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 XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

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

Strazdas

PeadarCo wrote: »

And it would also be illegal for Ireland to have an open border with a country outside the EU. Ireland has a duty to protect the integrity of the Single market and customs Union. Northern Ireland is part of UK and will be for at least the next few years. And if there is a hard or no deal brexit NI will be outside the SM and CU. The one thing that has been consistent throughout the Brexit negotiations has been the refusal of the EU to let the UK cherry pick. Why would Ireland be any different.

You are also forgetting about Irish businesses many of them will not want to compete with illegal competitors. Remember the food and mouth outbreak in the early 2000's border controls were very quickly implemented to protect Irish agriculture.

Permanent checks between the Single Market and a full EU member would be an absolute non runner. Whatever the solution to the Brexit crisis / disaster, it won't be that one (the clue is in the name 'single market').

PeadarCo

Strazdas wrote:

Such checks would be illegal under Single Market rules, so it's impossible to imagine they could happen.

And it would also be illegal for Ireland to have an open border with a country outside the EU. Ireland has a duty to protect the integrity of the Single market and customs Union. Northern Ireland is part of UK and will be for at least the next few years. And if there is a hard or no deal brexit NI will be outside the SM and CU. The one thing that has been consistent throughout the Brexit negotiations has been the refusal of the EU to let the UK cherry pick. Why would Ireland be any different.

You are also forgetting about Irish businesses many of them will not want to compete with illegal competitors. Remember the food and mouth outbreak in the early 2000's border controls were very quickly implemented to protect Irish agriculture.

lawred2

PeadarCo wrote: »

If Irish goods are checked at EU ports Ireland is for all practical purposes out of the customs Union and single market. Ireland would have left the EU without any sort of internal vote and essentially forced by the UK. The economic consequences would be catastrophic. A hard border on land would be infinity better than that.

That can't happen without internal agreement. And Ireland will not agree to that.

Strazdas

PeadarCo wrote: »

If Irish goods are checked at EU ports Ireland is for all practical purposes out of the customs Union and single market. Ireland would have left the EU without any sort of internal vote and essentially forced by the UK. The economic consequences would be catastrophic. A hard border on land would be infinity better than that.

Such checks would be illegal under Single Market rules, so it's impossible to imagine they could happen.

woohoo!!!

Better to erect a border on a temporary basis than agree to one now and forever more. It's not an option seeing as staying in SM and CU is the priority.

PeadarCo

Deleted User wrote:

Otherwise the EU would implement checks in the French ports for EU(26) bound goods from Ireland to verify they're not "contaminated" with UK product. Probably the better solution than physical infrastructure on land that would act as a spark for possible future troubles.

If Irish goods are checked at EU ports Ireland is for all practical purposes out of the customs Union and single market. Ireland would have left the EU without any sort of internal vote and essentially forced by the UK. The economic consequences would be catastrophic. A hard border on land would be infinity better than that.

Water John

The opposition want Johnson to own the Extension. That splits the Leave vote in any GE held after an Extension is asked for, doesn't really matter who asks for it eg Bercow, Supreme Court, Civil Servant.
This means a high probability of a coalition Govn't with Lb as the largest party.
Not sure are Lib Dems game playing that far ahead but asking for Corbyn not to lead it, is a real demand. If the Lib Dems give in on that, it's a concession granted and they they can trade that for a lot of other concessions to their policies and Cabinet positions.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

... while the civil service is warning about shortages of medicines due to Brexit. :rolleyes:

This, i'm afraid, is the level of public discourse the world is descending to. I wouldnt say it's precisely caused by twitter and/or other social media, but it has unquestionably pushed the bar lower. All a lot of people see this morning is the 140-character headline in the Sunday Times that the tories will build 40 new hospitals. How many of them will bother to read the small print and see what a big pile of steaming poo the whole thing is? In the same way, they can just put up a load of lies on twitter and no matter how many times they're challenged or corrected, the lie still sits there proudly on top of the pile and thousands swallow it unquestioningly. Alarm and despair are the only reasonable reactions.

CelticRambler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I love the big headline Tory policy that they are going to build 40 new hospitals.

... while the civil service is warning about shortages of medicines due to Brexit. :rolleyes:

moon2 wrote: »

As much as the UK doth protest, the odds of them leaving an open border indefinitely are slim to none. At the very least there's a lot of lost revenue to be had by allowing all goods (and people?) to enter the UK via Northern Ireland with zero checks.

Not to mention that it sets the "Most Favoured Nation" bar as low as it could possibly be for trading under WTO rules.

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Otherwise the EU would implement checks in the French ports for EU(26) bound goods from Ireland to verify they're not "contaminated" with UK product.
Probably the better solution than physical infrastructure on land that would act as a spark for possible future troubles.

As much as the UK doth protest, the odds of them leaving an open border indefinitely are slim to none. At the very least there's a lot of lost revenue to be had by allowing all goods (and people?) to enter the UK via Northern Ireland with zero checks.

The only question is how long it will take.

Joe_ Public

I love the big headline Tory policy that they are going to build 40 new hospitals. That's 6 within next few years and the rest, well sometime in the distant future when who knows if anybody will still be around to be subjected to the extreme staff shortages that will bedevil them. This could be a new thing where parties lay out their plans for, say, the next 30-40 years. Labour should counter with a policy to build 2 million new homes, as to when and how, mere trifles not to get too hooked up on.

[Deleted User]

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ireland won't put up a border with a No Deal, Either Will UK, so in a way UK is taking down the structure of the EU by leaving with a No Deal. EU will no longer be a secured trading zone.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Eventually, we will if we have to. For the very reason you state in the rest of your post

Otherwise the EU would implement checks in the French ports for EU(26) bound goods from Ireland to verify they're not "contaminated" with UK product.
Probably the better solution than physical infrastructure on land that would act as a spark for possible future troubles.

quokula

Calina wrote: »

But you are busy telling everyone to examine Jo Swinson instead. It's the classic "look over there" tactic.

Here is the problem. Corbyn is uniquely unpopular. Labour is not going to win an election with him. And they need to win a majority. I have not worked out whether you are a Labour supporter or a Vorbyn supporter but right now across the board, the UK is suffering badly from failing political leadership. In fact the two most competent political leaders are in fact Swinson and Sturgeon. But neither is going to get a majority in Westminster.

If you care about the UK, you need to start considering how Corbyn comes across to the wider electorate because with competent leadership Labour could very easily win a majority. Its leadership is currently clueless and its acolytes are currently Wah Swinson.

It is not a good look. Reality is Johnson is the worst PM in history and Corbyn cannot beat him. Instead of examining Swinson, you have to examine Corbyn. Anything else is an admission that you do not want a Labour majority and you don't want to govern. Given Corbyn's political history and tendency to vote against the whip before he was leader, my guess is it suits him to whinge and not to have to make hard decisions. His EU policy of negotiate a deal and put it to a referendum may be seductive but it is also 3 years too late. He should have voted against thd article 50 notification and campaigned the 2017 election on the grounds that the Tories haf - at that point - thrown away the UK's negotiating advantage. They had.

So please, spare me the constant 'look at Jo Swinson'. She is right that Corbyn is not the right candidate. The Labour Party tore itself apart over Tom Watson last week. It is not on the high moral ground here at all. And it needs some sort of a leader. If Labour wants to win an election, that leader will not be Corbyn or any of his acolytes.

The thing is that you're responding to considered, fact based critique of Swinson. The fact that her publicly accessible voting record is completely at odds with what she preaches. The fact that she attacked Corbyn for not campaigning for remain, even though he made over 100 media appearances campaigning for remain and she made 0 (nor did any Lib Dem make even a third as many as Corbyn). The fact that she openly advocated having a referendum to leave the EU years ago before it was top of the agenda. The fact that Corbyn is actively trying to come up with solutions to stop no deal, and the SNP are supporting that, but the Lib Dems are refusing to work with them as perpetuating the crisis is politically convenient for them. The fact that the Lib Dem policy of straight revoke openly divides the country, ignores half the voters and will never be achievable, but that's ok because it'll get the Lib Dems more seats. The fact that the Lib Dems basically have no other policies right now beyond Brexit and refusing to work with Labour (and even their Brexit policy is an explicit "if we win an outright majority") so they can easily go into coalition with the Tories and adopt all their policies again, while Labour have wide ranging domestic policies to try and solve the underlying problems that led to the anger that led to the Brexit vote.

And you're responding to that with vague soundbites the British right wing press like to trot out like "Corbyn is unelectable" and "incompetent" without any substance or analysis of what he's actually done or what his policies are.

And talking about whatabouttery as if other parties should be beyond any kind of accountability and only Corbyn should be analysed. In fact, when examining Labour it's only right to be comparing them with the other parties and while recognising they're not perfect, they're by far the best option for the UK (outside of Scotland at least).

The reality is that Corbyn and Labour are the only large party putting forward a clear path to solve the Brexit crisis with their proposal of a customs union deal and a referendum.

Robert McGrath

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ireland won't put up a border with a No Deal.

Eventually, we will if we have to. For the very reason you state in the rest of your post

woohoo!!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The department of foreign affairs have been doing fantastic work.

In general yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/reader-center/declan-walsh-cairo.html

For decades, major American news outlets figured they could count on their government to do everything it could to help reporters abroad when they found themselves under threat.

We no longer work under that assumption.

This is scary. By making life more difficult for independent journalists it makes it easier for them to go down the easy path of reprinting the state dept handouts.Makes it easier to go that path at home too. The UK is going this way too given how much "news" is directed leaks or unchallenged "facts".

On Brexit the diplomats been putting in the leg work for years.

Even before that there's normally there's a load of people complaining about the cost of sending Irish politicians all over the place for Mach 17th.

This year no one was complaining about the cost of having Leo in the White House and the cabinet spread out between the EU , OECD , our and the UK's main trading partners a fortnight before the Brexit deadline.

There are many things we can do better in this country. As we've seen, not infering in our diplomatic services and the independence of our judiciary are very important. Both are under attack in the UK, not least by Farage.

BorneTobyWilde

Ireland won't put up a border with a No Deal, Either Will UK, so in a way UK is taking down the structure of the EU by leaving with a No Deal. EU will no longer be a secured trading zone.

Capt'n Midnight

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The department of foreign affairs have been doing fantastic work.

In general yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/reader-center/declan-walsh-cairo.html

For decades, major American news outlets figured they could count on their government to do everything it could to help reporters abroad when they found themselves under threat.

We no longer work under that assumption.

This is scary. By making life more difficult for independent journalists it makes it easier for them to go down the easy path of reprinting the state dept handouts.Makes it easier to go that path at home too. The UK is going this way too given how much "news" is directed leaks or unchallenged "facts".

On Brexit the diplomats been putting in the leg work for years.

Even before that there's normally there's a load of people complaining about the cost of sending Irish politicians all over the place for Mach 17th.

This year no one was complaining about the cost of having Leo in the White House and the cabinet spread out between the EU , OECD , our and the UK's main trading partners a fortnight before the Brexit deadline.

[Deleted User]

20silkcut wrote: »

Watched that myself. It’s striking the way the 1975 referendum was swayed with a few million quid of an ad campaign and the leave campaign had only a few hundred thousand.
Much less complicated to control information in those days.

The divisions over Europe were as vicious in the early 70’s as they are today. Mark Francois is quite possibly the love child of Michael Foot. Fascinating the way pro market Labour MPs organized a carefully crafted Rota to be absent for crucial votes when the accession bill was going through. Pity that cross party co-operation can’t be repeated today.
But the one thing I’d take from it is that brexit did not just come out of the blue. It’s very deep rooted.

A point that I have made several times here before, Brexit has always been an ambition for a significant percentage of the British population.
Another thing to remember is that the 20 year olds who voted to stay 44 years ao to stay in the EEC are quite likely to have voted leave in 2016, so those who hope that the simple fact that older Brexiteers dying will be replaced by younger remainers in a repeat referendum are misplaced.

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Labour are saying we want to stick to the convention ...

What convention?

Edit: I presume you mean this

The SNP have stated they will accept Corbyn as he is the leader of the largest opposition party -which is the convention

In which case I ask: when/where has that "convention" ever been applied in British politics?

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

Whatever the merits of subjecting all party leaders to the same scrutiny, in this comment you seem to be singling Jo Swinson out for particular attention when all of the opposition parties are "holding up the VONC" at the moment with one common purpose: to not give Boris Johnson the General Election that he so desires.

Like triggering Article 50, a VONC comes with a time limit and the need to have a reasonable, operable and acceptable strategy ready to roll out immediately afterwards. There are two parties that are keeping the No Deal farce alive - the Tories and the Brexit Party, both of which stand to gain from a sooner-rather-than later election.

The rest are showing an uncommon level of common sense in not flicking the GE switch until they've got their duck-eggs in one basket, waited till they've hatched before counting them, and then got those ducks in a row. We have no idea (yet) how much of what we're seeing in public is a coordinated Good-Cop-Bad-Cop façade while the real discussions are going on in the background, but chances are the Rebel Alliance is going to come up with a strategy that is more constructive and effective than any of the Cunning Plans being hatched in Downing Street.

I am singling out Swinson as she is the party leader drawing the No Corbyn red lines. She is the one who wants to cast the conventions aside to suit her agenda, and in this she is doing exactly what Boris has been doing.

The SNP have stated they will accept Corbyn as he is the leader of the largest opposition party -which is the convention - but they will also accept an alternative candidate.

Labour are saying we want to stick to the convention but somehow it is 'equally' their fault because they will not put aside their democratically elected leader because the leader of another party doesn't like him?

Personally, I think having the leader of another party dictate who leads would set a dangerous precedent. The party selects the leader. That is that. No outsider should have any kind of a role for or against. And that goes for every party.

I am also perplexed why it is ok for Swinson to wish to ignore precedent and conventions but not Boris.

Akrasia

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Swinson is also playing that dangerous division card - albeit more subtly than Boris.

She has stated that should she become PM (and she clearly thinks she has a chance) then she will ignore those who want to Leave. Those same people who for the last 3 years have been fed hyperbole about the will of the people and democratic rights. Millions of people who are already angry and frustrated will be dismissed.

Swinson is not seeking consensus or to heal the divisions. She is exploiting them and hoping a (possible) shift to remain will sweep her to power.

Part of this tactic is to discredit Corbyn at every opportunity as it's Labour voters she needs to get on her side. The Tory remainers would already be inclined towards her as looking at her voting record in the HoC she's ideologically a conservative.
Swinson has to push the Corbyn is a lame duck message. The exact same message the right wing press is pushing. For this reason she cannot afford to back him as a caretaker PM. It would raise awkward questions later as to why it was ok for Corbyn to locum but not have the job full time.

She is playing politics as hard as anyone and of course she is trying to undermine her main opponent.
BUT... these are not normal times and it's a dangerous game she is playing to suit her agenda coming into the GE.

Swinson is campaigning when in fact she could be rid of Boris and his threats of No Deal next week - she has chosen not to to in order to further her own ambitions. Her excuse is 'Corbyn', her success in doing this is shown by how often when one questions her policies, tactics, agenda etc the response is 'but Corbyn...'

Getting rid of Boris and his no deal threats next week is absolutely pointless if costs them the general election and the tories are back in power with either another hung parliament, or Tory/brexit party coalition

All they're going for now, is an extension and a general election. If they lose the general election, then it's back to square 1

Tell me how

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

I am completely opposed to nearly everything he says but the best communicator out of all the party leaders is Farage.

He lies more often than most but they can't or don't call him on it more often than not for some reason.

He bigs up the anti-establishment rhetoric in every statement and tries to not engage in questions if he can at all avoid.

If questions do start, he becomes exasperated and tries to antagonize the questioner as it often results in the conversation being wrapped up.

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

a party leader who is holding up the VONC with her own red lines and basically keeping Boris in position so the whole will he won't he No Deal farce remains alive?

Whatever the merits of subjecting all party leaders to the same scrutiny, in this comment you seem to be singling Jo Swinson out for particular attention when all of the opposition parties are "holding up the VONC" at the moment with one common purpose: to not give Boris Johnson the General Election that he so desires.

Like triggering Article 50, a VONC comes with a time limit and the need to have a reasonable, operable and acceptable strategy ready to roll out immediately afterwards. There are two parties that are keeping the No Deal farce alive - the Tories and the Brexit Party, both of which stand to gain from a sooner-rather-than later election.

The rest are showing an uncommon level of common sense in not flicking the GE switch until they've got their duck-eggs in one basket, waited till they've hatched before counting them, and then got those ducks in a row. We have no idea (yet) how much of what we're seeing in public is a coordinated Good-Cop-Bad-Cop façade while the real discussions are going on in the background, but chances are the Rebel Alliance is going to come up with a strategy that is more constructive and effective than any of the Cunning Plans being hatched in Downing Street.

A Shropshire Lad

I am completely opposed to nearly everything he says but the best communicator out of all the party leaders is Farage.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said Corbyn should not be examined.

But so should Swinson.

Calina wrote: »

But you are busy telling everyone to examine Jo Swinson instead. It's the classic "look over there" tactic.

And there we have a prime example of what is perplexing me.

I clearly wrote that Corbyn should be examined and 'so should Swinson'. Both of them - indeed I have written that everyone trying for the top job should be examined regardless of who they are.

You left out of your quote the who 'so should' part, are acting like I said 'instead of' and accused me of whataboutery and deflection..
Then you repeat all the many many reasons many many people have written many many times why Corbyn is unsuitable.

You deflected straight to Corbyn when I discussed Swinson - indeed took umbrage that I dared to discuss Swinson.

Is there really anything new to add to what those who do not like Corbyn have been saying for years never mind months?

Is there anyone here who is thinking 'gee, I wonder what folks think about Corbyn' that we have to default to him every time someone wants to have a wee discussion on a party leader who is holding up the VONC with her own red lines and basically keeping Boris in position so the whole will he won't he No Deal farce remains alive?

I don't know how Swinson has managed this amazing feat where some bizarre mental algorithm prompts people to launch into an attack on Corbyn when she is being examined and gets them to accuse the examiner of whataboutery.
I am quite fascinated by it.

Why can we not examine Swinson in her own right?
Corbyn can still be discussed. So can Boris. Looking at Swinson does not deflect from or preclude that.

20silkcut

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Thanks for this recommendation. I’ve watched two of the four episodes and it’s really fascinating. Some of the parallels between the UK’s entry to the EU and today are really striking - the splits in the main parties, the cross-party co-operation to get a pro-EU programme over the line, the accusations of a parliamentary coup, the debate over the value of a referendum - really, really fascinating. Highly recommended

Watched that myself. It’s striking the way the 1975 referendum was swayed with a few million quid of an ad campaign and the leave campaign had only a few hundred thousand.
Much less complicated to control information in those days.

The divisions over Europe were as vicious in the early 70’s as they are today. Mark Francois is quite possibly the love child of Michael Foot. Fascinating the way pro market Labour MPs organized a carefully crafted Rota to be absent for crucial votes when the accession bill was going through. Pity that cross party co-operation can’t be repeated today.
But the one thing I’d take from it is that brexit did not just come out of the blue. It’s very deep rooted.

prawnsambo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We all keep saying that and we keep being proven that there's:

1. More stupid and uninformed people out there than we're willing to accept.

2. Slogans and repetition work on them.

I know this is probably projecting, but decisions like that rest in Westminster. And I don't think there'd be anything like a majority for that in Westminster.

BonnieSituation

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's dangerous stuff alright. But as long as it's a major minority government of busted flush Tories saying it, it will go nowhere. And everyone with a functioning cerebral cortex knows why they are looking for this.

We all keep saying that and we keep being proven that there's:

1. More stupid and uninformed people out there than we're willing to accept.

2. Slogans and repetition work on them.

prawnsambo

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I would much prefer that they were not caught up in unicorns but unfortunately they all are. It makes one despair. So, move onto what's preferable through unicorn lenses and that's Labour led and Corbyn is the current leader. Again far from my first preference but I think a move to ignore Labour wishes is one that's designed to fail.

I'd agree except that in many cases, the unicorn lenses are not universal. There is a reality consensus in the HoC that traverses the boundaries of all parties in it. I just don't think the political courage exists to grasp the nettle and act in the country's interests. The lies have taken hold and have festered into a boil that I believe can only be lanced by the UK leaving. It really doesn't matter who's in charge.

woohoo!!!

Enzokk wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Saint No Swinson is eulogised by some cos of lib dems remain position. The pathological dislike of Corbyn, much of it based on tory lies, has a brought about this crazy situation where the leader of the largest party (by some distance) is deemed unfit for PM, temporary or otherwise. I've consistently said that the opposition should come together and install a PM to avoid a no deal Brexit. But Swinson would rather stick to her principles than doing what's necessary to avoid no deal.

It is political games being played by both sides. Labour is trying to paint her as some Tory-lite politician and she is trying to paint Corbyn as unfit to lead. It is a pissing match by both sides. I have no idea about Swinson's political ideology but using her voting record when she was in government is just silly in my opinion.

I get the feeling that Labour know the Lib Dems are a threat to their vote as a lot of the Remain voters are fed up with the ambivalence that Corbyn has shown. Their likely landing spot is Lib Dem and Labour knows this so they have been on the attack for a while against her.

Igotadose wrote: »

Was there a vote about adjourning Parliament for the Tory conference? And did it fail? Because that's what now, like 9 votes the Government's failed to get through Parliament? Has the Government successfully proposed a motion and had it pass ?

Yes, parliament voted against recess for the Tory conference...:)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/26/mps-reject-parliamentary-recess-to-allow-for-tory-party-conference-video

Yes of course it's games when they really need to grow up and compromise to get no deal off the table. The whole lot of them with their moronic FPTP party first system.