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

Letwin_Larry

I think the Tories will win a majority. the combination of Boris/Cummings and a confused Lab message will prove decisive. The Lib Dems will hoover up Remainer votes, but from both Lab & Tory, and will negate their effect. Farage as ever will be an also ran.

that said it's all up for grabs, and will be viscious in the extreme.

let the games commence!

Leroy42

Johnson said it today in the HoC, and others have said it but very clearly they are pushing the NI solution as temporary.

Whilst it may be nothing more that talk, it has the possibility of creating a sense of grievance in NI when it doesn't happen. And you can be sure that the blame will be placed firmly on Ireland.

Its a very dangerous situation.

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Lot there to digest and some very compelling and thoughtful points.

Have no time to go deeply into it, but a couple of thoughts. Labours policies are very popular with voters, this has been commented on time and time again. Stuff like nationalisation of trains and other utilities is a vote winner, if they can get off brexit, even just a bit, they could make some headway. Admittedly thats a challenge!

Other challenge they have imo is tories are very patently stealing their clothes with all their ridiculous spending promises, which are full of lies, but which could sway enough target labour voters. The tories are even trying to claim themselves as the party of the nhs which tells you how far we've gone into a posttruth world. This stuff needs to be countered but remains to be seen how.

I do believe whoever fights the smartest, more progressive campaign will fare best and that's up for grabs. Will be a truly fascinating contest when it happens, that is for sure!

Thanks for discussing - just about to go to bed but a little thought would be that your correct. If they could push by Brexit for a bit, which is possible, they might survive and make gains

The two problems that could prevent that are:

-The Lib Dems are the only ones who are actively courting remainers - at present - all will depend on Labors actual manifesto - if they can counter the Lib Dems, attack Swinsons Revoke as being a bridge too far, and adopt a clear Peoples Vote approach, they could well make a run of it and it could be close. The problem for me is that i cant see them doing that under Corbyn. His 'Principles' wont let him do that, he wants a shot at negotiating the UK out of the EU but remaining in the CU/CM - and thats fatal. Its another year of Brexit which people wont want. Its potentially another meltdown if his deal is not supported by his entire party, or those he is in coalition with. It could not be taken seriously given the bulk of Labor MP's saying they want the peoples vote ASAP - and honestly if brexit is to be stopped, it needs to be ASAP!!!! Corbyn is a huge disappointment in British Left wing politics. The only thing i can say is that perhaps if Brexit had never happened, he would have got in! And properly turned around the years of NewLabor(Tory-lite) and Conservative policies - what might have been eh?

- I totally agree that we are living in a post truth world, and the UK sadly has become almost as bad as the US for that. But in truth this election, if and when it happens, is the peoples vote, and probably the last they will get on Brexit. Given FPTP Boris doesnt need a majority of 50%+1 to win - he just needs some clever electioneering - and he will play the game like a pro, it pains me to say that. He will appeal to hearts over heads (How dare they suggest we have a second referendum - they might do that in ireland but not here). He will point to Corbyn's aim of renegotiations, and highlight how long it will take, and how it wont actually be brexit. And he will surely highlight that labor would give the Scots a second indyRef. He is the incumbent. Thanks to todays vote, and the EU ACTUALLY GIVING him a deal (god i never thought i would say that) - he gets to set the agenda

I will say this as i nod off.. i really really hope im wrong. but this election could be terrible for both labor and the remainer cause.. it need not be, but it will be none the less

Kermit.de.frog

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnson said it today in the HoC, and others have said it but very clearly they are pushing the NI solution as temporary.

Whilst it may be nothing more that talk, it has the possibility of creating a sense of grievance in NI when it doesn't happen. And you can be sure that the blame will be placed firmly on Ireland.

Its a very dangerous situation.

If a majority vote in the local assembly to leave the arrangements, they can leave.

Seems democratic to me?

jimmycrackcorm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If a majority vote in the local assembly to leave the arrangements, they can leave.

Seems democratic to me?

Sure it is. Because of course they'll vote to reinstate the border.

Saying this is temporary is based on the idea that the UK think they're going to get an amazing FTA with the EU. However there is no way the EU will give them anything like what they had as its not in their interest to show that leaving is going to be better.

murphaph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If a majority vote in the local assembly to leave the arrangements, they can leave.

Seems democratic to me?

Should a reintroduction of border controls mean we bring back articles 2 and 3 as they were before the 98 referendum? We held up our end of the bargain. Just a thought.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

Should a reintroduction of border controls mean we bring back articles 2 and 3 as they were before the 98 referendum? We held up our end of the bargain. Just a thought.

Ah the classic Nationalists meeting unionists halfway but yet seemingly being intransigent. Who would have thunk it.

Rather than bringing back 2 and 3, let's have a border poll within the next decade.

Heaven forbid that the PUL community might have to live in a mere Economic United Ireland.

LuckyLloyd

briany wrote: »

EU: ....and what if you don't, Boris?

Boris: But I will!

EU: But what if you don't?

Boris: But I will!

Repeat until the EU hangs up.

But he will. 329 MPs in favour of the second reading. It’s over. Just a matter of time.

LeinsterDub

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But he will. 329 MPs in favour of the second reading. It’s over. Just a matter of time.

Just because an MP voted for the second reading stage doesn't mean they'll make it law. Any number of reasons to vote for it now and reject it later

Enzokk

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You do feel it's different this time though. May destroyed her own campaign with a disasterous manifesto that intended to tax the conservative base (elderly property owners) and that Labour as well as Mays enemies in the press successfully labeled the dementia tax. Along with other poor media performances, she killed her own chances.

Johnson on the other hand is a charming media performer with large segments of the right wing press not just onside (Mail) but seemingly unwavering in their full throated support (Telegraph). The cons will learn from last time and Johnson will campaign on an undeliverable populist manifesto, paid for from the equally mythical Brexit dividend.

Meanwhile Labour will remain tangled in knots over remain and the anti semitism "problem" which is really a proxy battle for control between the centerists and left wingers.

It's not like May didn't have the backing of the press either. We don't know what will be in the manifesto for Johnson but if it is only getting Brexit done he is dead. If it is spending galore, well he will have to explain austerity the last 10 years if he can just turn on the taps when Brexit will leave them worse off as well. If it is staying the course with spending, i.e. more austerity, well good luck with that one.

I agree that Corbyn looks terrible right now, but he did before the last election as well. With a manifesto that is costed and a viable Brexit plan to sort it out, if the EU allows a new deal or Johnsons deal against remain to sort it out in a new referendum, he should do better than people think, just like in 2017 I think.

I just don't think it is a slam dunk as many seems to think it is. The challenge for Labour is the Lib Dems but if they can put their differences aside they can at least ensure that Johnson doesn't get a majority and that Johnson will know the only way to get this mess done is a confirmatory vote on Brexit.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But he will. 329 MPs in favour of the second reading. It’s over. Just a matter of time.

Doesn't explain him losing the program motion if it was sure his deal would pass. Why else would he try to ram it through? If he knew he had time he would take his time but he knows the longer they look at the deal the worse it becomes and once an economic impact assessment is done it will be even harder to find reasons to back it.

And then we get to the amendments.

A Dub in Glasgo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But he will. 329 MPs in favour of the second reading. It’s over. Just a matter of time.

The issue for Johnson here is that his deal will be subject to amendments and it is those amended bills that parliament will be voting on..... if he brings it back. At the moment, the bill is paused. Parliament may vote for none of the amendments or they might vote for one of them that is incompatible with his deal with the EU and he will have to go back to the EU

If MPs wanted to just pass Johnsons deal they would have either voted

1. for his deal on Saturday without the Letwin amendment
or

2. Agreed to his rush job to force his bill through parliament last night

MPs did not go for either of these and there is still a lot of way to go on this

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If a majority vote in the local assembly to leave the arrangements, they can leave.

Seems democratic to me?

It is not the democratic part of it that worries me. Surely you can see how easily democracy can be manipulated during this whole Brexit saga.

Its the way that Ireland will be blamed, how unionist grievances will be stoked to create a bogeyman to rail against.

Enzokk

So this is interesting, the man shouting about getting Brexit done is being paid to do so, but by whom?

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1186786650728390656?s=20

A Dub in Glasgo

Enzokk wrote: »

So this is interesting, the man shouting about getting Brexit done is being paid to do so, but by whom?

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1186786650728390656?s=20

Tom Newton Dunn is the Political Editor of the Sun newspaper and the the first response to his tweet nails it

https://twitter.com/AlanCrowe73/status/1186796366732902405

PeadarCo

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Saying this is temporary is based on the idea that the UK think they're going to get an amazing FTA with the EU. However there is no way the EU will give them anything like what they had as its not in their interest to show that leaving is going to be better.

It's not that the EU won't offer the UK a great deal. It's that the UK or Brexiters anyway won't accept the restrictions that come with a good deal. If you want to sign up to a deal that gives you the same benefits as the customs Union and or single market you are going to have to accept the costs. Ie adhere to a common rule book, common tarrifs etc. Without those you don't have a customs union or single market and the benefits that come with that.

farmchoice

Anyone who thinks Boris had any kind of win last night is misreading the situation.
during the debate it became clear that if corbyn was not actually putting some MP's up to voting for the deal he was most certainly not discouraging them.
this makes sense from a labour point of view. if the bill fell at second reading last night then its straight to an election and its Parliaments fault.

This way the bill carries on, it was expected that Johnson would pull it in a fit of pique, even thought parliament had voted for it.
this would have made Johnson look pathetic and seem to be afraid of scrutiny of his own bill.
he did not quite go that far but he did pause it.
now he has to see through what he said he would never do regarding the extension and he will have to open the bill up to forensic scrutiny.
following on from that MP's will be able to make amendments to the bill. based on all previous votes there is now almost certainly a majority for a second ref and if there is any doubt about this the calculation is that there certainly will not be after the bill is gone through.

Johnson is now backed into a corner he cant readily get out of, he wants an election but it is not within his powers to call one. he cant say the house wont accept his WA, they just have and he has been forced into doing what he said he would never do.

Joe_ Public

Being one of the worlds foremost classical scholars, johnson will no doubt appreciate he enjoyed a magnificent triumph last night the way King Pyrrhus did when he defeated the romans at the battle of hercules.

MrMusician18

It was a win of sorts for Johnson. He can now say he has majority for a deal in principle.

That's more than what May could say.

eagle eye

SeaBreezes wrote:

If the hat fits....

There are lots of people who think he is normal and a great man. See the Brexit referendum andreccet polls and the UK European election for proof.
Sp just because you and I disagree with his politics and beliefs that does not make the man a degenerate.
In fact anybody calling him that is closer to being one.

Shelga

Could parliament have voted through the WA on Saturday, assuming Letwin had never happened, only to have it fall later on during the legislative scrutiny stage?

If so, what’s the point of voting on anything in its initial phase, if it can fall later on?

I’m really struggling to understand all the various readings and texts and stages of this bill...

Joe_ Public

"Vote for me - i'm better than Theresa May." Could be another great campaign slogan.

I guess, though, if she'd been willing to go back on her promises, like Johnson was, then she could very easily have got to this stage too.

eagle eye

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people who think he is normal and a great man. See the Brexit referendum andreccet polls and the UK European election for proof.
Sp just because you and I disagree with his politics and beliefs that does not make the man a degenerate.
In fact anybody calling him that is closer to being one.

He has provably lied countless times while working as a journalist(for which he lost his job) while Mayor of London, while an MP and since he became PM, therefore by the very definition of "degenerate" ie "an immoral or corrupt person." he is definitely one.

johnnyskeleton

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

A hard Brexit would be better for the money men alright, and I can see how they could consider their own financial interests and what is in the best interests of the country to be one and the same thing.

farmchoice

Shelga wrote: »

Could parliament have voted through the WA on Saturday, assuming Letwin had never happened, only to have it fall later on during the legislative scrutiny stage?

If so, what’s the point of voting on anything in its initial phase, if it can fall later on?

I’m really struggling to understand all the various readings and texts and stages of this bill...

no if there had been no letwin amendment on Saturday and it had been voted through it would have been considered a meaningful vote.
it would have been considered to have passed and the bill would come later.
May only ever brought meaningful votes her bill was never even published.
letwin meant there could not be a meaningful vote ( the parliament signals that it agrees in principle with the proposition) it would have to be the full nine yards, first reading, second reading, committee stage,etc.

murphaph

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It was a win of sorts for Johnson. He can now say he has majority for a deal in principle.

That's more than what May could say.

May had a (slim) working majority so it was dangerous to allow anything through unless you were really happy with it. Johnson is at parliament's mercy.

farmchoice

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

A soft brexit used to be one where the Uk would stay within the customs union and the single market, this was considered good for Ireland as things would have gone on pretty much as before. but hard/sort were never defined so this was just an assumption.
hard was considered leaving the CU and SM, this was considered generally bad as it could in the long run lead to tariffs on Irish goods exported to the uk and on goods imported from the UK, this all remains to be seen in the years to come. some argue that a hard brexit might mean business leaving the Uk and coming to Ireland so in that way good for Ireland.

Dytalus

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

In terms of general economic finances, a soft is much better. Our economy won't be hit as hard so we shouldn't need as much funding.

A hard Brexit would only ensure we get more 'disaster' funding, but we'd still suffer a sizable hit to our economy even with that. No-deal is now a justification for funding from the EU's Solidarity Fund, which would allow an injection of cash into our Exchequer but isn't really a shield to economic damage. It's a band aid to fix the damage once it's done, because the Government would need to figure out how to spend it.

But the EU has other funds which are based on economic performance. With a deal in place we'd no longer be eligible for the Solidarity Fund, but funds like the ERDF are assigned based on a nation's GDP. If we take a hit to our economy, and our GDP drops, then our EU funding naturally increases. Whether it's a hard or soft Brexit doesn't matter, only its net effect on our economy.

BarryD2

farmchoice wrote: »

Johnson is now backed into a corner he cant readily get out of, he wants an election but it is not within his powers to call one. he cant say the house wont accept his WA, they just have and he has been forced into doing what he said he would never do.

It seems that he'll have to go with a 3 month extension at least. If he goes for a short one, then the opposition can organise to table amendments like a customs union which would be anathema to him. So he would then be humiliated into asking for another extension for a general election.

They need a GE to sort it out but I suppose the question of the timing is who can win the wrestling match to get the best narrative.

When it does happen, it'll be very interesting to see what happens up north. You could see that voters on both sides of the divide up there will be rightly pissed off with the MPs they elected last time for different reasons. Alliance could be big winners and rightly so.

Purgative

eagle eye wrote: »

Has anybody found out yet if we are better with a soft or hard brexit from a financial perspective?
I'm hearing we will get huge funding if it's hard but nothing if its soft. A few people I know who are money men think a hard brexit is best for us in the republic as far as finances go.

Maybe we get a few Mill from the EU for a few years. It will make a good headline, I'm sure.

Will that be enough to repair the damage to farm incomes?

Enough to unravel the milk processing scheme that zig-zags across the border like a cats cradle?

Enough for the extra Garda for when the North kicks off again?