practical sense of things. One advantage it has, i think, is that it gets them out of the awkward questions of what you do in the event of a 2nd referendum, re negotiating an alternative deal and stuff like that. Like Labour, they may well have to face them at some point, but with a revoke position, they can put them on the backburner until after an election at the very least. Clever, i guess.

Joe_ Public

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Joe Public, not sure where your post went but you were right and I was wrong. Apologies:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/23/jo-swinson-rules-out-lib-dem-pact-with-labour-under-jeremy-corbyn

I'm quite unsure as to why Labour are persisting with Corbyn at this point.

Ah! I was going to edit it to explain a bit more, but decided to delete it instead and start over!

ArmaniJeanss

The "we'll never go into coalition with XYZ" is easily broken without being a climbdown. We've had it a dozen times in this country.

"It wasn't our preferred option but the people have spoken at the ballot box, and the maths of the situation mean that this is clearly what they have chosen".

PropJoe10

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ah! I was going to edit it to explain a bit more, but decided to delete it instead and start over!

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went

Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.

beggars_bush

robinph wrote: »

To which the EU should respond with, well sign up for the backstop then and after a year if you have another solution we can get rid of the backstop... exactly like the backstop is meant to operate in the first place... like a backstop.

yeah, but its undemocratic... etc

PeadarCo

Memnoch wrote:

Now they're inviting those same Tories into their party. But unfortunately the propaganda against Corbyn is strong enough that they may get to do the same again.

I don't buy this propaganda angle. I Corbyn disliked by certain sections of the UK media. However when it has come to Brexit he has been incompetent. His only saving grace is that he hasn't been PM and had to make decisions. He has had no clear opinion on the biggest issue facing the UK in a generation. It's a complete absence of leadership. One of the reasons the Tories have got away with their nonsense is Corbyn refusal to call them out on it. The idea that you could have a multi year Tory civil war and even then Labour might not win an election says all you need to know about his leadership.

Joe_ Public

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.

Hah, i know those moments well enough!!
I couldnt claim to be all that clued in to the brexit phenomena compared to many here, but the politics of it does intrigue me. I mean, i would probably take a slightly different line to most in that i actually have quite a bit of time for labour's position here, whether that's through corbyns own strategy or a bit accidental in that they have kind of fallen into it. It's a compromise position between 2 extremes and just seems like common sense to me, almost as if, as one labour politician put it on bbc this morning, corbyn is actually the one grown up mature adult in the room. Doesnt make me a dyed in the wool corbynista or anything, just i can see the streak of wisdom in it.

Of course, the other side of that is, electorally how's it going to play and clearly many on the labour side are uneasy with it. Harold Wilson did famously play this neutral arbiter figure in the 1975 referendum and pulled it off, but whether corbyn could manage that remains to be seen. I suspect they'll have a fight about this at conference and get pulled further towards the remain side. But i'd never be convinced that having an argument simply between a hard brexit side and a full revoke side will get them very far. Seems a recipe for just deeper division to me.

quokula

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I am getting a bit senior but I was wondering where the hell your post went Nice input as always. Always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree on the Lib Dem approach, but I admire that at least they've got a conviction on where they want to go, which at the moment is more than you can say for either the Tories (hopelessly divided and falling apart by the day) or Labour, who have flip-flopped on this more times than I can count. Corbyn refused to answer a simple question yesterday on which way Labour would go if it came to either remaining or leaving with a deal.

I admire the fact that the Lib Dems have gone a brave route on their stance but as to how it'll sit with voters in the long run remains to be seen. I think it'll probably depend on how shambolic on a scale of 1-10 the next 5 weeks are.

He did answer it - he said they would negotiate an EFTA style deal (he didn't say EFTA but all the elements basically add up to something like that), and that they would have a referendum between that deal and remain, at which point the people will decide. The type of deal they want to negotiate has been their consistent position from the beginning, and the second referendum has always been part of their policy with the only question being about sequencing. The UK media has repeatedly misrepresented Labour's position throughout. Just because it is nuanced and can't be reduced to a catchy slogan.

Their policy the only reasonable way not to alienate half the electorate, and the only sensible way forward as things stand (option between remain and least-worst Brexit).

The Lib Dem's cynical approach to only appeal to the 48% makes sense to double or even triple their number of MPs, but it is not an option for a party that is seriously trying to become a legitimate government and in reality it risks splitting the vote and putting the tories back in. Especially when they bizarrely refuse to work with other parties who want to stop Brexit.