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

robindch

Here's a nice man in a balaclava giving his thoughts on border policy.

Full 11-minute report is here.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1184529443471142913

FrancieBrady

Well, the TUV are against it anyhow.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Corbyn should call for a VONC once Johnson has asked for one and gotten his deal passed. It could then be a Labour policy for a confirmation referendum while the Tories will be hit by the Brexit Party for the lie that he would leave the EU by the 31st October and that the deal isn't hard enough as well.

I must be misunderstanding this - it sounded like you're saying that Corbyn should want a confirmatory ref on a deal already agreed by the HoC and the EU 27?

If that's correct, then there'd be no need. A deal would take the wind out of everything, Brexit party, Labour and all. Brexit is nearing exhaustion, and the BP/UKIP will wither into irrelevance if and when this deal is passed. England will be out of the CU and SM, and that'll be more than enough for Brexiteers.

Water John

Sturgeon was very clear on her position yesterday. Second Indy Ref in 2020.

robindch

Water John wrote: »

Sturgeon was very clear on her position yesterday. Second Indy Ref in 2020.

Sturgeon has also said that she'll only call a second referendum when she's sure of winning it - if memory serves, that means a sustained, plausible majority of 60% in favour versus 40% against according to multiple opinion polls.

Spanish Eyes

Whatever happens, a full on NO DEAL crash out will not happen now I think. Well hopefully anyway.

There appears to be a lot of meetings, fudge and payoffs to avoid such a scenario now, and analyses of such things is moot. The UK do not want to leave with NO DEAL do they?

DUP will get a few billion (NHS can wait) and all will be well. Tail wagging the dog of course.

May you live in interesting times.

Water John

The 60:40 is you're measure, not an objective one.
It does need to shift more than it is but it is creeping there. Brexit being passed will give it a major boost.

robindch

Strazdas wrote: »

[...] Johnson, Cummings and the Brexiteers are a bunch of chancers who can barely be trusted.

Replace "barely" with "not":

https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1184542102308511744

Kermit.de.frog

robindch wrote: »

Here's a nice man in a balaclava giving his thoughts on border policy.

Full 11-minute report is here.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1184529443471142913

What's his thoughts on how the EU VAT regime should operate in the north?

That's what I really want to know.

Duane Dibbley

robindch wrote: »

Sturgeon has also said that she'll only call a second referendum when she's sure of winning it - if memory serves, that means a sustained, plausible majority of 60% in favour versus 40% against according to multiple opinion polls.

She won’t be given consent to have an Independent Referendum.

I think the SNP are the most disrespected party in Westminster.

robindch

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The UK do not want to leave with NO DEAL do they?

Byline Times suggests that the people who backed the Leave campaign, who also backed Johnson, have placed multi-billion pound bets on Sterling taking a hit if the UK leaves the EU - the bigger the hit, the bigger the payoff, and the biggest hit of all will result from a disorderly exit.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

robindch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What's his thoughts on how the EU VAT regime should operate in the north?

I'd imagine he wants a different regime as VAT differences can lead to handsome criminal profits.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

I must be misunderstanding this - it sounded like you're saying that Corbyn should want a confirmatory ref on a deal already agreed by the HoC and the EU 27?

If that's correct, then there'd be no need. A deal would take the wind out of everything, Brexit party, Labour and all. Brexit is nearing exhaustion, and the BP/UKIP will wither into irrelevance if and when this deal is passed. England will be out of the CU and SM, and that'll be more than enough for Brexiteers.

There will need to be an extension to get the legislation passed for the deal to come into effect. In that time the UK would not have left and the chance is there to have an election before they legally leave the EU. Johnson would have broken one of his central promises that they would have left by the 31st October, deal or no deal.

As for the Brexit Party, you know the problem Johnson has is his pronouncements on no-deal the past 3 months have convinced voters that leaving without a deal will be okay. The Brexit Party can take this vote from the Tories as their only policy would be exactly that, we will have a "clean Brexit" which people have swallowed up already. Take into account that the details of the deal would have been scrutinized and Johnson's own words will be played back to him about how bad a deal it was when May proposed it.

All of my assumptions are based on Johnson getting a deal passed in the HoC. In that case Labour is in deeper trouble than they are now, this is one way I think they can win some of the votes back. It's the Cameron strategy of 2015, where only a Tory vote would get a Brexit referendum. In this case a possible revoke can only happen with a Labour majority or coalition with the Lib Dems. At the very least it would concentrate the Remainers to get a strategy out to stop Johnson getting a majority.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

AFAIR the only party in NI that seemed to be in favour of Brexit and wanted to leave the EU single market and customs union was the DUP. The rest all campaigned for Remain and you would think they would see sense in having things going well to keep the status quo. This is why the DUP campaigning for Brexit is so baffling, as long as things are relatively stable for people in NI then unification is not happening, but they decided to throw a hand grenade in that which if it goes wrong increases the risk of unification.

So in that event the DUP has 28 seats out of 90 so the path to vote to reject the EU customs union has a long way to go if you factor that in. That is not even looking at how the country voted in the referendum either.

There's also a potential psychological element where the parties, politicans and public get conditioned to voting to maintain the close relationship with Ireland. If you're doing that every four years, might just as well vote for a UI at one point and get it over with, remove all the admin and stress of it.

I'm not convinced everything is as it seems right now though, and there must be more to it. These reports are surprisingly convoluted, if simple.

A Dub in Glasgo

robindch wrote: »

Sturgeon has also said that she'll only call a second referendum when she's sure of winning it - if memory serves, that means a sustained, plausible majority of 60% in favour versus 40% against according to multiple opinion polls.

The UK Government, Westminster and the Scottish unionist parities (Tory, Lib Dem & Labour) have consistently stated they will ignore any mandate that exists for calling a second independence referendum and they will not allow one to happen.It is akin to the Catalonia situation except that there is doubt if Westminster consent is actually needed

Enzokk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Whatever happens, a full on NO DEAL crash out will not happen now I think. Well hopefully anyway.

There appears to be a lot of meetings, fudge and payoffs to avoid such a scenario now, and analyses of such things is moot. The UK do not want to leave with NO DEAL do they?

DUP will get a few billion (NHS can wait) and all will be well. Tail wagging the dog of course.

May you live in interesting times.

It seems James O'Brien may be right, Johnson has looked over the edge of no-deal and like May before him he has read, or been read, the reports on security and the very real chance of people losing their lives due to Brexit. He has decided he cannot and will not do that and has gone for the option most likely to pass through parliament.

Mr.Nice Guy

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

An official suggested that the DUP could benefit from using the simple majority method whereas the nationalist community could ensure there was no change to Northern Ireland's status by withdrawing from the Assembly so that no vote could be taken.

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

maebee

or some American woman being witch-hunted by a grieving family

Off topic but way out of line Celtic R

Strazdas

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Honestly everything was going fine wasn't it? Until someone decided that UKIP might usurp things in time. Eu via Cameron was approached to see if it would change things to suit UK, non.

And then there was Brexit. Just a short summary!

And so here we are.

Nobody was looking for a referendum in 2015, not even UKIP.

Cameron held the thing as a cheap and cynical political stunt.

Spanish Eyes

UK is bonkers. Sorry for being so idiotic in saying that, but honestly looking at the shenanigans of the last nearly four years, I could in fairness be forgiven for thinking that there was no rational thinking about this at all.

Hubris got them to this pass, and there they are now.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

There's also a potential psychological element where the parties, politicans and public get conditioned to voting to maintain the close relationship with Ireland. If you're doing that every four years, might just as well vote for a UI at one point and get it over with, remove all the admin and stress of it.

I'm not convinced everything is as it seems right now though, and there must be more to it. These reports are surprisingly convoluted, if simple.

True, I didn't think of a vote for a close relationship in that way before. I agree that there is still a lot of details to sort and a lot of ways it could be rejected by various parties. If Johnson is looking for a deal he will make the compromises he has to, if not this will all be a time wasting exercise on the way to no-deal. I doubt anyone still knows or has figured out the plan.

Joe_ Public

Dominic Lawson on newsnight earlier suggesting the "people" would burn down parliament if brexit was delayed again. Nobody skipped a beat. Sign of where we've got to with all this, I guess.

Infini

Water John wrote: »

The 60:40 is you're measure, not an objective one.
It does need to shift more than it is but it is creeping there. Brexit being passed will give it a major boost.

Remember they only lost the indyref1 over the EU membership questions at the time. Tories proceeded to shaft Scotland with Brexit so Indyref2 will be to become independent if theres a crash or they're dragged out of the EU after this.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

Only way our side should see ANY of this as acceptable is in the event of no agreement or that if the assembly votes to "leave" then a Border Poll is the fallback position on all of this having a UI as a fallback position would focus enough of the DUP to not risk it.

Spanish Eyes

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems James O'Brien may be right, Johnson has looked over the edge of no-deal and like May before him he has read, or been read, the reports on security and the very real chance of people losing their lives due to Brexit. He has decided he cannot and will not do that and has gone for the option most likely to pass through parliament.

Yes it would be obvious to anyone that leaving EU without a sketch of a plan would not work. And it won't. Because there is no plan and never will be either.

Can someone explain to me how the ERG is a substratum of the Tory Party in Government. I fail to get my head around their influence TBH.

Joe_ Public

What is it the erg want in all this? Outside of their weird bromance with the dup, I'd have thought escaping all the regulatory frameworks would be a red line for them but the pm seems to be going in the opposite direction. Very hard to square all this.

Beechwoodspark

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any word out of Scotland on all this?

Seemingly they want an independance referendum, can't blame them tbf.

Water John

I have thought about it, why and when Johnson changed his approach and focus. Yes, there are reports that a detail on possible violence in NI affected him but I'm wondering was it something more personal.
I'm thinking of the public bollicking he got from his sister Rachel. Most men would actually be quite affected by how a sister would view their actions.

Infini

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

I'd consider them a subversive party within a party to be fair they're essentially UKIP for diaster capitalists had they been booted out of the conservative party years ago instead of their poisonous views tolerated we might be in a completely different place.

Kermit.de.frog

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

There is no unionist veto there then.

That's fine for me tbh.