Brexit discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no, I am not entirely sure that it is actually.



Theresa May saying she wanted to leave the ECHR does not equal the UK being intent on leaving it.

It wasn't just Theresa. An the 'UK' equates to the government in power at the time.
Cameron wanted a British Bill of Rights, Theresa and her officials wanted to go further.
I and I am sure many others distrust their intentions on this.

ArmaniJeanss

Newsnight opened with the first N falling off, nice touch.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think desiring Britain to take back control of it's own affairs is "callous". I see Brexit as an opportunity to open up to the world at large rather than an opportunity to close in on itself. I respect that you disagree.

I would agree it is not callous. ThUK is entitled to 'take back control' if it wishes. But anyone arguing that it is an opportunity to open up tot he world at large, or improve its economic situation is dreaming. Economically it is lose lose for UK. But fair enough it can do that.

The Brexit vote passed due to an accumulation of the following :
- anti government protest votes (as we see a in many countries now, in a cut off your nose to spite your face manner. If the govt is for it - they are agin it)
- opportunists in politics, business, or other niche areas who stand individually to gain from Brexit, who either dont care if that is a loss for the UK overall, or are blinkered by their own personal potential gain and cannot see that it is bad or the whole
- empire nostalgists who still have delusions of grandeur on England's place in the world and what it can do if paddling its own canoe
- those with a deep distrust of all matters 'Europe', wogs beginning at Calais, etc, and despite being part of a democratic governance of Europe has sees everything coming from 'Brussels' as imposed upon them by the Germans or the French
- brainless zenophobic, Sun/DailyMail, readers who think every job they see occupied by a non Brit, is a job a Brit should have. So kick the foreigners out and all will be rosy.

There is simply no objective judgement that can conclude that Brexit is good for anyone but a very tiny majority of Brits. It will be very bad for most of the above, but sadly, they dont, and may never, realise that.

And since the vote, a 'well, we voted for it so bloody well must do it now' cohort of masochists has been added.

Nobody truly advocating Brexit has an opinion worth listening to anymore.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It wasn't just Theresa. An the 'UK' equates to the government in power at the time.
Cameron wanted a British Bill of Rights, Theresa and her officials wanted to go further.
I and I am sure many others distrust their intentions on this.

and a British bill of rights would be bad because?

Theresa May wanted to open a debate about it, on the back of spending years arguing the case to deport Abu Hamsa.

You have to remember as well, that David Davis made a quite dramatic public statement about civil liberties by resigning his seat, so they aren't all the ogres you seem to think they are

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that the reason why the border can't be dealt with comprehensively is because the European Union won't permit discussions in respect to trade or customs.

The UK are ready and waiting to discuss these matters.

The UK shouldn't have agreed to the timeline proposed by the EU then. If you agree to terms you don't get to cry about them later when you don't like them. It doesn't inspire confidence if your negotiators cannot understand the implications of a relatively simple task when there are much more complicated discussions to come.

I guess its a little like the chicken or egg discussion, you see it that trade will determine the border. The EU sees it that the border will determine the trade deal that can be offered. Its no use complaining now about it though...David Davis made the decision on how the talks would progress and they have to deal with it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK paying for nothing in return simply isn't in Britain's interest. This is why the Florence speech clearly tied payment for the EU budget and outstanding obligations with the transition period. If it doesn't work this way I'd much rather use the money to help handle a no deal scenario.

Where did the EU ask the UK to pay for something for nothing? The EU wants to confirm the areas where the UK have already agreed to participate and then they will arrive at a figure. There has been no talk of the UK paying and not participating in any of the EU mechanisms other than what has been agreed to already.

You make it sound in your posts that the UK is doing the EU a favour by proposing to pay the same costs to access the single market during the transition period. So the UK will either pay nothing and be outside the single market on Brexit day, or it will continue paying the same costs it is now to access the single market as it is now. It will not be doing anyone or compromising anything for this arrangement.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The terms of the agreement very clearly can be enforced by British courts. British courts are held in high international regard for enforcing law. So much so that third parties use them for settling international disputes.

Part of being separate from the EU is that the ECJ cannot supersede British law. If that happens then the UK hasn't actually left the European Union.

A concession is proposing joint arbitration - this is a reasonable option and has international precedent.

If the UK wants to be separate from the EU they need to give up hope of a close relationship with the EU as a close relationship with the EU will mean a close relationship with the ECJ.

And its no use pointing towards Canada or South Korea, their situation is different to the UK. They are not closely tied to the EU so their deal would be different to the one the UK can have.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I respect democracy. That's why.

I'm highly sceptical of the European Union and it's increasing remit. I was before the referendum also. I voted reluctantly for the status quo, but I realised afterwards that a vote to stay in the European Union isn't a vote for the status quo, it's a vote for more "integration".

But there is zero consideration for the democratic vote of the people of Northern Ireland? I understand there will be difficulty with the border but to dismiss the vote of the people of Northern Ireland while still shouting about how the vote of England and Wales must be held up seems a little hypocritical. Maybe its just deciding when to follow your own opinions and when to ignore what you yourself post.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU and it's institutions are moving towards taking more control from member states. That is why Britain voted to leave. It is moving in a completely different direction to how people wanted it. People wanted more control for nation states to make their own decisions. The European Union was increasingly incompatible with this aspiration. People didn't want important decisions being made about their lives hundreds of miles away but rather in their own parliament by their own MP's.

That's an understandable concern.

Britain was moving in a fundamentally different direction to the European Union since 1992. This is simply a painful realisation of that. Had John Major called a referendum in 1992 it is possible that the British people would have chosen not to join the European Union.

You will need to show me where the majority of people weren't happy with the EU and the integration that caused them to vote leave. I think we all know it was immigration in the main that made people decide to the leave the EU. The immigrants were blamed for their ills and they wanted to right that wrong.

You keep pointing out how people's lives were being controlled by the EU but cannot show examples of this. I guess we have to accept that other than statements of varying truth this will not be shown to be true. Unfortunately you seem to have become a walking leave voter caricature, spouting nonsense about the EU as if it is fact and ignoring the truths that stare you in the face.

By the way, what is your thoughts on the fact that the UK actually exports more to the EU than any other country once you remove gold from the export numbers? We were told that the EU is losing its significance for the UK trade as they do less than half of it with the EU, but this seems to be not true any longer. Does it change your mind at all, or make you pause your thoughts?

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and a British bill of rights would be bad because?

Theresa May wanted to open a debate about it, on the back of spending years arguing the case to deport Abu Hamsa.

You have to remember as well, that David Davis made a quite dramatic public statement about civil liberties by resigning his seat, so they aren't all the ogres you seem to think they are

A British Bill of Rights proposed by a liar would be extremely bad. Theresa May has been caught lying about the person not being deported due to his cat and the immigration numbers of students. What can you trust her on? Do you really want to trust her on your rights?

mountaintop

I grew up in Ireland. I've been in the UK for 6 years. Not 20.

You make it sound like it's somehow sinister to wish that nations should have control over their own affairs. Isn't that what happened in Ireland about 100 years ago?

I find your comments about my nationality inappropriate. I get a warning for asking an innocuous question of people as to why they are passionate about the EU, whereas this is just fine.

Hope that makes sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria[/QUOTE]

I got a warning too, two actually. You have mentioned your nationality more than once. What is your nationality? What comments about your nationality do you find inappropriate? I have never passed comment on your Irishness, assuming that you are Irish. Are you? I have questioned your support for Brexit when you appear to not even be British at all. It's none of your business. That's my issue. By the way, I lived in the U.K. in the 1980s, when being Irish was akin to being a muslim there today. I just have a problem with an Irish immigrant to the U.K. talking the way you do. With all the benefits the E.U. has brought Ireland, the modern infrastructure and economic viability it has provided, you support Brexit but knock the E.U.

johnnyskeleton

mountaintop wrote: »

Thank-you for taking the time and effort to write this excellent post. I doubt that Solo will take any heed, unfortunately. I find the man's views exasperating. He has said he is Irish and is an immigrant in the U.K. for over 20 years. Britain leaving the E.U. undermines the vision of a pan European consensus in favour of the blinkered self obsession of the nation state is my view. Solo is flag waving and the flag is not even his own! I really don't get it. Exasperating, as I say.

mountaintop wrote: »

I got a warning too, two actually. You have mentioned your nationality more than once. What is your nationality? What comments about your nationality do you find inappropriate? I have never passed comment on your Irishness, assuming that you are Irish. Are you? I have questioned your support for Brexit when you appear to not even be British at all. It's none of your business. That's my issue. By the way, I lived in the U.K. in the 1980s, when being Irish was akin to being a muslim there today. I just have a problem with an Irish immigrant to the U.K. talking the way you do. With all the benefits the E.U. has brought Ireland, the modern infrastructure and economic viability it has provided, you support Brexit but knock the E.U.

Mod note:

Please keep it civil and attack the post, not the poster.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and a British bill of rights would be bad because?

Theresa May wanted to open a debate about it, on the back of spending years arguing the case to deport Abu Hamsa.

You have to remember as well, that David Davis made a quite dramatic public statement about civil liberties by resigning his seat, so they aren't all the ogres you seem to think they are

I didn't come comment on a BBOR.

I distrust the British when it comes to human rights and their motive for wanting to turn their back on what is a largely civilising court.
The people of the north need that court to pursue justice for abuses of human rights perpetrated against them as the peace process proceeds.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't come comment on a BBOR.

I distrust the British when it comes to human rights and their motive for wanting to turn their back on what is a largely civilising court.
The people of the north need that court to pursue justice for abuses of human rights perpetrated against them as the peace process proceeds.

The peace process has concluded, we now have peace and a measure of stability, an equilibrium you could say.

The men of violence have decommissioned and the last remaining old men are dying away. Other than the career criminal types, the good republicans who were never in it for the political aspirations, the violence is over.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The peace process has concluded, we now have peace and a measure of stability, an equilibrium you could say.

The men of violence have decommissioned and the last remaining old men are dying away. Other than the career criminal types, the good republicans who were never in it for the political aspirations, the violence is over.

I have suspected for a while that you have never actually read the GFA and subsequent agreements and reports/papers etc. The above confirms it and is also off topic, so I will refrain from going there.

johnnyskeleton

blanch152 wrote: »

The peace process has concluded, we now have peace and a measure of stability, an equilibrium you could say.

The men of violence have decommissioned and the last remaining old men are dying away. Other than the career criminal types, the good republicans who were never in it for the political aspirations, the violence is over.

Mod note:

The topic is Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

A British Bill of Rights proposed by a liar would be extremely bad. Theresa May has been caught lying about the person not being deported due to his cat and the immigration numbers of students. What can you trust her on? Do you really want to trust her on your rights?

Theresa May? Doing a fantastic job as PM of her country. A person of character and integrity. Charisma, gravitas and authority dripping from every pore. Fabulous. What's not to like?

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and a British bill of rights would be bad because?

The last UK Bill Of Rights was a power grab by Parliament.

Look at how the UK Assemblies are reacting to that sort of thing these days.

Enzokk

Just to throw another wrinkle for the UK in all of this, even when the EU and UK agree on something other countries are there to add wrinkles to their plans. In this case it seems to be their good friends the USA is standing with other nations (New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil and others) that object to trade quotas at the WTO should not be split between the EU and UK. They would prefer to have new quotas with the UK and keep the EU quotas, so more trade to the EU as you lose one country and added trade to the UK.

Trump opposes EU-UK WTO deal in blow to May’s Brexit plans

The Trump administration has joined a group of countries objecting to a deal between the UK and EU to divide valuable agricultural import quotas, in a sign of how the US and others plan to use Brexit to force the UK to further open its sensitive market for farm products.

This again opens up the question, if the UK agrees to deals with those countries to import food, how do you stop those imports coming to the EU without customs checks?

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

Just to throw another wrinkle for the UK in all of this, even when the EU and UK agree on something other countries are there to add wrinkles to their plans. In this case it seems to be their good friends the USA is standing with other nations (New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil and others) that object to trade quotas at the WTO should not be split between the EU and UK. They would prefer to have new quotas with the UK and keep the EU quotas, so more trade to the EU as you lose one country and added trade to the UK.

Trump opposes EU-UK WTO deal in blow to May’s Brexit plans



This again opens up the question, if the UK agrees to deals with those countries to import food, how do you stop those imports coming to the EU without customs checks?

So we can safely say that Trump is not a friend of the UK. They (UK) may get a deal, but the UK will be the rule taker in the arrangement.

This has to be the greatest act of self harm a country actively pursued. All as a result of party infighting between two old Etonians.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

So we can safely say that Trump is not a friend of the UK. They (UK) may get a deal, but the UK will be the rule taker in the arrangement.

This has to be the greatest act of self harm a country actively pursued. All as a result of party infighting between two old Etonians.

But but but the special relationship?

Best case scenario for the UK will be that they become a vassal state of the USA. The USA's Israel in Europe.

Enzokk

steddyeddy wrote: »

So we can safely say that Trump is not a friend of the UK. They (UK) may get a deal, but the UK will be the rule taker in the arrangement.

This has to be the greatest act of self harm a country actively pursued. All as a result of party infighting between two old Etonians.

It seems that the sharks are starting to circle Theresa May who is floundering in the water. I would guess the end is near for her, but her successor will have the same problem she had, only with a smaller majority. They will not have won the vote or have had their vision tested by voters. So will we see another election in a few months time to take away even more time from the crucial Brexit discussions? I guess the one good thing would be the other parties would have to spell out their vision for Brexit instead of ignoring it as most did in the last election.

johnnyskeleton

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Theresa May? Doing a fantastic job as PM of her country. A person of character and integrity. Charisma, gravitas and authority dripping from every pore. Fabulous. What's not to like?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But but but the special relationship?

Best case scenario for the UK will be that they become a vassal state of the USA. The USA's Israel in Europe.

Mod note:

Tone down the sarcasm, rhetoric etc. Constructive posts only please.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

The peace process has concluded, we now have peace and a measure of stability, an equilibrium you could say.

The men of violence have decommissioned and the last remaining old men are dying away. Other than the career criminal types, the good republicans who were never in it for the political aspirations, the violence is over.

Amazed you say that. This week Catholic families were still being forced out of an area by loyalist paramilitaries. Loyalists still control many areas.
Dissident Republicans are still going strong. The executive is in danger of being ditched for direct rule.

The ECHR is an independent arbiter for the GFA. It is there for a reason.

ambro25

Dear me, what a morning for Theresa, after yesterday's discomfiture:

UK car sales down 10%, first drop since the last recession

City firms give No.10 until Xmas to arrange a transition deal with the EU before they start moving jobs

Two thirds of Hammond's £26bn 'Brexit' war chest facing wipeout by OBR

Talk about a mongo hangover. I nearly feel sorry for her. Nearly.

Given the objective chances of the UK securing 'enough of' of a transition deal with the EU by Christmas, either Theresa will be gone by then, or approx. 10,000 City jobs.

demfad

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But but but the special relationship?

Best case scenario for the UK will be that they become a vassal state of the USA. The USA's Israel in Europe.

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

Jim2007

ambro25 wrote: »

City firms give No.10 until Xmas to arrange a transition deal with the EU before they start moving jobs

Given the objective chances of the UK securing 'enough of' of a transition deal with the EU by Christmas, either Theresa will be gone by then, or approx. 10,000 City jobs.

It is all very well to be asking for a transition deal, but a transition to what? What is the benefit to the EU? There is no point in giving then a transition period only to have them carry on the same nonsense as now.

Nate--IRL--

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

Nate

ambro25

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is all very well to be asking for a transition deal, but a transition to what? What is the benefit to the EU? There is no point in giving then a transition period only to have them carry on the same nonsense as now.

To finding working out what Brexit actually consists of, I'd say.

Provided such a deal is parameterised and straightforward enough (e.g. "EU-with-the-ECJ-but-without-the-MEPs-and-interfering" in effect), the obvious benefits for the EU are supplemental income (beyond the exit bill itself) and timed certainty (arguably that has inherent advantages for the EU(27) and all who sail in her). Besides kicking the highly-thorny issue of NI a bit further into the long grass.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

I believe it has, through Barnier's and the EU Parliament's various proclamations since May's speech in Florence: to agree mutually-acceptable positions (at least in principle) about each of-

(i) the UK's exit bill
(ii) reciprocal citizens rights
(iii) NI border

Nothing Davis didn't know about since around April 2017, nor agree to since, I believe?

Naturally, the likelihood of real sufficient progress being achieved on all of the above fast enough to also hash out and agree a transition deal within the next 3 months...well...I don't think using "miracle" is hyperbolic, here.

Zubeneschamali

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

They have "unexpectedly" rejected UK requests to talk about it until the first phase is complete.

https://www.ft.com/content/c1420590-a1fe-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2?mhq5j=e5

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't think using "miracle" is hyperbolic, here.

Juncker says miracles are needed for progress on Brexit talks

A senior EU source said of Juncker’s comments: “Mr Juncker is a commissioner. He believes in miracles.” But the official added: “If it will happen, it will be in December.” A European council summit of EU leaders is due to take place on 14 December.


Asked if Brussels expected any further concessions from the British prime minister at Tory party conference next week, the source said: “We believe in miracles. We are not hallucinating.”

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

Exactly. Britain is heading towards becoming the 51st state of the US. Which is ironic considering the 'patriotic' speeches at the Tory conference this week.

flatty

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

Fratton Fred

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Jaggo

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.

Porto Rico might disagree!!

Of the c900 trade agreements that the UK has to re-sign, I thought the WTO agreement would be one of the easiest. The fact that the US and Australia are willing to put the boot in at this stage is pretty depressing. Note that the US et al. must have been preparing this stab in the back while the UK/EU was still trying to hammer out first principles.

I fear this will happen to pretty much all the remaining trade agreements too. Each, just a little bit to the UKs disadvantage.

Panrich

The vultures are beginning to circle even on WTO terms. The US is leading a chorus of exporteres to the EU concerned that splitting current EU quotas between EU/UK might deprive them of filling those export quotas if the UK can't buy all of it's share. The countries include New Zealand and Canada, so UK allies seem thin on the ground now.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

"The big food exporters argue that two fixed quotas — a U.K. quota and an EU27 quota — make markets less easy to sell to than one big quota.

The logic is this: if the EU quota for, say, lamb is 100,000 tons, the exporters say they lose out if that is divided into 30,000 tons for the U.K. and 70,000 tons for the EU27. If British lamb consumption plunges and the quota is unfilled, the exporter cannot necessarily compensate by selling more of the meat to France or other EU markets. The original 100,000-ton lamb quota allowed the exporter more flexibility in where it could sell in case one market buys less."

flatty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Indeed. But there you have it.

murphaph

Panrich wrote: »

The vultures are beginning to circle even on WTO terms. The US is leading a chorus of exporteres to the EU concerned that splitting current EU quotas between EU/UK might deprive them of filling those export quotas if the UK can't buy all of it's share. The countries include New Zealand and Canada, so UK allies seem thin on the ground now.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

"The big food exporters argue that two fixed quotas — a U.K. quota and an EU27 quota — make markets less easy to sell to than one big quota.

The logic is this: if the EU quota for, say, lamb is 100,000 tons, the exporters say they lose out if that is divided into 30,000 tons for the U.K. and 70,000 tons for the EU27. If British lamb consumption plunges and the quota is unfilled, the exporter cannot necessarily compensate by selling more of the meat to France or other EU markets. The original 100,000-ton lamb quota allowed the exporter more flexibility in where it could sell in case one market buys less."

Oh dear. Where's that queue of countries wanting to sign trade agreements again?!

It's become a complete farce.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Well, yes, but that is the editorial crew.

Individual journalists do not have to personally agree with the editorial spin, they just write what they are told to write.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

It's become a complete farce.

I was just wondering if there is anyone with a big enough profile in the UK to drop the anchors and shout STOP! I did a bit of googling to see if QE2 has the power to do such a thing, as I believe she's just about the only person in Britain who could get a very large majority to agree with her, but it appears not.

steddyeddy

demfad wrote: »

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

If I was her I'd let Boris have it. If people can't see that Boris was partly to blame for this mess then they'll certainly see it if he's the prime minister.

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

Oh dear. Where's that queue of countries wanting to sign trade agreements again?!

It's become a complete farce.

I think there will be a queue, that queue will however not be there to just give the UK a good trade deal. They will give them a trade deal that the other country wants, and if both benefit then great, if not why should (enter country name) worry if their trade deal doesn't benefit the UK to the best it can?

Calina

steddyeddy wrote: »

If I was her I'd let Boris have it. If people can't see that Boris was partly to blame for this mess then they'll certainly see it if he's the prime minister.

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

Samaris

Calina wrote: »

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

Tbh though, the EU countries know it and don't really care that much. The UK can sit outside and bitch to its heart's content, it won't be able to do nearly so much damage outside as it could inside it.

Eventually someone's got to be the adult. And the EU has been the fall guy for years due to cowardly politicians looking for someone to redirect voter ire at. Tell enough lies, get enough people to believe them and suddenly you find your country's voted to abandon ship.

Calina

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh though, the EU countries know it and don't really care that much. The UK can sit outside and bitch to its heart's content, it won't be able to do nearly so much damage outside as it could inside it.

Eventually someone's got to be the adult. And the EU has been the fall guy for years due to cowardly politicians looking for someone to redirect voter ire at. Tell enough lies, get enough people to believe them and suddenly you find your country's voted to abandon ship.

Oh agreed. But ultimately the question is who the UK are going to be blaming and I really can't see the Tory party grandees standing up and saying Mea Culpa. Although Johnson might because he's that sort of guy. Why use English when there's a handy bit of Latin?

First Up

Calina wrote:

Oh agreed. But ultimately the question is who the UK are going to be blaming and I really can't see the Tory party grandees standing up and saying Mea Culpa. Although Johnson might because he's that sort of guy. Why use English when there's a handy bit of Latin?

That's a matter for them to sort out among themselves. Nobody else really gives a toss.

gjim

demfad wrote: »

Amazed you say that. This week Catholic families were still being forced out of an area by loyalist paramilitaries. Loyalists still control many areas.
Dissident Republicans are still going strong. The executive is in danger of being ditched for direct rule.

The ECHR is an independent arbiter for the GFA. It is there for a reason.

Eh? The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

Zerbini Blewitt

One thing that seems common to all brexiters (whether they were propaganised into their position or they were the origin of the idealogy) is:-

A total inability to not strawman or misrepresent their opponents arguements. This is a definite red flag phenomenon. It’s almost like debating honestly - to a purist brexiteer - is what a mirror is to a vampire!

In any honest political debate, someone on one side may say something where their opponent pauses briefly & responds “well, I never thought of that. You have a point there”.

But with brexiters, there’s never such reflection. Its all big lie, brutalist ideology.

But anyway what could be the reason Brexiters misrepresent their opponents arguments so consistently? :-

• Their position is so rubbish that debate is essentially a scorched Earth exercise
• They want to weaken (as they see it) their opponents position
• The end-game reality might not work out for them???
• (religious like) imperial beliefs are comforting to them & needs must
• Other reasons (probably a long list)

Brexit/British Eurscepticism appears to me to be at its core: RW English Nats championing Great Grandma’s or Great Grandpapy’s primitivism (by contemporary standards) – which makes it a sad loser ideology, essentially wasting everyone’s time. What a disastrous 21st century farce!

Having said that, it’s not entirely unusual that a former Imperial power [that survived the 20th century] like the UK was always going to decline in a different manner to most countries (who instead were variously conquered or humiliated).

So, perhaps the Irish viewpoint is not much use to a modern day ideological Brexiteer who already seems to have more than enough struggles with the nature of reality.

If only a few members of the Tojo cabinet of Imperial Japan were still around - they might be able to offer counsel now (if time could be halted to around mid 1942, that is) or a Roman Emperor was still alive. Ok, I’m stretching now.

The Rape of Lucretia

Calina wrote: »

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

EU will sail blithely on, and wont even notice if it is the 'fall guy' or not. But if that keeps Brexiteers happy, sure, then whats the harm in it?

Enzokk

gjim wrote: »

Eh? The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

Yeah, and it seems that most people in the UK doesn't know that. They just hear European Convention on Human Rights, or European Court of Human Rights and only see the word European and throw a fit, or a Brexit.

I have linked stories where Theresa May has hinted that she wants to get rid of the ECHR in the UK and don't want the ECtHR to have no say in the UK at all. So while its not Brexit related in that they will leave this in April 2019, there are indications that they want to get rid of it all together.

flutered

Enzokk wrote: »

I think there will be a queue, that queue will however not be there to just give the UK a good trade deal. They will give them a trade deal that the other country wants, and if both benefit then great, if not why should (enter country name) worry if their trade deal doesn't benefit the UK to the best it can?

the vulture funds need a hard brexit, what they have picked up in ireland is peanuts compared to the pickings to come in the uk

jm08

More trading problems rearing their head. Washington really is some 'special friend'.

In a fast-developing second trade spat, Washington has teamed up with Brazil, Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Thailand to reject Britain’s proposed import arrangements for crucial agricultural goods such as meat, sugar and grains after Brexit. The fact that the U.K.’s opponents include the U.S., Canada and New Zealand is a significant setback because Britain is trying to style its former colonies as natural strategic and commercial allies after it has quit the EU.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

More trading problems rearing their head. Washington really is some 'special friend'.



http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

That article indicates that those countries are more concerned about reduced quotas in to the eu than they are with quotas for the uk.

The article linked says that the eu is facing the prospect of picking a fight with the wto, or with its own farmers.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That article indicates that those countries are more concerned about reduced quotas in to the eu than they are with quotas for the uk.

The article linked says that the eu is facing the prospect of picking a fight with the wto, or with its own farmers.

Indeed. That negotiation alone should take months to agree. Hopefully, the EU will demand an inordinately larger portion of the the quotas on the basis that they are in no hurry to agree anything and they won't allow their farmers to be out of pocket. Or they could simply make it another red line before full trade talks begin. No rush.