Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

mcmoustache · 10-09-2019 11:52pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It won't be pretty, that's the only certainty.

If there's one thing I've learned over the past few years, it's that predictions are a fool's errand.

But it not being pretty has been very consistent theme.

Professor Moriarty · 10-09-2019 11:58pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Most if not all of the Tories' 13 seats in Scotland will be gone.

The Tories will struggle badly to win back a lot of the rebels' seats.

They'll struggle to hold any urban seats.

That's a lot of midlands and northern marginals they have to gain just to stand still.

A lot of people are now happy to dump party loyalty to get their version of Leave/Remain. If a deal is done between the Tories and the Brexit Party, the Tories will get a majority.

20silkcut · 11-09-2019 12:13am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A lot of people are now happy to dump party loyalty to get their version of Leave/Remain. If a deal is done between the Tories and the Brexit Party, the Tories will get a majority.

May not be a bad thing either.
At least a lot of doubt is removed.
The narrative of Britain crashing out on the strength of a three year old dodgy,tight referendum will be old news.

It will be clear that the majority in Britain definitely want to leave which should reduce the toxicity.

The DUP won’t be holding the balance of power.
The NI backstop becomes a solvable issue with all sides giving a little.

An orderly brexit, even of the hard variety, would a welcome outcome at this stage.
We can all move on with our lives. The next brexit thread on here could be a slow one.

Whatever happens it needs to be very decisive to finally put this monster to bed.
Anything like the current arithmetic will be an endless nightmare.

Imreoir2 · 11-09-2019 12:26am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One political party has a veto on it?
How would that fly?

Presumable through Stormont.

hill16bhoy · 11-09-2019 12:50am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A lot of people are now happy to dump party loyalty to get their version of Leave/Remain. If a deal is done between the Tories and the Brexit Party, the Tories will get a majority.

I don't think it's that simple at all.

The 2017 election was expected by many to be all about Brexit and ended up being about everything but Brexit.

Brexit will certainly feature much more heavily this time as an issue but other usual election issues will inevitably come into focus.

Johnson is not a particularly good campaigner and is looking increasingly unhinged in his public appearances.

He wasn't great during the Tory leadership campaign.

11-09-2019 12:59am

Would I be right in saying that the referendum to leave was a 48/52% split?

If so, why aren't they just re-doing the referendum? It's far too close to a 50/50 split, and at least if they re-did it now, people could have a better idea of what's to be expected, what the potential issues that might arise are, etc. and would be able to make a more informed vote as a result?

And if there's a tidal wave of stay or leave (instead of a practical 50/50 split) then at least you know exactly where you stand.

Tell me how · 11-09-2019 1:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that the referendum to leave was a 48/52% split?

If so, why aren't they just re-doing the referendum? It's far too close to a 50/50 split, and at least if they re-did it now, people could have a better idea of what's to be expected, what the potential issues that might arise are, etc. and would be able to make a more informed vote as a result?

And if there's a tidal wave of stay or leave (instead of a practical 50/50 split) then at least you know exactly where you stand.

Because, the Brexiteers know that a referendum now is likely to return a Remain preference.
Because even Leavers feel that the result of the 1st referendum should be honoured given that it was supposed to be a simple In/Out vote with the majority winning.

The max either side would win by now would by 45-55 majority I reckon but, if it was held, and Remain won, Brexiteers would scream there should be a third referendum.

It is probably the single most nationally divisive topic in most of our life times.

It was very poorly structured in that in/out adjudication and then very poorly managed by the government (and the opposition) who both publicly were said to want Remain and yet allowed the Leave vote to p*ss all over them in terms of dramatic statements and misinformation.

Tell me how · 11-09-2019 1:23am

Listened to Bertie Ahern on Eamon Dunphy's podcast from earlier today.
Found it an excellent insight in to what is going on, what should have happened, what could happen and so on.

Not often I come away from hearing Bertie speak and thinking he really knows what he's talking about but I found this very good.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2019 2:54am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A lot of people are now happy to dump party loyalty to get their version of Leave/Remain. If a deal is done between the Tories and the Brexit Party, the Tories will get a majority.

I wouldn't assume that at all. It depends on the terms of the deal.

BXP is a no-deal party; this is their desired outcome. Farage has indicated that he is open to a pact with the Tories if they, too, commit to targetting no deal.

While Johnson may, in the view of some, have been targetting no deal for some time now, his stated position is that he wants a deal. He has adopted this position because he believes it to be politically advantagous, even politically necessary. That's because there are plenty of moderate Tory MPs , and plenty of moderate Tory voters or potential Tory voters, who think no-deal would be a disaster.

Which means a pact with Farage, involving a commitment to no-deal Breist, gives rise to two risks:

First, moderate Tory voters are alienated; they vote Lib Dem, or they simply fail to vote. To win the election Johnson needs to capture the BXP voters while retaining current Tory voters, including those repelled by the BXP position. This may turn out to be impossible.

Secondly, even if Johnson gets a majority, his majority may still depend on a number of Tory MPs who regard no-deal as unconscionable. And of course after the election Johnson has no further use for the BXP; it's his own parliamentary party that he will be depending on. So he doesn't necessarily have the kind of majority that will enable him to drive a no-deal brexit through.

Jim2007 · 11-09-2019 3:00am

Tell me how wrote: »

Listened to Bertie Ahern on Eamon Dunphy's podcast from earlier today.
Found it an excellent insight in to what is going on, what should have happened, what could happen and so on.

Not often I come away from hearing Bertie speak and thinking he really knows what he's talking about but I found this very good.

The GFA came about because it just so happened that all the right people happened to be in the right positions at the right time and in the right mindset.

- First of all had all the prep work doing by previous FF & FG leaders in educating the the Brits on NI affairs
- You had Bertie Ahern, who was a very experienced negotiator from resolving
industrial disputes
- You had Toney Blair who had an Irish background and spent holidays as a youth in Donegal
- You had the right support in the US Congress
- You had Clinton as president who supported the process and was willing to move Irish affairs from the State Department to the White House to make it happen
- You had leaders on both sides in NI that had sufficient creditability with their people to be able to pull it off
- and you had a willingness on all sides to make it happen

We need to be very careful about pulling this thing apart, because the chances of getting all the factors lined up again in the next few years are not very high.

jimmycrackcorm · 11-09-2019 3:18am

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1171532688991256577

Most interesting or highest disparity in that:

"I would prefer to stay in the EU than have Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister"

Agree: 50%
Disagree: 22%
Don't Know: 28%

jimmycrackcorm · 11-09-2019 3:37am

Jim2007 wrote: »

The GFA came about because it just so happened that all the right people happened to be in the right positions at the right time and in the right mindset.

- First of all had all the prep work doing by previous FF & FG leaders in educating the the Brits on NI affairs
- You had Bertie Ahern, who was a very experienced negotiator from resolving
industrial disputes
- You had Toney Blair who had an Irish background and spent holidays as a youth in Donegal
- You had the right support in the US Congress
- You had Clinton as president who supported the process and was willing to move Irish affairs from the State Department to the White House to make it happen
- You had leaders on both sides in NI that had sufficient creditability with their people to be able to pull it off
- and you had a willingness on all sides to make it happen

We need to be very careful about pulling this thing apart, because the chances of getting all the factors lined up again in the next few years are not very high.

And you had the DUP who screamed the roof down about the GFA. In particular Arlene well walked out of Stormont just before the GFA was announced.

This might have been posted before but it's a great read of a moderate unionist viewpoint that shows up the support for remain in NI :

https://ansionnachfionn.com/2019/07/30/a-unionist-perspective-on-the-dup-and-brexit/

fash · 11-09-2019 3:56am

jm08 wrote: »

Just watched Jeffrey Donaldson interview on Primetime. He seemed to be approving enough about the all-Ireland agric. part. Delighted with the support from Bertie and Michael Martin. His big worry though was access and tariffs to the GB market.

From what I got from the interview is that he realises the game is up and is now holding out for some sort of sweetner from Boris (such as making NI a tariff free zone). They could probably sell it as a kick in the balls to the ROI as NI would have a competitive edge.

Not sure that would work but they could stick in a few free ports etc. in DUP areas. They create borders but the borders are away from the real border and they work by sucking investment from areas nearby.

lawred2 · 11-09-2019 7:03am

Tell me how wrote: »

Listened to Bertie Ahern on Eamon Dunphy's podcast from earlier today.
Found it an excellent insight in to what is going on, what should have happened, what could happen and so on.

Not often I come away from hearing Bertie speak and thinking he really knows what he's talking about but I found this very good.

Where NI is concerned, there are not many more clued in than Bertie.

lawred2 · 11-09-2019 7:06am

Jim2007 wrote: »

The GFA came about because it just so happened that all the right people happened to be in the right positions at the right time and in the right mindset.

- First of all had all the prep work doing by previous FF & FG leaders in educating the the Brits on NI affairs
- You had Bertie Ahern, who was a very experienced negotiator from resolving
industrial disputes
- You had Toney Blair who had an Irish background and spent holidays as a youth in Donegal
- You had the right support in the US Congress
- You had Clinton as president who supported the process and was willing to move Irish affairs from the State Department to the White House to make it happen
- You had leaders on both sides in NI that had sufficient creditability with their people to be able to pull it off
- and you had a willingness on all sides to make it happen

We need to be very careful about pulling this thing apart, because the chances of getting all the factors lined up again in the next few years are not very high.

Well said. Scary really when you put it in such context. We saw the alignment of many many cogs during that time including willing and capable leaders in NI.

11-09-2019 7:20am

lawred2 wrote: »

Well said. Scary really when you put it in such context. We saw the alignment of many many cogs during that time including willing and capable leaders in NI.

Yeah, that post really hit the point home.

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 7:40am

There is a lot to be said for the state of UK politics, but the decisions they make among themselves and their fellow elites while the public is just expected to swallow it and thank them for it is astonishing really. Take the following tweets really as an example,

https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1171328568414089222?s=20

The next tweet spells it out really, Nick Timothy screwed up everything really and he gets rewarded with a higher honour than one of the many ordinary folk who will have contributed much more to people's lives than he ever will. Yet he gets rewarded for failing by moving upwards.

Then the next troubling story that is related to the honours and Brexit.

https://twitter.com/shahmiruk/status/1171449845954928640?s=20

So that is lamenting that one of the people who was supposed to investigate the illegalities during the referendum getting an honour alongside the person she was supposed to be investigating. This stinks to high heaven, there was stories about the investigations almost stopping due to political sensitivities (or something like that) and now you have the person in charge of the investigation getting an honour? Why? Because she refused to investigate with the full force she could?

Then related to all of this is the news that the person who was the mastermind behind all those law breaking looking for all the information from Gov.uk users and to have all of their data in one place. The robbery is happening right in front of people and they seem to be merely shrugging or laughing it off as a conspiracy theory, while proclaiming Cummings as some sort of genius.

https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1171557404393246721?s=20

And here is a small thread from Carole Cadwalladr about these same tactics in 2017.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171540235257352192?s=20

It is a little depressing really that I know already how to spell her surname as well, I wish I didn't have to as the assault on our personal data for personal gain of others should really concern us all. The plan for Cambridge Analytica/SCL was to win government contracts on projects that would allow them to have access to people's information which they in turn would harvest and use in upcoming election. But now the fox is in the hen house and he has access to it all, or at least it trying to get it.

Dyr · 11-09-2019 7:42am

Jim2007 wrote: »

The GFA came about because it just so happened that all the right people happened to be in the right positions at the right time and in the right mindset.

- First of all had all the prep work doing by previous FF & FG leaders in educating the the Brits on NI affairs
- You had Bertie Ahern, who was a very experienced negotiator from resolving
industrial disputes
- You had Toney Blair who had an Irish background and spent holidays as a youth in Donegal
- You had the right support in the US Congress
- You had Clinton as president who supported the process and was willing to move Irish affairs from the State Department to the White House to make it happen
- You had leaders on both sides in NI that had sufficient creditability with their people to be able to pull it off
- and you had a willingness on all sides to make it happen

We need to be very careful about pulling this thing apart, because the chances of getting all the factors lined up again in the next few years are not very high.

Bertie only came into the picture at the heel of the hunt, it was the absence of thatcher and the presence of Reynolds that set up the good Friday agreement

ancapailldorcha · 11-09-2019 7:56am

Meanwhile it looks like the Tory-BXP pact will come at a higher cost than many imagined:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171540275975602176?s=19

Johnson would be unwise to accede to this IMO. I think Farage is overestimating his chances but even so, an accord would mean curtailing a potential Conservative victory.

Akrasia · 11-09-2019 8:02am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Most interesting or highest disparity in that:

"I would prefer to stay in the EU than have Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister"

Agree: 50%
Disagree: 22%
Don't Know: 28%

It’s almost as though the British public have been confused and bewildered by so much propaganda over the last few years that they don’t know what to think anymore

Peregrinus · 11-09-2019 8:25am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Meanwhile it looks like the Tory-BXP pact will come at a higher cost than many imagined:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171540275975602176?s=19

Johnson would be unwise to accede to this IMO. I think Farage is overestimating his chances but even so, an accord would mean curtailing a potential Conservative victory.

Johnson can't accede to this. Reportedly, one of Farage's demands for this is "a two year standstill agreement with Brussels", and of course that's not within Johnson's gift. A standstill agreement with Brussels requires agreement with Brussels, not with Johnson.

A 14-month standstill is of course one feature of the Withdrawal Agreement, but there is no chance whatsoever that the EU will facilitate Johnson in extracting this feature, extending it to 24 months, and dropping the rest of the WA in order to smooth the way for an electoral pact between the Tories and the BXP.

Farage presumably knows this. So what he is doing here is the appearance of making an offer to the Tories with the intention that in fact no pact will result. Farage is in fact doing to Johnson what Johnson has been trying to do to the EU - claiming to want a deal while adopting a position which makes a deal impossible.

LeinsterDub · 11-09-2019 8:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Johnson can't accede to this. Reportedly, one of Farage's demands for this is "a two year standstill agreement with Brussels", and of course that's not within Johnson's gift. A standstill agreement with Brussels requires agreement with Brussels, not with Johnson.

A 14-month standstill is of course one feature of the Withdrawal Agreement, but there is no chance whatsoever that the EU will facilitate Johnson in extracting this feature, extending it to 24 months, and dropping the rest of the WA in order to smooth the way for an electoral pact between the Tories and the BXP.

Farage presumably knows this. So what he is doing here is the appearance of making an offer to the Tories with the intention that in fact no pact will result. Farage is in fact doing to Johnson what Johnson has been trying to do to the EU - claiming to want a deal while adopting a position which makes a deal impossible.

Hadn't even thought of that. Wonderful analysis as always Peregrinus

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 8:52am

I think Farage is wanting his cake and want to eat it as well. If he has a pact with the Tories he wins a seat most likely and sits in the HoC, if they decline and the Tories lose the election then the UK most likely doesn't leave the EU and he keeps his EU MEP job. It is a win win for him.

Edit: Just came across this tweet.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171691602772996097?s=20

Another casualty of proroguing parliament, PayPal gets to miss out on questioning and their role in funding the Brexit Party and the likes of Katie Hopkins spewing hate, but will now not have to testify.

11-09-2019 9:14am

Enzokk wrote: »

And here is a small thread from Carole Cadwalladr about these same tactics in 2017.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171540235257352192?s=20

It is a little depressing really that I know already how to spell her surname as well, I wish I didn't have to as the assault on our personal data for personal gain of others should really concern us all. The plan for Cambridge Analytica/SCL was to win government contracts on projects that would allow them to have access to people's information which they in turn would harvest and use in upcoming election. But now the fox is in the hen house and he has access to it all, or at least it trying to get it.

'The Great Hack' is a good Netflix documentary to watch for those uninitiated with Cambridge Analytica and/or Carole Cadwalladr. It's not a perfect watch, but it demonstrates just how our data is being weaponised today for political gain and private profit.

It's quite eye-opening to see how these people operate. It's the kind of stuff which would be confined to ludicrous conspiracy theories, only you have one former CA/SCL COO and CFO recounting the company's methods throughout the documentary, plus their ongoing chief recorded on hidden camera in a meeting with a potential client bragging about how CA (or SCL) delivered results in a previous foreign election. He goes into examples about videoing political opponents with prostitutes and using the footage for blackmail purposes. Bribery is also discussed.

What SCL pulled in Trinidad and Tobago with the 'Do So' campaign among young Afro-Caribbean voters (increasing apathy, encouraging them to be 'heard' by staying at home and not using their vote) was enough to deliver that election to their clients, the United National Congress who were mostly Indian.

Election and voter manipulation is in a golden age, and the next UK General Election is going to be peak. If Cummings is demanding the prioritisation of this data collection, you can see the method to victory he is planning. Photoshops of JFC, language like "Surrender Bill" and jokes about chlorinated chicken are for the front pages and those voters not in the online sphere. The real battle and concentration will be on finding appropriate demographics online and bombarding them with a very honed and specific message.

Thankfully Carole Cadwalladr is busy, but we need many more of her.

farmchoice · 11-09-2019 9:18am

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2019 9:27am

farmchoice wrote: »

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

SFAIK the suggestion is that they received donations through Paypal, and that those donations were intentionally broken down into a large number of small donations so as to avoid a requirement to disclose large donations, and that Paypal records and data will show that this happened. I don't think that there is any suggestion that Paypal itself made any donations, or that it was complicit in a plan to evade disclosure obligations; just that it was the vehicle through which the perpatrators did this , and so its records contain the relevant evidence.

VinLieger · 11-09-2019 9:29am

farmchoice wrote: »

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

A private corporation being made to enforce their TOS and rules has nothing to do with stifling free speech or stopping people fundraising.

Its similar to Gemma OD and youtube, she broke the rules, twice, so her channel was shut down, she claims this is anti free speech but they as a private corporation have no legal obligation to provide her a platform

farmchoice · 11-09-2019 9:42am

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK the suggestion is that they received donations through Paypal, and that those donations were intentionally broken down into a large number of small donations so as to avoid a requirement to disclose large donations, and that Paypal records and data will show that this happened. I don't think that there is any suggestion that Paypal itself made any donations, or that it was complicit in a plan to evade disclosure obligations; just that it was the vehicle through which the perpatrators did this , and so its records contain the relevant evidence.

right that makes sense so Paypal are being less then forth coming in revealing their data.

who was asking them for it, was it just journalists who were conducting an investigation or was it some state agency. I'm assuming it was not part of a police investigation.

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 9:43am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Farage presumably knows this. So what he is doing here is the appearance of making an offer to the Tories with the intention that in fact no pact will result.

Which tells us what the Brexit Party are going to do at the next election. They have decided the Tories are not going for No Deal, so they can run against them and bleed off Brexit voters.

This will hurt the Tories and let in Remain parties, Brexit won't happen, and Farage can run a Brexit Party (under whatever name) until he retires. The suckers who kicked in £100 a month to fund his Party get what they deserve.

listermint · 11-09-2019 9:44am

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A hard border was not voted on.

The referendum was a simple in/out of the EU question.

Literally nothing else was voted on.

Not the single market, not the customs union, not trade deals, not the NHS, not deregulation, not immigration.

That's how Leave won and why Leave campaigners abandoned the project of coming up with a realistic Brexit proposal some years before 2016, and were as vague as they possibly could be and promised the sun, the moon and the stars to everybody.

Half analysis and not entirely accurate.

The leave campaign was entirely based on leaving the EU whilst retaining all the benefits. That was their manifesto. It was what they said in interviews it's what the distributed in print and in social media.

Basically everything will stay the same but we will be out of the EUs rules controls. Anything else is project fear.

So people voted on the status quo with no EU a simple but false message.

It wasn't a simple out message as you have tried to paint here.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments