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; } } }

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

WomanSkirtFan8

J Mysterio wrote: »

That is shocking and apalling. Hugely disrespectful behaviour and 'unparliamentary' if I may say.

just watched it. appalling behaviour. no wonder the scots want out. Looking at that, one could hardly blame them.:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Look at the disrespect here:

https://twitter.com/HMRadioUK/status/1183764320955654144

Really highlights how divided Westminster is, and how England and Scotland are literally heading in different directions.

No surprise, the English MPs have done that for years

devnull

So now there's talk that it could be delayed until next week before the talks are finished, which would take us past the point of which Boris is supposed to send a letter to Brussels.

I'm starting to think the conspiracy theory of deliberately pushing it back and back and back to prevent a letter being sent may not actually be a conspiracy theory after all and is an actual tactic.

Tories say there's no need for a letter as there won't be no deal, the day for letter passes, talks keep going, BANG right at the last minute talks collapse, and by which time it's too late to take the matter to the supreme court and it's no deal.

Parliament has to act this week if there is no deal by the time indicated that the letter has to be sent by, believing Johnson saying talks are still ongoing and standing idly by should not be an option.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

So now there's talk that it could be delayed until next week before the talks are finished, which would take us past the point of which Boris is supposed to send a letter to Brussels.

I'm starting to think the conspiracy theory of deliberately pushing it back and back and back to prevent a letter being sent may not actually be a conspiracy theory after all and is an actual tactic.

Tories say there's no need for a letter as there won't be no deal, the day for letter passes, talks keep going, BANG right at the last minute talks collapse, and by which time it's too late to take the matter to the supreme court and it's no deal.

Parliament has to act this week if there is no deal by the time indicated that the letter has to be sent by, believing Johnson saying talks are still ongoing and standing idly by should not be an option.

The law says the letter has to be written and sent by the 19th in the event of no deal being passed through the house. I dont see how anyone can actually tell them it's ok to hold off for a week or so. That's just ridiculous. It's the law so either comply with it or suffer the consequences.

devnull

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The law says the letter has to be written and sent by the 19th in the event of no deal being passed through the house. I dont see how anyone can actually tell them it's ok to hold off for a week or so. That's just ridiculous. It's the law so either comply with it or suffer the consequences.

Simon Coveney is now saying they might need until next week now and should be given more time.

It just seems that from stuff I have read in the UK, that there might be apetite to give Johnson a few more days before trying to enforce the letter to be sent in the spirit of trying to get a deal over the line.

moon2

devnull wrote: »

Simon Coveney is now saying they might need until next week now and should be given more time.

It just seems that from stuff I have read in the UK, that there might be apetite to give Johnson a few more days before trying to enforce the letter to be sent in the spirit of trying to get a deal over the line.

Sending a letter does not preclude a deal from being enacted. I believe the terms of the extension also allow the UK to exit the extension early in the event a deal is agreed and passed.

The only reason to avoid sending the letter would be if you're actually aiming for no deal.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

Simon Coveney is now saying they might need until next week now and should be given more time.

It just seems that from stuff I have read in the UK, that there might be apetite to give Johnson a few more days before trying to enforce the letter to be sent in the spirit of trying to get a deal over the line.

Coveney's latest comments are indeed quite notable, so maybe there is some flexibility there. But there's still the bottom line that they'd need extension just to get legislation through, even if a deal was passed this week, so i'm not certain there'd be any fundamental change to the benn act and can you still trust johnson with any of this, even if the likes of Coveney are offering mollifying words? Not sure on that one to be honest.

L1011

Both extensions to date have allowed the UK to leave immediately on agreeing a deal. A futher one won't change that

Water John

Coveney nor the EU can't change the Benn Act. It's needed either way, so just send it.

Infini

At this point Boris has little choice but to send one because even IF and I stress IF they somehow manage to pull a deal out of their arse they still have to pass relevant legislation and laws prior to leaving in order to ensure a smooth transition.

If he doesnt send it it'll be obvious to all his plan is to crash out.

Thargor

Didn't they shout at him to go back to Skye or Glasgow or somewhere this time last year aswell.

fash

Jim2007 wrote: »

And what do yo actually do the day after No Deal? How are you going to deal with the fact that you have lost trade agreements covering 92% of your exports, preferential access to a wealthy market covering 48% of your exports, loss of passporting of financial services, a failure to get trade schedules agreed at the WTO, No US trade deal, no EU trade deal, no deals with Canada and Japan, no tariffs on imports thus exposing you economy to unrestricted imports from low cost countries such as China etc???

How much pain are you willing to take - tax increases, job losses etc... and more importantly how much do you think the great British public will accept?

Well I'm Irish so a no deal affects about 8-10% of exports at all and much of that is relatively unaffected.

A Dub in Glasgo

Thargor wrote: »

Didn't they shout at him to go back to Skye or Glasgow or somewhere this time last year aswell.

Nicholas Soames said it

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1075050916854804480?lang=en-gb

Hurrache

Donaldson has popped his head above the parapet a couple of times today, this his latest take. Factual, or trying to lie himself into relevance at this point?

[url]

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1183814507262554112?s=19[/url]

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Wow, you finally concede I was right. Took you long enough and only after you threw plenty of insults out.

There will be a serious short and medium term impact to Ireland.

Any form of brexit will have serious short and medium term impacts. Ireland has only 4 options: stop brexit from happening at all, force a soft brexit, if there is a hard brexit ensure that GFA is respected, otherwise no deal and wait for UK to disintegrate.

lola85

All this talk of loyalist threats of violence is shocking from the DUP, trying to scaremonger.

It’s been shadowed by a deal maybe happening but nonetheless should not be forgotten.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sorry you are wrong. We are only in the WA phase now. A trade deal has to come after.

Without a proper WA, we revert to WTA rules. That's tariffs on our products going into the UK, one of our biggest markets. Its also tarrifs coming the other way, that means an increase in the prices of goods that come from the UK.

We need the WA to get us to the trade deal, otherwise its WTA tarrifs.

I can't believe there are some people such as Vinlieger who think Ireland wont be badly affected by No Deal.

First of all it's WTO not WTA. Secondly, you completely misunderstood me. But for clarity, here goes again. A trade deal will take years*. A lot more than the transition period. So after that, it's likely to be the EU external tariff regime. And during the TP, the UK can do trade deals, which may impact quality/price and make it harder for us to continue to sell to them anyway.

*WTO negotiators talking to Jason Hunter, reckoned that an EU/UK trade deal would take about eight years.

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Coveney's latest comments are indeed quite notable, so maybe there is some flexibility there. But there's still the bottom line that they'd need extension just to get legislation through, even if a deal was passed this week, so i'm not certain there'd be any fundamental change to the benn act and can you still trust johnson with any of this, even if the likes of Coveney are offering mollifying words? Not sure on that one to be honest.

My take is that the EU is using Johnson's deadline against him. "We can agree to getting it finished by this date... if you accept our conditions"

gooch2k9

Hurrache wrote: »

Donaldson has popped his head above the parapet a couple of times today, this his latest take. Factual, or trying to lie himself into relevance at this point?

[url]
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1183814507262554112?s=19[/url]

The latter. Standard DUP playbook, maintain the pretence of control. They did the same stuff when RHI first broke, stating there would be no public enquiry.

If UK cabinet aren't being updated regularly on talks then the DUP definitely won't be.

briany

lola85 wrote: »

All this talk of loyalist threats of violence is shocking from the DUP, trying to scaremonger.

It’s been shadowed by a deal maybe happening but nonetheless should not be forgotten.

I don't really see it as scaremongering. There should be a legitimate concern that placing a border anywhere around NI will lead to an uptick in violence. One of the reasons why Brexit is such a bad idea in the first place.

BonnieSituation

lola85 wrote: »

All this talk of loyalist threats of violence is shocking from the DUP, trying to scaremonger.

It’s been shadowed by a deal maybe happening but nonetheless should not be forgotten.

It's not shocking at all. But we shouldn't buy into it.

lawred2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The law says the letter has to be written and sent by the 19th in the event of no deal being passed through the house. I dont see how anyone can actually tell them it's ok to hold off for a week or so. That's just ridiculous. It's the law so either comply with it or suffer the consequences.

What consequences will those be?

Seriously?

Muahahaha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's not shocking at all. But we shouldn't buy into it.

Well if the UDA/UVF are threatening bombs in Limerick I'd hope the Gardai are taking it very seriously because they are capable of it.

threeball

Watching a grand designs rerun here from before the recession, they lost their mortgage as the economy tanked. The notable thing was the guys reasoning, "Everything was in place but then the situation in Europe got worse and worse and they removed our approval"

Just shows the mentality. It's like Britain was immune to the recession and it was all down to those pesky foreigners.

threeball

lawred2 wrote: »

What consequences will those be?

Seriously?

Well BoJo is breaking the law at that stage so could technically be imprisoned but unlikely

Infini

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well if the UDA/UVF are threatening bombs in Limerick I'd hope the Gardai are taking it very seriously because they are capable of it.

Honestly I would have to be sceptical of those groups bombing anything at this point, the loyalist forces if I'm not mistaken were primarily supported by the British State at the time and noone else, the IRA on the other hand had support from donations from the US etc as well as shenanigans from Gadaffi at the time. On top of this both groups today aren't in the same state as back then if anything if there's a change in circumstances it will be caused purely by the Conservatives and I have no doubt that if there's a Hard Brexit there will be a bombardment of information against London for causing this, the irony is the Irish State has been doing more for all of them up there than London has since this all began and the only one's who supported Brexit are not only opposed by EVERYONE else up there but are so stupid and thick that it's piss easy to destroy them by highlighting over and over every stupid thing they've done since this started and how their group has done more to undermine the union in 3 years than the IRA ever did in 30 years. Thats Irony.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Look at the disrespect here:

https://twitter.com/HMRadioUK/status/1183764320955654144

Really highlights how divided Westminster is, and how England and Scotland are literally heading in different directions.

I gotta wonder though is that if in the inevitable event that Scotland becomes independent because of English Muppetry and stupidity like this and a UI becomes an inevitability will the unionist/former unionists actually be bothered so much since their ferry links to the other island will be to and through of all places Scotland which will be likely rejoining or fast tracked back into the EU and thus the only Border controls at that point will be to England at the airport (PS Duty Free is back!) or at Hadrians wall(Now repurposed to keep the English out! :P)

briany

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well if the UDA/UVF are threatening bombs in Limerick I'd hope the Gardai are taking it very seriously because they are capable of it.

Ultimately, the UVF bombing Limerick in the event of a sea border would make no sense whatsoever. Surely even many hardcore Loyalists would be scratching their heads. The sea border would have been something signed up to by the UK government.

Anyway, their campaign wouldn't have that much legs if a backstop arrangement ended up being quite beneficial for the North.

lola85

briany wrote: »

Ultimately, the UVF bombing Limerick in the event of a sea border would make no sense whatsoever. Surely even many hardcore Loyalists would be scratching their heads. The sea border would have been something signed up to by the UK government.

Anyway, their campaign wouldn't have that much legs if a backstop arrangement ended up being quite beneficial for the North.

Don’t know about that.

There was string words about loyalist anger and been used as a pawn in all of this earlier.

Seems its another thing that wasn’t thought about strongly.

threeball

briany wrote: »

Ultimately, the UVF bombing Limerick in the event of a sea border would make no sense whatsoever. Surely even many hardcore Loyalists would be scratching their heads. The sea border would have been something signed up to by the UK government.

Anyway, their campaign wouldn't have that much legs if a backstop arrangement ended up being quite beneficial for the North.

You're attributing a sense of logic or pragmatism to loyalists which simply doesn't exist.

briany

threeball wrote: »

You're attributing a sense of logic or pragmatism to loyalists which simply doesn't exist.

I'm not doubting there are complete headers within the Loyalist community, but I doubt there are enough to form a mandate for a renewed campaign of violence within the Republic of Ireland.