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 XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but 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
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

volchitsa wrote: »

This is just not true, it's a rewriting of history based on Leave propaganda which you seem to have swallowed whole.
Just one example where your narrative of how it all happened is wrong : All the times Boris Johnson called for Britain to stay in the single market

That link shows Johnson's quotes many years before the referendum.

Anyway, we are permitted to change our minds. I for one have changed my mind on many issues, often fast, depending on how the facts flow.

George Galloway was pro-EU, but came down on Brexit at the time of the referendum.

Not an advocate for him, but take the general point.

VinLieger wrote: »

Objectively the EU is far more democratic then the UK, the UK has an unelected head of state for life that is passed down by birth right, they have an unelected 2nd house whose seats are mostly inherited or else appointed for doing good deeds for whichever party is currently in power.

Then theres the FPTP voting system which as i mentioned earlier has only had 1 government elected by the majority of the electorate in the last 80 years but keep telling me how the EU is the undemocratic institution please.....

The UK has democratic deficiencies, like all countries. Let's not add to those deficiencies with even more deficiencies that are further away from ordinary people.

Second, there are two visions of Europe on offer; one in which the UK approximates back to the nation-state, or a future Superstate in which the EU governs, centralises yet more power, and expands to the East.

However you cut it, that latter option will never be swallowed by European peoples, as much as its foisted and argued and defended.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK has democratic deficiencies, like all countries. Let's not add to those deficiencies with even more deficiencies that are further away from ordinary people.

Second, there are two visions of Europe on offer; one in which the UK approximates back to the nation-state, or a future Superstate in which the EU governs, centralises yet more power, and expands to the East.

However you cut it, that latter option will never be swallowed by European peoples, as much as its foisted and argued and defended.

Yes the definite solution to the effective return of empires in the form of America, China and Russia is for Europe to fracture and return to the 19th century nationalism that led to 2 world wars......

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests.

Aside from everything else in this post which is nonsense, this statement might be the most nonsense of them all. The ECJ fundamentally not "supreme over the UK's Supreme Court", in fact the ECJ has no competency to hear issues of national Member State law unless those laws relate to European Union laws... in other words, the ECJ only has authority to hear appeals/referrals on points of law as they relate to a disagreement between (i) the person(s) alleging infringement of the EU law or its implementation in UK law (and for the sake of ease we'll lump the whole UK together for legislative purposes) (ii) the government.

This type of statement about the ECJ's relationship with national courts is either willful ignorance or purposive misinformation.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, we are permitted to change our minds. I for one have changed my mind on many issues, often fast, depending on how the facts flow.

So second referendum on the current facts then?

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

As for economic predictions, they are almost always wrong or, at best, massively exaggerated. Trusting economic predictions, particularly those that predict 15-20 years ahead, is a fool's game.

Brexiteers have tried to paint these predictions as technical and theoretical because they don't like the outcomes, but they are in fact very simple. If you put up barriers to trade, there will be less trade. If you eliminate barriers, there will be more.

Brexit means the UK erecting barriers between itself and its biggest, nearest markets. There will be less trade. That means less money. It is very simple, and the only question is how big the barriers will be and how much it will cost the UK and its trading partners. Best guess for Johnson's deal is £70bn in the first 10 years vs. Remain, roughly the GDP of Wales.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofstadt a few weeks ago).

That 60% figure is incorrect and it ignores two huge factors in the UK (i) the common law system is inherently unwritten for the post part (ii) the lack of a written constitution.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

In summary 60% is far too high and 13% is quite low, so it's likely somewhere in the middle if you ignore common law. If you include common law, it would be lower still.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofstadt a few weeks ago).

That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers.

Well perhaps they should have read the Treaty of Rome before they started getting the vapours about what Guy Verhofstadt said.

The very first line says:

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

Oh, and that 60% of laws figure came from none other than Boris Johnson. Who arrived at that figure by adding in EU regulations that aren't enshrined in UK law. To do that and make it relevant, he'd also have to add in all regulations adopted by local councils and other government bodies that also don't go into statute law. Leaving them out, cuts the figure down to 13%. Actual statute law.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote:

(1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)

Kind of. They pretended that they could leave the Single Market but keep unchanged "access" to the Single Market from outside it via some brilliant deal they would negotiate very easily.

Complete baloney from day one.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, there are two visions of Europe on offer; one in which the UK approximates back to the nation-state, or a future Superstate in which the EU governs, centralises yet more power, and expands to the East.

However you cut it, that latter option will never be swallowed by European peoples, as much as its foisted and argued and defended.

"The EU" can do none of these things without the member states agreeing to it.

The EU is not an entity that exists really in its own right. The EU is the member states.

SeaBreezes

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not always about economics.

For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.

Many people would rather suffer some sort of GDP loss in the hope for restoring the above.

As for economic predictions, they are almost always wrong or, at best, massively exaggerated. Trusting economic predictions, particularly those that predict 15-20 years ahead, is a fool's game.

Economics - has and always will - be weaponised by as a means to keep populations on side, voting for what's in the interests of the EU power structures and those alone.

Ha. Only if your wealthy and can ride it out, or make money on the crash.
JRMs dad literally wrote the book on how to harness nationalism, crash an economy and profit from it...

Yes, you've had enough of economic experts have you? Funny not one single report shows it's a good thing. Not. One. Single. Report.

You've always had democratic control.. control of migration, .. and choose not to control your borders..

And now Trump is gunning for your NHS.

Your right, it's not all about economics. It's about making more money for the wealthy at the expense of the populace.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, for example, insisting that "no deal" be taken off the table in negotiations. That's fine if you want to throw the spanner in the works for the Tory's attempt at negotiation but is a disingenuous position in real life. The average punter knows you can't negotiate with that constraint especially if it is known to the other side.

I think that is a very weak argument, pretending that the UK would have gone through with no-deal was always a transparent bluff. When the other side knows you are bluffing, the bluff is pointless.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

That link shows Johnson's quotes many years before the referendum.

Anyway, we are permitted to change our minds. I for one have changed my mind on many issues, often fast, depending on how the facts flow.

George Galloway was pro-EU, but came down on Brexit at the time of the referendum.

Not an advocate for him, but take the general point.

2013 is three years before the referendum. I'd suggest that three years after it, far more has changed. Most notably a lot more detail has become clear that wasn't known to the general public in 2016.

What facts changed between 2013 and 2016? Nothing comparable to pre and post referendum, I'll wager.

High time for a new referendum so, to see who has changed their mind since then, don't you think?

The UK has democratic deficiencies, like all countries. Let's not add to those deficiencies with even more deficiencies that are further away from ordinary people.

Second, there are two visions of Europe on offer; one in which the UK approximates back to the nation-state, or a future Superstate in which the EU governs, centralises yet more power, and expands to the East.

However you cut it, that latter option will never be swallowed by European peoples, as much as its foisted and argued and defended.

So, you support another referendum then?
Seeing as you're confident that people won't have changed their minds because (you think) it's not about the extra money they were promised?

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

I can see why these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.

MPs did not impose the constraint, economic reality did. It is a simple fact that a no-deal Brexit would have been devestating for the UK and that is why MPs were forced to prevent it. It was not a cynical ploy to frustrate the government, it was a requirement of the national interest. That is why the British government would never and will never go through with no deal. Its a bluff, a transparent one, and anyone who actually believes that it is a credible option is not serious and does not have a clue what they are talking about.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think that is a very weak argument, pretending that the UK would have gone through with no-deal was always a transparent bluff. When the other side knows you are bluffing, the bluff is pointless.

However it was believed that Johnson would go through with it if push came to shove. The proof is that elements of his own parliament moved to block him. This was before the deal had been finalized with the EU. Had they believed that he was not going to carry out his intentions then the easiest and most politically profitable would have been to call his bluff on the matter and watch him back down at the last minute in humiliation.

Of course we will never really know but it does come across that he was serious about his intentions and this will be reflected in how people vote in the UK.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it was believed that Johnson would go through with it if push came to shove. The proof is that elements of his own parliament moved to block him. Had they believed that he was not going to carry out his intentions then the easiest and most politically profitable would have been to call his bluff on the matter and watch him back down at the last minute in humiliation.

Yes it was believed that Johnson would potentially go through with it. The point is that the EU did not, and do not, see that as a credible threat as it would damage the UK so much that they would have to reverse course. It is not going to pressure them into giving up anything on their side.

It not being a "credible threat" is not suggesting it wouldn't happen. It is saying it is an incredibly stupid thing to do that will harm those threatening it far more than it will the EU itself.

ArmaniJeanss

Nigel Farage going to make the strategy announcement from 11am.
But from what Richard Tice and Anne Widdicombe have said so far in the pre main-event speeches, it does look as if they are going to target 100s of constituencies rather than a select few.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

MPs did not impose the constraint, economic reality did. It is a simple fact that a no-deal Brexit would have been devestating for the UK and that is why MPs were forced to prevent it. It was not a cynical ploy to frustrate the government, it was a requirement of the national interest. That is why the British government would never and will never go through with no deal. Its a bluff, a transparent one, and anyone who actually believes that it is a credible option is not serious and does not have a clue what they are talking about.

However it had people worried for a time and that is what you want when negotiating. As I said he gave a very good impression of someone willing to carry out his intentions and no one called his bluff on it. The EU could have said "All right, go ahead and see what happens" but they did not.

FreudianSlippers

Podge_irl wrote: »

"The EU" can do none of these things without the member states agreeing to it.

The EU is not an entity that exists really in its own right. The EU is the member states.

Exactly, the EU is basically a less-federalsed version of the USA.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yet that was Johnson's stance: "We will leave on the 31st October come what may" and although some in the Tory party opposed him, he was elected overwhelmingly by that party as leader on that very stance which he maintained publicly until very recently.

Even when he was told he would have to ask for an extension, he still maintained that he would bring the UK out on the 31st.

The deal, such as it was, was only obtained because people thought he might actually go through with it. From Ireland's point of view it is a worse deal than May's deal, yet Varadkar was seen to be publicly supporting it. The reason for this is that it is better from our point of view than no deal which would be a calamity for Ireland.

If we believed that Boris could not walk away from the deal then it would have made much more sense for Ireland to continue to insist on May's deal as we had been doing and not reopen negotiations.

Yes, he engaged in the pretence for a while, but that is all it was. When it came to it, he bent over backwards to get a deal that showed him up to be a liar.

The reality is that the frontstop is better for Ireland when it comes to the border issue as it is now clear that NI is permanently linked to this country economically. No more if, buts or maybe's. No more insurance policy or unless and untill. It is now just a fact that NI is economically part of Ireland and not part of the UK with a border down the Irish sea.

This is something no British prime minister could ever agree to I remember being told. Indeed we were once being lectured that Ireland had overplayed its hand because the UK would never agree to an economic border within its territory and thus our red lines over NI had ensured there would be no deal.

When push came to shove, it was Borris Johnson, Mr No-Deal himself, who had to accept that he was overplaying his hand and had to back down.

volchitsa

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it was believed that Johnson would go through with it if push came to shove. The proof is that elements of his own parliament moved to block him. This was before the deal had been finalized with the EU. Had they believed that he was not going to carry out his intentions then the easiest and most politically profitable would have been to call his bluff on the matter and watch him back down at the last minute in humiliation.

Their own fault of course, but they have elected as PM someone with a known record of incompetence in previous posts - look at how he (accidentally) ensured that Nazarin Zaghari-Radcliffe was found guilty of spying by the Iranians using his own claim, in an interview that was meant to help her, that she had gone to Iran to teach journalism, when her defence was that she was visiting her parents.

When you have let the bull into the china shop yourself, it's unwise to just expect him to tread delicately around the shelves without breaking anything.

ancapailldorcha

Use individuals' proper names please. Post deleted.

FreudianSlippers

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Nigel Farage going to make the strategy announcement from 11am.
But from what Richard Tice and Anne Widdicombe have said so far in the pre main-event speeches, it does look as if they are going to target 100s of constituencies rather than a select few.

Will be interesting to see if Donald's call with Farage had any impact on what their strategy will be vis-a-vis some kind of electoral pact with the Tories.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU could have said "All right, go ahead and see what happens" but they did not.

Yes, they did.

The EU did not offer him any concessions or compromises while he had his No Deal bluff going.

After the Benn Act was law on the 9th September and No Deal was off the table, he was cornered, and had no path to Brexit by his deadline of 31st October. THEN Varadkar visited and suggested he pivot back to the original backstop on 10th October.

So the EU did call his bluff, and Parliament took his No Deal card away before the EU offered a "new" compromise.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it had people worried for a time and that is what you want when negotiating. As I said he gave a very good impression of someone willing to carry out his intentions and no one called his bluff on it. The EU could have said "All right, go ahead and see what happens" but they did not.

He had people in the HoC worried. So much so, that they put a law in place to prevent him from doing it. And that Act was introduced as a bill on the 4th September. Before Johnson started looking for a deal in earnest. And what's worse for Johnson, by that time, he'd reduced his 'majority' in the HoC to -45. So everyone knew that the 'no deal' brexit gun that he was pointing at his own head was loaded with blanks. So yes, his bluff was called and his threat was neutered well before he came crawling back, looking for a deal. Any deal. And the deal he got was one that had to be rooted out of the 2017 filing cabinet and freshened up with a coat of frontstop.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes it was believed that Johnson would potentially go through with it. The point is that the EU did not, and do not, see that as a credible threat as it would damage the UK so much that they would have to reverse course. It is not going to pressure them into giving up anything on their side.

It not being a "credible threat" is not suggesting it wouldn't happen. It is saying it is an incredibly stupid thing to do that will harm those threatening it far more than it will the EU itself.

I agree with you that economically the UK would have incurred more damage than the EU, but the EU would have still have incurred damage. That the UK gets to suffer more damage is no compensation for someone losing their job in another part of the EU.

This is why if the EU fully believed that Johnson was not going to go through with it, they would simply have stuck with the original May deal. Remember the stance was very much that the UK had already agreed to that deal and that therefore there was no need to reopen it.

Things started changing shortly after Boris was elected. In particular, if you remember, Merkel announced that they would be willing to entertain alternatives to the backstop.

Even if you stand to lose more, you still need to be able to walk away in negotiations. Standing to lose more simply means you have to be more strident in you willingness and Johnson was certainly that.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not always about economics.

For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.

Many people would rather suffer some sort of GDP loss in the hope for restoring the above.

Except that the people haven't restored any of that. The UK government always had full control over that. 2/3rds of immigration was from non-EU countries, the 1/3rd of EU migration was primarily due to the once off (and never to be repeated) effects of the UK government's decision to allow instant access to the new EU accession states (unlike the vast majority of other states). Aside from the fact that there are no potential accession states which have a similar population and so that was only ever a once off event (even if the UK government wanted it to happen again), especially given the fact that those countries themselves are growing robustly and providing opportunities to their own citizens, it should be noted that the UK massively benefited from the introduction of young educated workers who didn't burden the social welfare system and were free to travel home and around Europe to look for work (hence why the UK government wanted these people in the first place).

But whether you agree with allowing that to happen or not, in either case it was a once in history event- there will never again be an expansion of the EU of the same type.

This is aside from the fact that the UK government doesn't use the mechanisms in EU law to return non working EU citizens.
So the UK government has been and continues to be in complete control of migration and even if you disagree with the UK government's decision regarding allowing instant access to the new accession states (which was only ever a fraction of overall migration), in any case that has now petered out as those economies have grown and can never be repeated.

In any case, since it was and is the UK government in control- why do you believe they will listen to you in future if you think they didn't listen to you in the past?

Deleted User wrote: »

As for economic predictions, they are almost always wrong or, at best, massively exaggerated. Trusting economic predictions, particularly those that predict 15-20 years ahead, is a fool's game.

Economics - has and always will - be weaponised by as a means to keep populations on side, voting for what's in the interests of the EU power structures and those alone.

Except that the alternative is voting for the interests of the far more corrupt and far more corruptible sham democratic UK power structures - the same power structures which have been influenced and controlled by the Russian state and American oligarchs. At least in the EU the EU member states have the power, knowledge and interest to fight such influence.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, they did.

The EU did not offer him any concessions or compromises while he had his No Deal bluff going.

After the Benn Act was law on the 9th September and No Deal was off the table, he was cornered, and had no path to Brexit by his deadline of 31st October. THEN Varadkar visited and suggested he pivot back to the original backstop on 10th October.

So the EU did call his bluff, and Parliament took his No Deal card away before the EU offered a "new" compromise.

Well no. Merkel suggested that alternatives to the backstop would be entertained and this suggestion was before the Benn act came into force. Previously that would have been unthinkable.

Movement was already underway.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it had people worried for a time and that is what you want when negotiating. As I said he gave a very good impression of someone willing to carry out his intentions and no one called his bluff on it. The EU could have said "All right, go ahead and see what happens" but they did not.

Johnson had the UK worried that he might go through with the no deal, not the EU.

As far as the EU was concerned if the UK chose to go for no deal then it's a bit unfortunate, but not a lot they could do about it, and they didn't give Johnson anything because of that threat.

ArmaniJeanss

Nigel's speech so far is a dream for Remainers/LibDems/Labour.

Asking the implausible of Johnson (to reject his own deal), threatening to stand in every constituency if he doesn't, and saying a no-aggression pact at local level can only be done with Tory candidates who reject the deal.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

Johnson had the UK worried that he might go through with the no deal, not the EU.

As far as the EU was concerned if the UK chose to go for no deal then it's a bit unfortunate, but not a lot they could do about it, and they didn't give Johnson anything because of that threat.

However what about Ireland and the hard border and all that stuff? I thought the EU cared about Ireland.