Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

RobMc59 · 13-12-2018 1:11am

To the average person in the UK the only result that would make a really big difference would be a no deal brexit-the TM deal although crap wouldn't make any difference-if the UK is stuck in some strange limbo neither in or out the EU things stay the same for Mr average-obviously remaining is the best option but if the idiots ruin it the TM deal is the next best thing imo.

Professor Moriarty · 13-12-2018 1:13am

McGiver wrote: »

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

Excellent summation.

judeboy101 · 13-12-2018 1:29am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They can be PM but not monarch. Anyway, if Jacob becomes PM it will be time to leave the planet.

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

David109 · 13-12-2018 1:39am

Thank goodness for PR and Coalitions here.
At least things get thrashed out and (eventually) agreed.

The Lib Dems kept Cameron on the straight and narrow. May needs a long spoon with the DUP.

Professor Moriarty · 13-12-2018 1:49am

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 13-12-2018 2:01am

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

tuxy · 13-12-2018 2:05am

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

The deal has been made with the EU. The only thing a new PM could do now is make better preparations for parliament rejecting that deal.

Tell me how · 13-12-2018 2:05am

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Laois_Man · 13-12-2018 2:11am

Tell me how wrote: »

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

Tell me how · 13-12-2018 2:20am

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 13-12-2018 2:22am

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

she clearly is not a leader. it's painful to watch her. that speech after her 'er victory. what was that all about?

tuxy · 13-12-2018 2:25am

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

Wheres Me Jumper? · 13-12-2018 2:28am

tenacity, doggedness & focus are fine qualities, but can after time easily become obstinacy, pigheadedness & myopia

Laois_Man · 13-12-2018 2:34am

Tell me how wrote: »

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

I was responding to the hypothesis that no other politician could possibly have made things any better. The OP wasn't about names. The fact is, when you're in an election, and starting with a 20-point lead, and the leader of the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, it's very clear that a far better performance cannot at all be regarded as implausible, as was implied.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 13-12-2018 2:35am

tuxy wrote: »

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

well that's a paradox of sorts, as only a leader would have the self-awareness to realise they are not fit for the role. not being a leader she's not aware of her own limitations.

as for Andrea, i have no idea how she might have fared. how could i?

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 2:57am

Obviously, it has to be speculative; you only get to run history once. We can never know whether, e.g., Andrea Leadsom would have secured a better outcome for the UK than May in fact has secured, though we can have the pleasure of arguing about it endlessly.

It's worth noting, though, that those who argue in favour of dumping May are mostly advancing fantasy arguments in support of the view that an outcome they regard as better could be obtained. Essentially, the arguments are some flavour of "May asked for X and the EU refused, but if Raab/Davis/Rees Mogg/Corbyn asks for it with sufficient true belief, the EU will grant it". That's complete balls. Plus, those advancing such arguments conspicuously ignore the repeated statements from the EU side about what could enable a different deal - viz., drop some red lines.

Essentially, much of the opposition to May is driven by wishful thinking. Say what you like about May - and I do - but she has at least brought home sign-up from the EU to a deal which secures some of what Brexiters want (like an end to freedom of movement), and she has got the EU to climb down and grant things which, initially, they were not prepared to grant (like a UK-wide backstop, and a high degree of market access for goods). The positions advanced by her opponents in the Tory party seem likely to produce worse outcomes than this, not better.

Infini · 13-12-2018 3:03am

Deleted User wrote: »

Tony Connelly believes the EU is not interested. Their position may have even hardened on the idea once TM's survival odds improved during the day.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1212/1016862-eu-summit-brexit/

There's an old saying "Don't bother arguing with idiot's they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". The only way they can get this sorted at this stage is to hammer home the 3 choices: Acceptance of the WA, Abandoning this farce and never speaking of it again or Crash and Burn in the fires of your own ignorance and stupidity. No further negotiations because everyone is fed up with this farce.

theguzman · 13-12-2018 3:09am

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

Jim2007 · 13-12-2018 4:21am

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

And you got this from their constitution, the unwritten one, the one they make up as they go along, combined with a bit of interference from the Supreme Court/Law Lords from time to time.

What is the legal basis for you assertion? What case are you referring to? Or is it just your opinion?

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 4:52am

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

And you got this from their constitution, the unwritten one, the one they make up as they go along, combined with a bit of interference from the Supreme Court/Law Lords from time to time.

What is the legal basis for you assertion? What case are you referring to? Or is it just your opinion?

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

RobMc59 · 13-12-2018 5:14am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 5:22am

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Ironically, a title first conferred on Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X.

He lost the title when he was excommunicated in 1538 by Pope Paul III. But Parliament reconferred it in 1544, since when he and all his successors have continued to use it.

zapitastas · 13-12-2018 6:19am

theguzman wrote: »

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

gimli2112 · 13-12-2018 6:29am

zapitastas wrote: »

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

"them lousy foreigners taking our jobs" whether it's true or not that would be the sentiment.
Had it roared at me in the street years ago when I first came to Dublin but I was just a culchie not a non-national

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 6:33am

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

listermint · 13-12-2018 6:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.

Benefit Street..

murphaph · 13-12-2018 6:50am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Or they could repeal the anachronistic legislation that prohibits only Roman Catholics from taking on that role. Would be a small start in fixing their broken political system.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 7:10am

listermint wrote: »

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.

Benefit Street..

Nope. The people we're talking about here are not, for the most part, unemployed. They're working, or they're underemployed, and the reason they are suffering is becuse of static or falling real wages.

Real earnings in the UK rose steadily until the global financial crisis of 2008, at which point they took a dive which continued for several years. They then "bottomed out" for a number of years, and had just started to climb again when the Brexit referendum was held, and that put a stop to that.

What this means is, basically, is that that UK workers are frozen out of the economic recovery. They bore the brunt of the GFC, and austerity policies (and low investment, and poor training, resulting in low labour productivity) mean that they have not participated in the recovery since then. Real hourly wages in the UK are 10% below what they were 10 years ago. Of the EU countries, only Greece can match this dismal record.

An Claidheamh · 13-12-2018 7:35am

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

That makes sectarianism OK?

Discrimination against Catholics only.

British high society have always confused their sectarianism with secularism.

Just like they confuse their unelected Monarch with democracy.

judeboy101 · 13-12-2018 7:40am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2018 7:49am

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

McGiver · 13-12-2018 8:44am

McGiver wrote:

The factions can be summarised as follows: SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve) Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I forgot to mention that some of the Tories who offered no solution (basically pointing at WTO/crash out) mentioned words such as 'believe' and 'faith' [in Britain today endure]. Very alarming for me.

McGiver · 13-12-2018 8:54am

theguzman wrote:

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

Stagnating wages on the UK and poverty as well have nothing to do with immigration, at least not directly. They are caused by poor/lack of labour market regulation, oversight and enforcement of such regulations, austerity and ultra neoliberal policies with no balances. For example lack of social compromise between employers, employees/unions and the state.

UK voluntarily allowed rather large immigration EEA and non-EEA for many years without properly managing anything. But it depends on immigration too supply its labour market.

Why there are no stagnating wages and wide scale poverty in Germany or Sweden? Because of proper regulation, social compromise and enforcement of regulations.

Anthracite · 13-12-2018 8:54am

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

You've made this argument a dozen times already on Brexit threads and it has been shot down by facts every time.

seamus · 13-12-2018 9:11am

Laois_Man wrote: »

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

I'm no fan of May, but to claim that the merits of the Brexit deal depend on who is presenting it, is to ignore the fact that there are some for whom no deal will ever be good enough. Churchill himself could rise from the dead and declare it the best deal in history, and there would still be the same hold-outs.

Typically, and sadly, you're right that it is the case that politicians will vote against good legislation because they don't like the person presenting it. But I don't think that's the case here. Some are looking for a unicorn, and May keeps coming back with ponies.
Some say they want a pony, but every time May comes back, they say the wanted a different coloured pony, or a taller pony, or a different gender pony. Because actually, they don't want one at all.

judeboy101 · 13-12-2018 9:22am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

ancapailldorcha · 13-12-2018 9:23am

judeboy101 wrote: »

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

Can we move away from this please? Thanks.

kuro68k · 13-12-2018 9:40am

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

ancapailldorcha · 13-12-2018 9:42am

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

robinph · 13-12-2018 9:50am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

Shelga · 13-12-2018 9:52am

Slightly OT: Humphrys has taken a small break from Brexit to welcome Alison Spittle on to Today.

What is happening to the world??

intellectual dosser · 13-12-2018 9:58am

robinph wrote: »

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

seamus · 13-12-2018 10:03am

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

This is why I don't think a second referendum will happen, nor is it the best way to go about it. A surprising amount of people will be of the "just get on with it" variety and will vote against a second referendum out of protest.

If a general election were to happen, a party could campaign on, "We will cancel Brexit, but we will also go to Europe to try and resolve the issues with EU membership that caused Brexit in the first place*", and they might do well. A simple, "Cancel Brexit, pretend it never happened" plan, just won't fly IMO.

Of course, there is no party to run with that manifesto. Not one who can take a majority anyway.

*Issues which of course, don't actually exist, but the sentiment has to be there

flatty · 13-12-2018 10:04am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Soubry and Buckland tearing into each other on Sky. Thought Buckland was going to headbutt her at one stage.

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

Leroy42 · 13-12-2018 10:17am

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

There was a good summary on the Guardian Podcast Brexit Means Brexit about the position of EU ion regards to the backstop.

In top of the whole peace thing, and the fact that EU unity is important for the future and thus throwing Ireland under the bus won't help, the person said the major problem that the UK have when trying to argue about the backstop is that this has been agreed since 2017.

Even in the Lanchaster House speech May ruled out a land border, thus the backstop is a way to ensure that. The UK then agreed to the backstop in Dec 17, TM wrote to the EU in March 18 reiterating the UK's commitment to the backstop, and only two weeks ago the WA was agreed including the backstop.

The EU are amazed that it appears that many in the UK, and particularly the HoC seem totally surprised that it is included in the WA. They fail to see why it is their problem that nobody in the UK seems to have been paying attention.

kunst nugget · 13-12-2018 10:22am

Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, was interviewed on RTÉ Radio 1 this morning and came across quite well. He seems completely exasperated by the posturings of the Brexiteers in relation to threatening to not pay the 39 billion and acknowledged how disastrous that would be for the UK. He also felt the need to apologise to the Irish over the 'Ireland should know its place' comments that have been attributed to the senior Tory party members. He's very much pushing for a second referendum.

Leroy42 · 13-12-2018 10:29am

And on the €39bn, what do those that call for it to be withheld think is going to happen?

That the EU will simply write it off? They will forget about?

It will be very first thing on the table in any future FTA negotiations.

On a different point, I thought the real JRM was on display for all to see yesterday. He quite ludicrous claims about payroll members of the party voting for TM and her now having to go because of convention.

He has been shown to be completely out of his depth, a man great at talking and tbf he is very capable debater and performer, but he had his shot, he led the tories up this hill and totally failed to deliver.

Everything is a vast conspiracy to him. The very fact that he stated on live national TC that the members of the Tory party will always vote based on how much they are paid rather than what is best for their constituency or the country is quite remarkable.

Zubeneschamali · 13-12-2018 10:29am

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

If they crash out with no deal, riots will be the least of their worries.

Anyhow, this is England we are talking about. Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.

Professor Moriarty · 13-12-2018 10:29am

flatty wrote: »

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Leroy42 · 13-12-2018 10:33am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Just to correct you on a bit. There are plenty of UK politicians that acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

The fact is that there are a few, very vocal ones, that see that as a positive to getting the Brexit they desire rather than the negative we see it as.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments