Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton · 07-04-2021 8:33pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Britain is proud of their industrial past. They were the first to industrialise. Why do Irish people have a problem with this? So what...

Mod note:

Please engage constructively rather than tilting at windmills

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2021 4:15pm

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

They do like a good social media friendly phrase, particularly one that echoes past glories and nostalgia.

“The Green Industrial Revolution”. It’s all very well but if it’s all branding and no substance, it’ll just be more “Levelling up” and “The Northern Power House” and a collection of other meaningless brands.

Remember Dominic Cummings and the high tech plans ?

The government set up a new independent body to boost career opportunities and professional standards for the UK’s booming cyber security sector.

Except they hadn't registered their own domain name. :rolleyes:

So no worries that they'll have all the software sorted for July for customs controls for EU imports and trade between GB and NI , eh ?

That can will get kicked. Again.

KildareP · 08-04-2021 4:27pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Remember Dominic Cummings and the high tech plans ?

The government set up a new independent body to boost career opportunities and professional standards for the UK’s booming cyber security sector.

Except they hadn't registered their own domain name. :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ. There are no words.

Perhaps now they will need to consider alternative arrangements for getting their domain registered and website online.

Padre_Pio · 08-04-2021 8:03pm

KildareP wrote: »

Jesus Christ. There are no words.

Perhaps now they will need to consider alternative arrangements for getting their domain registered and website online.

I hope they pay that fella a million pound for the domain name.

Reactor · 08-04-2021 11:45pm

SNIP. Don't dump memes here please.

Nody · 09-04-2021 9:53am

Oh dear; that Brexit plan of "Export to our new glorious countries we signed trade deals with" is not going to well, who would have thought...

https://twitter.com/SimonJSpurrell/status/1379785367646306308
Why is this a Brexit dividend? Because EU had negotiated a higher threshold than £20. He further on confirmed currently there is ONE country in the world they can ship to which is USA and that's only because of the EU roll over deal has a $800 allowance for such imports and, well, I'll let him give his own views:
https://twitter.com/SimonJSpurrell/status/1380046942315630595
Clearly they need to add more British flags to the cheese and believe harder to solve this!

timetogo1 · 11-04-2021 8:29am

This guy does a video nearly every day on some part of Brexit. He's pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcacY9p4gI

That one is his new one discussing the shifting of blame onto remainers that a lot of brexiters have been attempting to do over the last week or two. It goes along the lines of "If only remainers ..." (insert some reason here that you can point at remainers).
They have a few targets, Labour, the EU, the Irish. The important part I think is that it's always somebody elses fault.

e.g.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1380214181538979840

It was anticipated. If you were blaming the EU for all of the problems in the UK when you're part of the EU then you need to be able to deflect when people point out you're no longer part of the EU so what's wrong now?

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 10:20am

Well clearly the primary responsibility for the mess lies with the non rebel Tories and other Brexiteer groups. But Im not sure that remainers and the opposition parties are without sin either.

Ultimately there was a catastrophic failure of leadership across the board in the main parties, and the UK is such that the smaller parties often dont get a look in.

Without engaging in recriminations etc, surely with the benefit of hindsight things would have been much better had May's deal been approved. But again hindsight is 20:20.

Ultimately, to borrow a UK import, "a plague upon both your houses"

Sam Russell · 11-04-2021 10:46am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well clearly the primary responsibility for the mess lies with the non rebel Tories and other Brexiteer groups. But Im not sure that remainers and the opposition parties are without sin either.

Ultimately there was a catastrophic failure of leadership across the board in the main parties, and the UK is such that the smaller parties often dont get a look in.

Without engaging in recriminations etc, surely with the benefit of hindsight things would have been much better had May's deal been approved. But again hindsight is 20:20.

Ultimately, to borrow a UK import, "a plague upon both your houses"

The general British public cheered Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper bringing 'Peace in our time'. Another failure of leadership. Would you blame WW II on him?

If - if - if - well lots of possible deviations from what transpired. If wee David had not run for the hills, if May had not become leader with her horror of immigrants, if Corbyn had been a better leader, and lots of other ifs.

History is littered with such might have beens.

Professor Moriarty · 11-04-2021 10:49am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well clearly the primary responsibility for the mess lies with the non rebel Tories and other Brexiteer groups. But Im not sure that remainers and the opposition parties are without sin either.

Ultimately there was a catastrophic failure of leadership across the board in the main parties, and the UK is such that the smaller parties often dont get a look in.

Without engaging in recriminations etc, surely with the benefit of hindsight things would have been much better had May's deal been approved. But again hindsight is 20:20.

Ultimately, to borrow a UK import, "a plague upon both your houses"

Corbyn was a useless disaster. But how were Remain supporting MPs to blame for Brexit? If you don't want Brexit then you don't want Brexit no matter what May or Johnson propose.

ArmaniJeanss · 11-04-2021 11:47am

Looks to be some reasonable 'bounce-back' of trade between UK & France in the March figures. Now on a par with (or even above) pre-Covid levels.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-france-trade-back-at-pre-pandemic-levels-in-march/

Telegraph might have more details, but it's behind a paywall.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/04/09/trade-france-bounces-back-pre-brexit-levels/

ancapailldorcha · 11-04-2021 11:49am

Sam Russell wrote: »

The general British public cheered Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper bringing 'Peace in our time'. Another failure of leadership. Would you blame WW II on him?

If - if - if - well lots of possible deviations from what transpired. If wee David had not run for the hills, if May had not become leader with her horror of immigrants, if Corbyn had been a better leader, and lots of other ifs.

History is littered with such might have beens.

Vote Leave won by using every dirty and divisive trick in the book and playing on people's fears and prejudices. May had a majority with the DUP. If they'd held together, they'd have been able to pass pretty much anything regardless of what the fractious opposition parties did. All the remain side wanted was to prevent damage to the country and they voted accordingly. Vote Leave promised benefits and we'd be in a much better position now if the Vote Leave government we have was held accountable and pressed to deliver said benefits.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-04-2021 1:23pm

Nody wrote: »

Oh dear; that Brexit plan of "Export to our new glorious countries we signed trade deals with" is not going to well, who would have thought...

The one area where the UK were "ahead" was
US suspends tariffs on UK goods in trade dispute

But EU has matched this.
The EU and U.S. agreed today to suspend all retaliatory tariffs on EU and U.S. exports imposed in the Airbus and Boeing disputes for a four-month period.

Can anyone point to a Brexit benefit that isn't someone cashing in on extra paperwork at the expense of many others ?

schmoo2k · 11-04-2021 1:41pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you use the Brave browser and disable scripts, the paywall disappears.

As it happens, though, The Telegraph doesn't really have any more detail than the CityAM - no breakdown in the value of what's being imported or exported. The only extra info is this:

"The latest figures for Germany suggest the recovery during February was only partial.

...

Exports from Germany to the UK were down 12.2pc compared with the same month last year, while imports from Britain fell 26.9pc, up from January falls of 29pc and 56pc respectively."

So still no riding to the rescue by German carmakers ... and the only positive news is coming from the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" beloved of Little Englanders. :pac:

Given the UK aren't blocking any imports (is this true?), that would indicate that there is a 12.2pc drop due to Covid, which might indicate that the export drop from UK -> DE is actually closer 14.7pc?

Strazdas · 11-04-2021 2:20pm

Talk that the UK could have remained in the Single Market via a parliamentary vote in favour misses the point that such a deal would have been sabotaged by the Brexit lunatics in Parliament - they would have collapsed the Tory government if necessary sooner than let it happen.

CelticRambler · 11-04-2021 2:40pm

schmoo2k wrote: »

Given the UK aren't blocking any imports (is this true?), that would indicate that there is a 12.2pc drop due to Covid, which might indicate that the export drop from UK -> DE is actually closer 14.7pc?

Just because the UK is too incompetent to enforce the rules doesn't mean that the rules don't apply, so (a) honest exporters in the EU still have to complete their declarations; and (b) they then have to find hauliers who are happy to transport their goods to the UK with no guarantee of a load on the return journey. So you cannot attribute the whole of the 12.2% to Covid; on the contrary, you could probably attribute just about all of it to Brexit.

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:00pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The general British public cheered Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper bringing 'Peace in our time'. Another failure of leadership. Would you blame WW II on him?

That's a strange analogy with several non sequitors.

In the Brexit Scenario, the May deal had to be approved by the Westminster Parliament. If they had, then that would have been their withdrawal agreement. They had already voted to trigger article 50, so it was incumbent on them to reach a mature and reasonable withdrawal agreement. They voted to leave the UK, then they refused to agree a reasonable withdrawal agreement, leading to them ultimately agreeing the withdrawal agreement which they ultimately did. All these things follow.

The Munich Agreement was only one of a series of events leadings to WWII. Britain did not invade the sudetenland, and they were not voting to decide on German policy. More importantly, however, the direct consequence of the Munich Agreement was the policy of appeasement of Hitler during 1938. Would I blame Chamberlain for the policy of appeasement? Yes, of course I would.

If - if - if - well lots of possible deviations from what transpired. If wee David had not run for the hills, if May had not become leader with her horror of immigrants, if Corbyn had been a better leader, and lots of other ifs.

History is littered with such might have beens.

Are you trying to suggest that we cannot point out that if something else was done, that the consequences would be different? Surely that is an essential part of political debate.

In any event, yes, you are correct - if the Labour party had a responsible attitude towards Brexit, then the all UK backstop could have been introduced, which would have prevented the mess we are in now. As I said quite clearly, but you seem to have ignored, I do not blame everything on them, but I don't think they can be absolved of any involvement.

Labour have learned that they cannot just sit in their ivory tower objecting to things while refusing to commit to a postion. They were punished at the polls for that, and it's only fair. Elected representatives are supposed to do what is right for the country, not make things worse while claiming moral purity.

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:04pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Corbyn was a useless disaster. But how were Remain supporting MPs to blame for Brexit? If you don't want Brexit then you don't want Brexit no matter what May or Johnson propose.

By voting to invoke article 50. The vote was 498 to 114 which leads to one of two conclusions:

1) only 114 MPs were actually in favour of remain; or
2) a significant number of MPs voted to invoke article 50 without any idea as to what terms they would leave the EU on, which is reckless really.

Professor Moriarty · 11-04-2021 4:16pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By voting to invoke article 50. The vote was 498 to 114 which leads to one of two conclusions:

1) only 114 MPs were actually in favour of remain; or
2) a significant number of MPs voted to invoke article 50 without any idea as to what terms they would leave the EU on, which is reckless really.

Corbyn imposed a three line whip on Labour MPs for that vote. Irrespective, you must remember that most Remain MPs were pinning their hopes on a second referendum. As proof, and despite Corbyn, Labour had a second referendum in their manifesto in December 2019 with two options: A softer Brexit or Remain.

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:28pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Corbyn imposed a three line whip on Labour MPs for that vote. Irrespective, you must remember that most Remain MPs were pinning their hopes on a second referendum. As proof, and despite Corbyn, Labour had a second referendum in their manifesto in December 2019 with two options: A softer Brexit or Remain.

Whether Corbyn whipped them or not is not relevant - they voted for it. Therefore, they can't later shirk responsibility for it.

As for their December, 2019 manifesto choice of a softer Brexit or Remain, the option for the softer brexit was voting for May's deal. But they didn't want that, partially because there is no good Brexit and they wanted plausible deniability, but also because the main criticisms that they could come up with at the time were vague along the lines of "This is a Tory Brexit, not a Labour Brexit".

If we look at how well the Irish political parties have come together to deal with Covid, with occasional dissent etc but mostly tolerating it, you can see what responsible legislators can do when there is a serious political crisis. There is a time for playing party politics, and that time is not when there is a national crisis. Unfortunately, Labour didn't get that message.

Enzokk · 11-04-2021 4:34pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Whether Corbyn whipped them or not is not relevant - they voted for it. Therefore, they can't later shirk responsibility for it.

As for their December, 2019 manifesto choice of a softer Brexit or Remain, the option for the softer brexit was voting for May's deal. But they didn't want that, partially because there is no good Brexit and they wanted plausible deniability, but also because the main criticisms that they could come up with at the time were vague along the lines of "This is a Tory Brexit, not a Labour Brexit".

If we look at how well the Irish political parties have come together to deal with Covid, with occasional dissent etc but mostly tolerating it, you can see what responsible legislators can do when there is a serious political crisis. There is a time for playing party politics, and that time is not when there is a national crisis. Unfortunately, Labour didn't get that message.

Question, do you consider the Tories responsible for the UK going to war in Iraq?

Professor Moriarty · 11-04-2021 4:36pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Whether Corbyn whipped them or not is not relevant - they voted for it. Therefore, they can't later shirk responsibility for it.

As for their December, 2019 manifesto choice of a softer Brexit or Remain, the option for the softer brexit was voting for May's deal. But they didn't want that, partially because there is no good Brexit and they wanted plausible deniability, but also because the main criticisms that they could come up with at the time were vague along the lines of "This is a Tory Brexit, not a Labour Brexit".

If we look at how well the Irish political parties have come together to deal with Covid, with occasional dissent etc but mostly tolerating it, you can see what responsible legislators can do when there is a serious political crisis. There is a time for playing party politics, and that time is not when there is a national crisis. Unfortunately, Labour didn't get that message.

No, a three line whip is a direct order from the leadership. Not something to be disregarded. You either accept direct orders from your leadership or you disregard your party members. It's not something you can just handwave away. You must also remember that Brexit was seen as a done deal at that time. So to vote against it would have been seen as a betrayal of the will of the people.

Labour said they would renegotiate a better (softer) Brexit and offer that or Remain in a referendum. That's about as anti Brexit a proposal that you could get.

Ireland doesn't have FPTP which allows for less polarity. In the UK, it is always them or us.

Sam Russell · 11-04-2021 4:39pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's a strange analogy with several non sequitors.

The Munich Agreement was only one of a series of events leadings to WWII. Britain did not invade the sudetenland, and they were not voting to decide on German policy. More importantly, however, the direct consequence of the Munich Agreement was the policy of appeasement of Hitler during 1938. Would I blame Chamberlain for the policy of appeasement? Yes, of course I would.

Are you trying to suggest that we cannot point out that if something else was done, that the consequences would be different? Surely that is an essential part of political debate.

The point I was making about Chamberlain was that his appeasement was widely cheered, but was later held as ruinous - probably by the same people.

Brexit was a series of ruinous actions led by various actors who did not have Britain's best interests at heart. In fact it might be said that Britain's best interests was far from their mind.

It is clear that many in Britain had a scant understanding of the consequences of Brexit and little understanding of the EU, its institutions, and the good it brought to its member states - and in particular the huge benefits that the UK gained from membership.

In that group, I would include the vast membership of the House of Commons, and in particular the leaders of the Tories and Labour.

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:46pm

Enzokk wrote: »

Question, do you consider the Tories responsible for the UK going to war in Iraq?

This is not a good analogy:

1) Labour had a majority voting with them, for May's deal the ruling party didn't have enough votes by itself to get it through;
2) The vote to invade iraq was passed, the vote for May's deal was not;
3) The May deal was the second vote on the issue, so the Labour party had already voted to leave the EU, they just couldn't agree on the May terms, which I think most people now accept was better than the actual withdrawal agreement.

So to answer your question - yes, consider the tory MPs who voted for the invasion of Iraq responsible for the UK going to war with Iraq because they did vote for it. I consider that the Labour MPs who didn't vote for the May deal responsible for it not being passed because they didn't vote for it.

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:48pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, a three line whip is a direct order from the leadership. Not something to be disregarded. You either accept direct orders from your leadership or you disregard your party members. It's not something you can just handwave away. You must also remember that Brexit was seen as a done deal at that time. So to vote against it would have been seen as a betrayal of the will of the people.

I don't dispute any of the above. But it was still their choice and their vote. If there was a theoretical Labour MP who believed it was wrong to vote to invoke Art 50, they were faced with the choice of breaking the whip or voting with their conscience. In effect, to choose party or country and they chose party.

Labour said they would renegotiate a better (softer) Brexit and offer that or Remain in a referendum. That's about as anti Brexit a proposal that you could get.

Except that it was a day late and a dollar short, if they are actually a remain party.

Ireland doesn't have FPTP which allows for less polarity. In the UK, it is always them or us.

True. But the point being that sometimes a politician will put the public interest ahead of petty point scoring

johnnyskeleton · 11-04-2021 4:54pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I was making about Chamberlain was that his appeasement was widely cheered, but was later held as ruinous - probably by the same people.

That's all probably true, but it's a bad analogy for the issue at hand.

Brexit was a series of ruinous actions led by various actors who did not have Britain's best interests at heart. In fact it might be said that Britain's best interests was far from their mind.

That's also true but yet is not relevant. Where was the leadership for the remain side during this whole thing? As another poster pointed out above, Labour's big plan to have a referendum between soft Brexit and Remain came over 2 years after they voted overwhelmingly to trigger art 50. I would've thought that having such clear cut pro-Brexit villians would give a perfect platform for Remainers to go up against.

It is clear that many in Britain had a scant understanding of the consequences of Brexit and little understanding of the EU, its institutions, and the good it brought to its member states - and in particular the huge benefits that the UK gained from membership.

That's also true, but doesn't change the facts of how Labour handled the whole process.

In that group, I would include the vast membership of the House of Commons, and in particular the leaders of the Tories and Labour.

This is what I've been saying all along

Strazdas · 11-04-2021 4:57pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I was making about Chamberlain was that his appeasement was widely cheered, but was later held as ruinous - probably by the same people.

Brexit was a series of ruinous actions led by various actors who did not have Britain's best interests at heart. In fact it might be said that Britain's best interests was far from their mind.

It is clear that many in Britain had a scant understanding of the consequences of Brexit and little understanding of the EU, its institutions, and the good it brought to its member states - and in particular the huge benefits that the UK gained from membership.

In that group, I would include the vast membership of the House of Commons, and in particular the leaders of the Tories and Labour.

It was all reduced down to being akin to cancelling your subscription to Sky Sports or something. It was a total failure of British politics and their media and showed just how weak their political system is.

Cameron was playing with fire by putting a massive constitutional issue to an advisory referendum. He may as well have held an advisory poll on scrapping Parliament and the monarchy - the result going against him could could only result in constitutional and political chaos.

A country being torn apart by a mere advisory referendum illustrates the nuttiness of it all.

Professor Moriarty · 11-04-2021 5:01pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't dispute any of the above. But it was still their choice and their vote. If there was a theoretical Labour MP who believed it was wrong to vote to invoke Art 50, they were faced with the choice of breaking the whip or voting with their conscience. In effect, to choose party or country and they chose party.

Well, their dilemma was twofold. Ignore the will of the people and their party leadership or vote with their conscience as you say. But many of them were playing a long game. At that time, the Tory party was clinging on. Remember they were dependent on the DUP such was their precarious position. Many MPs expected the Tories to implode as there were a lot of Tory Remainers.

Except that it was a day late and a dollar short, if they are actually a remain party.

They are a Remain party. The large majority of the membership is pro EU. The lack of Remain enthusiasm from Labour was Corbyn's fault. Remember that the large majority of Labour MPs didn't support him.

True. But the point being that sometimes a politician will put the public interest ahead of petty point scoring

Putting the public interest first sometimes requires patience. Once Brexit had been voted in, democracy had to be seen to prevail. MPs couldn't simply ignore the result. Playing a long game wasn't petty point scoring, it was about ensuring a second referendum where the same Remain mistakes wouldn't be made and where Leave lies would be exposed.

Enzokk · 11-04-2021 5:17pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is not a good analogy:

1) Labour had a majority voting with them, for May's deal the ruling party didn't have enough votes by itself to get it through;
2) The vote to invade iraq was passed, the vote for May's deal was not;
3) The May deal was the second vote on the issue, so the Labour party had already voted to leave the EU, they just couldn't agree on the May terms, which I think most people now accept was better than the actual withdrawal agreement.

So to answer your question - yes, consider the tory MPs who voted for the invasion of Iraq responsible for the UK going to war with Iraq because they did vote for it. I consider that the Labour MPs who didn't vote for the May deal responsible for it not being passed because they didn't vote for it.

Well the way I look if a party is responsible is by looking at the numbers, if Labour didn't vote for the deal would it have passed? If it needed Labour votes to pass then they are responsible. If it would have passed even with all of Labour voting against it then I don't see how they are responsible for it. Should be simple really.

Leroy42 · 11-04-2021 5:33pm

Once also has to remember the nationalistic vitriol around at the time.

Anybody even suggesting that Brexit, and a hard brexit, wasn't the greatest thing ever was a traitor

ERG, JRM himself, voted no confidence in TM. There was no way TM deal was ever going to go through.

To try to blame it on remainers, or Labour, is not only bizarre put points to just how disastrous this actual deal is.

Basically, Brexiteers are now claiming that Brexit is only as awful as it is because Labour didn't sort it out.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments