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

listermint

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you’re a remain voter remaining should be the priority. The Lib Dem’s cannot achieve remain so a vote for them is a vote to leave on Johnson’s deal. The only exception is in a seat where the Lib Dems already hold it or were closest last time out.

Yeah yeah, people don’t like that reality, but there it is. If you’re a remainer in a seat where your Lib Dem candidate cannot win a vote for them is a vote for Johnson’s deal by proxy.

That's not true though. Labour simply cannot win certain areas that LD can.

A remain vote is split. It's not one or the other.

You have to know this...?

LeinsterDub

stefanovich wrote: »

The EU is a protectionist entity at its core.

Are you claiming post brexit the UK won't be protectionist?

I which case that would be a death sentence for UK farming , steal, motoring , fishing and manufacturing

stefanovich

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are you claiming post brexit the UK won't be protectionist?

I which case that would be a death sentence for UK farming , steal, motoring , fishing and manufacturing

Just responding to the other poster and stating the fact that the EU is already protectionist. Doesn't need Brexit to encourage it.

Leroy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you’re a remain voter remaining should be the priority. The Lib Dem’s cannot achieve remain so a vote for them is a vote to leave on Johnson’s deal. The only exception is in a seat where the Lib Dems already hold it or were closest last time out.

Yeah yeah, people don’t like that reality, but there it is. If you’re a remainer in a seat where your Lib Dem candidate cannot win a vote for them is a vote for Johnson’s deal by proxy.

How do you think that? ON that basis you should never vote for any party that will not win! A coalition (or whatever name they call it) of Lib Dems and Labour will definitely result in a 2nd ref and a probable revoke since they would vote campaign for remain.

Labour are not going to get a majority. They have no chance in Scotland, and the polls show that Corbyn is not only disliked, but historically so.

Corbyn very much gives the impression of a man that is quite happy with leave, he just wants to do the deal himself. Adding the Lib Dems to their government would ensure that he cannot simply drift through this.

Bannasidhe

stefanovich wrote: »

Friendly reminder that Brexit has not happened yet. Of course decoupling from the tentacles of the EU is going to be tricky. They deliberately made it that way.

'They' including the UK.
That's the thing isn't it.
The UK joined the EEC in 1975. It was present - and not vetoing - everything that has happened since to create the current EU.

The UK helped write the rules so can hardly complain about 'tentacles'.

stefanovich

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'They' including the UK.
That's the thing isn't it.
The UK joined the EEC in 1975. It was present - and not vetoing - everything that has happened since to create the current EU.

The UK helped write the rules so can hardly complain about 'tentacles'.

The people of the UK have the absolute right to deengage from the EU if they see fit. What Maggie signed up to in 75 is not what we have now.

Dytalus

stefanovich wrote: »

Friendly reminder that Brexit has not happened yet. Of course decoupling from the tentacles of the EU is going to be tricky. They deliberately made it that way.

Disengaging from the EU isn't particularly difficult. Write a letter and two years later it's done.

Disengaging from the EU and not suffering horrific economic shock from losing the Single Market and the largest network of trade deals in the world is pretty difficult.

Disengaging from the EU, not suffering horrific economic shock from losing the Single Market and the largest network of trade deals in the world, and upholding an internationally binding treaty that requires you to maintain an open border with the Single Market without breaking any international obligations...now that is very difficult.

The UK should probably have planned what they wanted and how to handle Brexit before they started the two(+) year countdown with Article 50. Any other country could theoretically see it done in two years - the UK's internal squabbling over what type of Brexit they want has simply dragged the process on.

Bannasidhe

stefanovich wrote: »

The people of the UK have the absolute right to deengage from the EU if they see fit. What Maggie signed up to in 75 is not what we have now.

Maggie didn't sign anything in 1975 - or at least nothing as PM as she didn't get that job until 1979.

No one said the people of the UK couldn't 'disengage' - I said the the UK helped create the EU, write the rules, and had the power to veto any rules they didn't like so it's a bit rich to complain decades later that the rules one helped create are holding one back.

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

The people of the UK have the absolute right to deengage from the EU if they see fit. What Maggie signed up to in 75 is not what we have now.

Of course they do, but they don't have the right to simply walk away from their responsibiliites.

Nobody is stopping the UK from leaving, except themselves. The Tory party voted against their own deal on 3 separate occasions.

Whatever Maggie signed up in 75, it is the UK governments, democratically voted for by the people, that agreed to the changes. You are trying to paint it as the UK signed up a never changing group, then came back after a few years away and found their furniture had all been sold without them knowing!

The UK governments, voted for democratically and sent to the EU to negotiate on behalf of the country, agreed to these changes.

Sam Russell

stefanovich wrote: »

The people of the UK have the absolute right to deengage from the EU if they see fit. What Maggie signed up to in 75 is not what we have now.

Thatcher signed up to nothing in 1975.

She did not become PM until 1979. Her major achievement up to 1975 was, as Education Secretary, depriving school children of their daily supply of school milk during their morning break for which she earned the sobriquet 'Thatcher the milk snatcher'. She later earned other ones.

IAmTheReign

stefanovich wrote: »

Just responding to the other poster and stating the fact that the EU is already protectionist. Doesn't need Brexit to encourage it.

Every trading bloc in the world has some form of barriers to trade. What exactly do you find overly protectionist about the EU and what would you like to see the UK do differently after they leave?

stefanovich

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thatcher signed up to nothing in 1975.

She did not become PM until 1979. Her major achievement up to 1975 was, as Education Secretary, depriving school children of their daily supply of school milk during their morning break for which she earned the sobriquet 'Thatcher the milk snatcher'. She later earned other ones.

She was a vocal supporter of the EEC in 75

stefanovich

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Every trading bloc in the world has some form of barriers to trade. What exactly do you find overly protectionist about the EU and what would you like to see the UK do differently after they leave?

Exploitation of Africa for one. EU only allows import of raw materials. All the value add happens in the EU and we, as consumers, pay more.

LuckyLloyd

listermint wrote: »

That's not true though. Labour simply cannot win certain areas that LD can.

A remain vote is split. It's not one or the other.

You have to know this...?

I noted above that’s the exception. But how many seats is that? The 20 they hold plus 20 more? There’s certainly over 500 constituencies where remain tendencies can be best reflected by a labour vote and not voting labour makes it more likely a conservative candidate wins the seat - ergo you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.

LeinsterDub

stefanovich wrote: »

Just responding to the other poster and stating the fact that the EU is already protectionist. Doesn't need Brexit to encourage it.

But every trading block is protectionist. So why bother pointing it out?

LeinsterDub

stefanovich wrote: »

Exploitation of Africa for one. EU only allows import of raw materials. All the value add happens in the EU and we, as consumers, pay more.

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/everything-arms

It's hilarious seeing your repeating constantly discredited taking points

listermint

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I noted above that’s the exception. But how many seats is that? The 20 they hold plus 20 more? There’s certainly over 500 constituencies where remain tendencies can be best reflected by a labour vote and not voting labour makes it more likely a conservative candidate wins the seat - ergo you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.

Labour takes all is not possible. It would be quite a juvenile viewpoint given the statistics

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK will still want to buy BMW and Mercedes cars. .

Far more significant is that the UK will want to build and export cars - Mini and Rolls for BMW, Bentley for VW, Jaguar/Land Rover for Tata, Vauxhaulls for PSA and so on.

For that, they will have to remain in the Single Market. They have yet to face this reality.

IAmTheReign

stefanovich wrote: »

Exploitation of Africa for one. EU only allows import of raw materials. All the value add happens in the EU and we, as consumers, pay more.

I'm not sure former colonial powers should be talking about 'exploiting' anyone, least of all Africa. Most of the problems in the continent can be traced back directly to the last time empires took an interest in exploiting the place!

Now where exactly are you getting this idea that the EU only allows the import of raw materials from? Most African countries primarily export raw materials because that's what these countries produce, it's got nothing to do with the EU not allowing them to export finished products. The EU can, and does, import manufactured goods from Africa. See breakdown of African imports here https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:EU-28_imports_of_goods_from_Africa_by_main_product_groups,_2018.png

In fact, the EU is Africas largest trading partner. 36% of Africas exports go to the EU https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:African_export_and_import_shares_with_main_partners,_2018.png

CelticRambler

stefanovich wrote: »

Of course the UK wants a deal, as does the EU. Everything else is just posturing.

The posturing is all on the part of the UK. The EU (post Brexit) would like a favourable trade agreement; the UK will need a trade agreement, favourable or not. It's quite remarkable that the idea of "no deal" being any kind of a threat to the EU is still doing the rounds. For three years, Brexiters have been selling the fantasy that "the EU always caves at the last minute" and for three years, Britain has caved at every "last minute". Even now, Johnson is bragging about his "great deal" when (a) he doesn't even have the opening paragraph of a trade deal in hand; and (b) he came back from Brussels in October with the same WA that the DUP burnt before Theresa May could get it back across the Channel.

But at this stage, it really doesn't matter any more. Johnson is out on the campaign trail spouting lies and exaggerations, reworking the £350m/week Big Red Bus fallacy for every part of the Tory manifesto, and the British electorate don't seem to care. 40 new hospitals (well, 6 refurbishments actually); £12500 NI threshold (well, £9500, the other figure is a "target"); 20000 new police officers (umm, maybe ...); 2% cut in corporation tax (yeah, about that ... )

If this is a "Brexit election" and the British electorate decided to give a mandate to a Prime Minister who can't keep his figures straight from one end of the week to the next, and to a party who have wasted billions on fantasy ferry contracts, compensation payments for awarding said contracts without following public procurement rules, and huge sums poured into dozens (if not hundreds) of contingency projects such as Operation Brock, not to mention the ten years of austerity that created the widespread discontent that led to Brexit ... well, they'll have only themselves to blame if/when the same people fritter away what's left of the country's economy once free of the EU's shackles.

LuckyLloyd

listermint wrote: »

Labour takes all is not possible. It would be quite a juvenile viewpoint given the statistics

Lib Dem’s have 0 chance of a majority. Their revoke stance on Brexit will not be implemented. Juvenile or not, if you’re a remainer in a constituency where Labour are the closest challenger to the Conservatives hold your nose and vote Labour. That’s it. Otherwise you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.

Joe_ Public

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Lib Dem’s have 0 chance of a majority. Their revoke stance on Brexit will not be implemented. Juvenile or not, if you’re a remainer in a constituency where Labour are the closest challenger to the Conservatives hold your nose and vote Labour. That’s it. Otherwise you’re voting for Johnson’s deal.

What you have been saying is correct.

Personally my take on it is that remain voters shouldnt feel they have to vote Labour if that makes them feel so uncomfortable, but come next month if johnson is putting a cabinet together and getting brexit done, they shouldnt have too many complaints about it.

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

if you’re a remainer in a constituency where Labour are the closest challenger to the Conservatives hold your nose and vote Labour.

Yes, and if you are in a constituency where the LibDems are the closest, Labour voters should hold their noses and vote for the LibDem.

So far, there is not much sign of either Labour or the LibDems leadership backing this pragmatic strategy, instead they are attacking each other.

listermint

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and if you are in a constituency where the LibDems are the closest, Labour voters should hold their noses and vote for the LibDem.

So far, there is not much sign of either Labour or the LibDems leadership backing this pragmatic strategy, instead they are attacking each other.

Which seems to be what he is avoiding saying....

I don't know why.

The goal had it be to keep the Tories arses out of seats. This crap about solely voting labour will put the Tories right into power and in a majority. Fact.

LuckyLloyd

listermint wrote: »

Which seems to be what he is avoiding saying....

I don't know why.

The goal had it be to keep the Tories arses out of seats. This crap about solely voting labour will put the Tories right into power and in a majority. Fact.

I didn’t avoid saying it I said it twice!!

But it’s a tiny subset of seats where it holds true for Labour voters voting Lib Dem. For the vast majority of constituencies, it’s Lib Dem remainers who need to do the right thing. That’s why Swinson’s contribution here is more toxic.

Joe_ Public

People are free to blame whomever they want for the lack of tactical strategies, but the reality is Jo Swinson is running a very heavily anti corbyn and labour campaign which makes it even more difficult for labour voters to hold their noses and vote liberal democrat.

Personally i dont have a problem with it. Swinson knows they have to appeal to moderate tory remain voters in order to win their target seats in the south so taking the harsh labour line is how they hope to appeal to them. And by overlooking labours second referendum stance to paint it as a leave party. Thats just politics. But as to how it helps the overall remain cause, I'm not exactly sure.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

People are free to blame whomever they want for the lack of tactical strategies, but the reality is Jo Swinson is running a very heavily anti corbyn and labour campaign which makes it even more difficult for labour voters to hold their noses and vote liberal democrat.

Personally i dont have a problem with it. Swinson knows they have to appeal to moderate tory remain voters in order to win their target seats in the south so taking the harsh labour line is how they hope to appeal to them. And by overlooking labours second referendum stance to paint it as a leave party. Thats just politics. But as to how it helps the overall remain cause, I'm not exactly sure.

As much as I dislike her strategy, it makes sense. There's no reason for her to split the Labour remain vote as she'll likely end up propping him up if she wins enough seats and we see a hung Parliament which I think is the best result as we might see some voting reform this time.

Centrists and those on the centre-right who support remain detest Corbyn so it makes sense for her to slate him to try and win them over given who is leading the Conservative party.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I dislike her strategy, it makes sense. There's no reason for her to split the Labour remain vote as she'll likely end up propping him up if she wins enough seats and we see a hung Parliament which I think is the best result as we might see some voting reform this time.

Centrists and those on the centre-right who support remain detest Corbyn so it makes sense for her to slate him to try and win them over given who is leading the Conservative party.

Seems to me the complexity for Swinson and lib dems is that their optimal electoral strategy is simply not all that compatible with their stated main goal of stopping brexit. So they are playing their best electoral strategy as hard as they can and then hope to work something out later. Ed Davey on newsnight last night was talking about supporting a minority johnson gov which is a very significant development. Seems a dangerous game to me to be playing but it is their election.

CelticRambler

Speaking of Westminster complexity, a few nights ago this bit of whataboutery on my part got lost amongst a mass of eskimo tangents, but I'm still curious as to what would happen:

CelticRambler wrote: »

What happens if Johnson loses his seat? He'll have his name on the WA, but he won't be PM. Presumably he can continue as leader of the Conservative Party, but surely the Tories - even with a majority in the HoC - would need to elect a new PM before they could trot over to Buckingham Palace and tell her they had the makings of a government? What then for the ratification process - would it even be possible for Parliament to request an extension beyond the 31st Jan if the process of forming a government is bogged down in cross party negotiations?

J Mysterio

No integrity Nicki Morgan digging a deeper hole on the FactCheckUK misrepresentation/ con.

https://twitter.com/DeborahMeaden/status/1197450676030320641