Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Brexit discussion thread III
Comments
-
Really Interested wrote: »An adage under attack. According to you principle Parliament is supreme which then is higher an Act of Parliament or a official statement of the government?
Not according to me; according to the fact that it is Parliament that is the final arbiter on any legislation proposed for enactment within the UK that has been put forward for consideration. And in the case of referenda, quite literally, Parliament can do what it likes irrespective of the outcome, unless the referendum is - as I have already stated and you seem to have blithely ignored - agreed upon as being binding.
Your subsequent question is laughable and answered already; "Parliament is God".0 -
All the points raised are insightful, but irrelevant. There is no way that the ref will be re-run or that Brexit will be halted.
The polls continue to show that the public have not shifted their positions either way too much, and certainly there is enough MP's driving it. Including a majority of the cabinet.
In a normal democracy, the opposition would be standing up for the other side, but in the UK that is not the case and it is left down to a few mavericks for both parties to try to put a stick in the wheel.0 -
Not according to me; according to the fact that it is Parliament that is the final arbiter on any legislation proposed for enactment within the UK that has been put forward for consideration. And in the case of referenda, quite literally, Parliament can do what it likes irrespective of the outcome, unless the referendum is - as I have already stated and you seem to have blithely ignored - agreed upon as being binding.
Your subsequent question is laughable and answered already; "Parliament is God".
Has the Goverenment treated the referendum as advisory. The Goverement fought a court case to try and show parliament was not supreme and recently in the House of Lords a Tory stayed “the people are supreme”
Anyone who does not see the Goverenment is trying to relegate parliament to second or third place is ignoring facts.0 -
Really Interested wrote: »Has the Goverenment treated the referendum as advisory. The Goverement fought a court case to try and show parliament was not supreme and recently in the House of Lords a Tory stayed “the people are supreme”
The less said about the current cabinet the better. As for the above mentioned court case, remind me how that one went again? AH yes, they withdrew their assertion that they could do whatever they liked over Parliament, knowing that they were facing defeat in the courts over the matter.Anyone who does not see the Goverenment is trying to relegate parliament to second or third place is ignoring facts.
I never said they weren't. What they have tried to do is deliver Brexit as a fait accomplit rendering any decision by Parliament on the final outcome irrelevant. This is being facilitated by the main party of the opposition abdicating all responsibility for holding the government to account.0 -
The less said about the current cabinet the better. As for the above mentioned court case, remind me how that one went again? AH yes, they withdrew their assertion that they could do whatever they liked over Parliament, knowing that they were facing defeat in the courts over the matter.
I never said they weren't. What they have tried to do is deliver Brexit as a fait accomplit rendering any decision by Parliament on the final outcome irrelevant. This is being facilitated by the main party of the opposition abdicating all responsibility for holding the government to account.
My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.0 -
In a normal democracy, the opposition would be standing up for the other side, but in the UK that is not the case and it is left down to a few mavericks for both parties to try to put a stick in the wheel.
And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves.
I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans.
I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment.
However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers).
The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could.
However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,640 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90878
May doing a whistle stop tour to fly the flag or give two fingers to us and the EU or something
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43576456The PM will also vow to protect the "integrity" of the UK, saying that means ensuring there are "no new barriers" within the UK's domestic market.
...
In her own statement, Mrs May said she was determined that the UK's future will be "bright" after it leaves the EU.
"Having regained control of our laws, our borders and our money, and seized the opportunities provided by Brexit, the UK will thrive as a strong and united country that works for everyone, no matter whether you voted Leave or Remain."
Seriously , can anyone post any good economic news for the UK (apart from gains caused solely by the one-off fall in sterling) since Brexit ??0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
A good summary of broken Brexit promises published by the Guardian.0 -
The word "advisory" does not appear in the Referendum Act. Nevertheless, the Referendum was indeed advisory, because there was nothing in the Referendum Act to alter, abolish or remove the powers of Parliament in relation to EU membership (or anything else).Really Interested wrote: »What the 2015 Act said.
“1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”
From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.
This. The Tory Party fought and won the 2015 General Election on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to "respect" the result. Thus they had a political mandate, but not a legal obligation, to give effect to the referendum result. This they did by serving Art. 50 notice in March 2017.It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.
Immediately after that they fought another election, seeking a mandate for a particular model of Brexit - no single market, no customs union, no ECJ jurisdicastion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Inconveniently for them, they failed to get a mandate for that model of Brexit, which also meant that they failed to get a majority which would enable them to face down the ultra-Brexiters and push through a version of Brexit more calculated to win broad support in the community. So they reinvented the particular model of Brexit for which they failed to get a mandate as something inherent in the referendum result, and have pushed ahead regardless, to the extent that their manifest ineptitude and incompetence has permitted.
Possibly. But they won't see it as the point where the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of the people; they'll talk about the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of altogether more shadowy forces.Really Interested wrote: »Lawyers in 50 years may talk about this time as the point when parliament was no longer supreme.0 -
Really Interested wrote: »My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.
Straight to the point and just to add something recently, no scandal no matter what and no matter how much cheating was involved to manipulate the people by fake informations, lies and overspending on the side of the leave camp, they are all that strongheaded to 'deliver' Brexit (just as May said again in the Commons yesterday), which means that they are heading for a hard Brexit. The 'UK Brexit Tour' she's starting today in NI is just some waste of time to ensure the hardline Brexiteers (more so on the DUP voters) and in one year to go, the road for disaster is already chosen and nothing will change the course.
Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership. He's no real opposition leader, his just another closet anti-EU politician to the bone.
I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2. Hopefully they'll vote in favour for Independence by a majority and finally break from the Union. That will leave the fecking DUPers at the hard place when the money from Westminster stops coming in cos the English will have to see for themselves how to minimise the decline in their living standards after 2020.
This whole Brexit thing has brought the negative sides of the Brits by the Brexiteers to the fore once again and not just that, their strongheadness and stupidity in that matter as well.0 -
Advertisement
-
Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership.
Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.
In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The word "advisory" does not appear in the Referendum Act. Nevertheless, the Referendum was indeed advisory, because there was nothing in the Referendum Act to alter, abolish or remove the powers of Parliament in relation to EU membership (or anything else).
This. The Tory Party fought and won the 2015 General Election on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to "respect" the result. Thus they had a political mandate, but not a legal obligation, to give effect to the referendum result. This they did by serving Art. 50 notice in March 2017.
Immediately after that they fought another election, seeking a mandate for a particular model of Brexit - no single market, no customs union, no ECJ jurisdicastion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Inconveniently for them, they failed to get a mandate for that model of Brexit, which also meant that they failed to get a majority which would enable them to face down the ultra-Brexiters and push through a version of Brexit more calculated to win broad support in the community. So they reinvented the particular model of Brexit for which they failed to get a mandate as something inherent in the referendum result, and have pushed ahead regardless, to the extent that their manifest ineptitude and incompetence has permitted.
Possibly. But they won't see it as the point where the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of the people; they'll talk about the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of altogether more shadowy forces.
To clarify one of my points I do not think that Parliament is under attack from the people but the Goverenment led by TM.0 -
What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit0
-
The time is running out for them and I am sure that by continuing with this silly 'dance around it' - as you have very well put it - will leave them to Exit from the EU without a deal because it is not just time that is running out for the damn stupid Brexiteers, it is patience which is running out too, by the EU and the Scottish govt as well.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership.
Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.
In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).
I have never witnessed nor read about any other Brit govt that is that incoherent, incapable, foolish and utter disorganised than this present one. Some days I can't fathom it, some days I just get fed up with this silly Brexit show and some days I just say to myself, well, if they want to have it that way, just let them go and don't give a fiddlers what comes for them afterwards. Afterall, they started like the ancient Romans, they reached their peak of might and power like them, they got on the decline and lost their Empire like them, now they are going to face their own downfall, just like them. For some anti-Brits this might give them some satisfaction, for me it is just some tragic farce which they have brought onto themselves by the sheer arrogance of a few bringing suffering to the many.0 -
Their policy is to remain in a customs union, though, which would limit some of the damage and make it a bit easier to solve the Irish border problem. And, though they haven't said anything very intelligent on the subject, I have a sense that Labour would be slightly more highly motivated to solve the Irish border problem by keeping the border open than the Tories are.What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit0 -
I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2.
Many of the arguments that were given to remain in the union will no longer hold true, giving any future independence referendum a far higher probability of seeing Scotland cede from the union. The manner in which the current government have behaved towards Scottish concerns combined with some of the press treatment of Scotland's first minister will have done nothing but provide further cause for grievance and a display of how much Scotland is "valued" by the English.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.
In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).
A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.0 -
'A custom union' and he wasn't that clear about what he means by that, presumably something different to the existing EU custom union and that would be rubbish because there won't be a different one. Silly talk and suggestions to make the people drowsy. Corbyn is just another blinder to me, nothing else.Peregrinus wrote: »
Their policy is to remain in a customs union, though, which would limit some of the damage and make it a bit easier to solve the Irish border problem. And, though they haven't said anything very intelligent on the subject, I have a sense that Labour would be slightly more highly motivated to solve the Irish border problem by keeping the border open than the Tories are.What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit0 -
I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2.
Many of the arguments that were given to remain in the union will no longer hold true, giving any future independence referendum a far higher probability of seeing Scotland cede from the union. The manner in which the current government have behaved towards Scottish concerns combined with some of the press treatment of Scotland's first minister will have done nothing but provide further cause for grievance and a display of how much Scotland is "valued" by the English.
Quite so.0 -
Advertisement
-
Quite so.
I don't think it's a slam-dunk by any means though, as circumstances would now - if the current Brexit trajectory continues unchecked - mean facing into a vote that would also wave goodbye (on account of no ability to fudge matters) to things such as GBP and the Monarchy, which matter on some level to more than enough voters to mean that the independence campaign will need to have done its homework and done it well.0 -
Rain Ascending wrote: »And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves.
I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans.
I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment.
However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers).
The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could.
However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.
The story is about breaking the law in regards to coordination of campaigns which is illegal. The story is also about the official vote leave campaign laundering money through other campaigns in order to gain an unfair advantage in the election. This is a criminal conspiracy involving directors of Vote Leave who are now aides to Theresa May. The conspiracy might also involve Ministers in the UK Govt including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Now lets look at who the money was paid to. 40% of TOTAL vote Leave monies and 100% of beLeave monies as well as £100,000 from Veterans for Britian and £32,000 from the DUP were speant on AggregateIQ. THis is an SCL company just like Cambridge Analaytica. Facebooks association with Cambridge Analytica wiped $79 billion off Facebook's stock as of yesterday. AggregateIQ wrote the applications for CAs databases. AIQ had access to the stolen Facebook data.
So Vote Leave may have engaged in illegal coordination and a criminal conspiracy involving people in the highest levels of Govt with a company who use stolen data, kompromat, dirty tricks, civil unrest and fake news to win elections.
And this does not make the BBC news?
Something smells.0 -
J Mysterio wrote: »A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.
Oh come on, the EU are past masters at kicking the can down the road. Officially, Sweden have been required to join the Euro since 1994 - how is that coming along, 24 years later?
This will be the same - the "exit deal" in October will include a transition period during which nothing changes. At the end of the transition period, there will be a few things left to do, and it will be extended.
In 24 years time, when the Department of Defense is absorbed by the Department of Moon Colonisation, the Department for Exiting the EU will become the oldest surviving UK Government Department.0 -
Fox gave an interview on R4 this morning, saying that of the 70 other countries they currently have deals with as part of the EU, they have already spoken to most of them who say they want to continue as is and the he hopes to have 40 of them signed by the end of the transition period.
1st off, what is the impact of the loss of the other 30? Nobody seem to ask him
2nd, it would appear that the UK have already accepted the transition period and are working on that basis? Surely with that known, the EU can push very hard for everything they want. The effects of no deal, and no transition, means that no agreements would be ready.
It appears, and I fully accept that this is simply my opinion and welcome other far better informed input, that the EU is being too quick to agree a transition.0 -
Quite so.
I don't think it's a slam-dunk by any means though, as circumstances would now - if the current Brexit trajectory continues unchecked - mean facing into a vote that would also wave goodbye (on account of no ability to fudge matters) to things such as GBP and the Monarchy, which matter on some level to more than enough voters to mean that the independence campaign will need to have done its homework and done it well.
I'd rather think that they will do their homework well and be prepared for it when the time for IndyRef2 arrives. I always thought that the SNP would have no problem with Scotland becoming a Republic. Well, there are the Royal residencies in Scotland which is some matter and maybe a reason to keep the Queen as Head of State like in Australia and NZ.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Oh come on, the EU are past masters at kicking the can down the road. Officially, Sweden have been required to join the Euro since 1994 - how is that coming along, 24 years later?
This will be the same - the "exit deal" in October will include a transition period during which nothing changes. At the end of the transition period, there will be a few things left to do, and it will be extended.
In 24 years time, when the Department of Defense is absorbed by the Department of Moon Colonisation, the Department for Exiting the EU will become the oldest surviving UK Government Department.
The EU have no desire to extend the negotiations, i'm sure. They will look to sign a finalised a deal before March 31st 2019 at the very latest, or Hard Brexit.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »J Mysterio wrote: »A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.
Oh come on, the EU are past masters at kicking the can down the road. Officially, Sweden have been required to join the Euro since 1994 - how is that coming along, 24 years later?
This will be the same - the "exit deal" in October will include a transition period during which nothing changes. At the end of the transition period, there will be a few things left to do, and it will be extended.
In 24 years time, when the Department of Defense is absorbed by the Department of Moon Colonisation, the Department for Exiting the EU will become the oldest surviving UK Government Department.
Interesting perspective, but in case of the UK and Brexit, rather unrealistic and it might go down that way. But I admit that to renew Transition periods time and again would be some aspect but it won't work for long as one day they will finally either leave or reverse Brexit altogether.0 -
I see it that way too, otherwise this farce will never end and the EU can't afford to be fooled beyond the time limits set for that by Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.J Mysterio wrote: »Zubeneschamali wrote: »Oh come on, the EU are past masters at kicking the can down the road. Officially, Sweden have been required to join the Euro since 1994 - how is that coming along, 24 years later?
This will be the same - the "exit deal" in October will include a transition period during which nothing changes. At the end of the transition period, there will be a few things left to do, and it will be extended.
In 24 years time, when the Department of Defense is absorbed by the Department of Moon Colonisation, the Department for Exiting the EU will become the oldest surviving UK Government Department.
The EU have no desire to extend the negotiations, i'm sure. They will look to sign a finalised a deal before March 31st 2019 at the very latest, or Hard Brexit.0 -
Fox gave an interview on R4 this morning, saying that of the 70 other countries they currently have deals with as part of the EU, they have already spoken to most of them who say they want to continue as is and the he hopes to have 40 of them signed by the end of the transition period.
The important phrase in Fox's interview being that all those other countries would "like to see things continue as they are now" vis a vis agreements. That doesn't mean that they WILL continue as they are now when heads of state are pressed to commit ink to paper. The above is up there with claims that Aus, NZ, and Japan would like to sign agreements with the UK, but the bit that is omitted is that there is a pecking order of agreements to be hammered out and signed, with the EU ahead of the UK so the UK may be waiting a while ...0 -
But also, he admitted that even if they get the deals signed (and I totally agree with Lemmings point) it still leaves 30 no signed. WHy was he not asked what the impact of losing them would be? What are 40+% not already agreeing and that this should be the easiest group.
And surely, the deals cannot be done in a simple like for like basis, as that would seem to indicate that the UK will be changing nothing in terms of regulations etc.0 -
Fox gave an interview on R4 this morning, saying that of the 70 other countries they currently have deals with as part of the EU, they have already spoken to most of them who say they want to continue as is and the he hopes to have 40 of them signed by the end of the transition period.
1st off, what is the impact of the loss of the other 30? Nobody seem to ask him
2nd, it would appear that the UK have already accepted the transition period and are working on that basis? Surely with that known, the EU can push very hard for everything they want. The effects of no deal, and no transition, means that no agreements would be ready.
It appears, and I fully accept that this is simply my opinion and welcome other far better informed input, that the EU is being too quick to agree a transition.
First off what is the situation until the new deals are signed?
Country of origin: You can't cut and paste the entire agreement: UK must be subsitituted for Brexit. You must use 'Find and Replace'. This is hugely significant.
In all EU deals there is a country of origin clause. Otherwise for example China could plonk a massive assembly factory in the UK with cheap Chinese components and export it as if from EU to take advantage of these deals.
On average 55% of components must be EC made to protect against this.
With EC now being found and replaced by UK: this means 55% must now be UK components.
This knocks out Japanese carmakers instantly and probably every other major manufacturer that exports to through these deals.
Cant cut and paste country of origin.0 -
Advertisement
-
The whole notion that you can leave something this complex without a transition period is nothing short of tabloid insanity. If the UK and the EU were to just end their relationship abruptly, for no particular reason, you're looking at risking economic chaos and probably a global recession.
I don't even understand what the incredible rush is. It's a peaceful, technical, completely voluntary exit from what is primarily an intergovernmental organisation that they were voluntarily members of. They're not trying to leave the British Empire or the USSR. The EU's only concern is that they don't end up undermining the other members and that they don't cause some kind of major economic mess.
What would a sudden exit achieve? Nothing other than introduce huge risks, chaos and probably cause a lot of economic damage to the UK primarily, to some of the EU and probably to the global economy.
The tabloids and the Brexiteers are engaging in paranoid war-like fantasies from what I can see.
A lot of them seem to be incredibly angry at the EU, for no rational reason, and are prepared to destroy their own economy in a rush to burn all bridges.
The whole thing's nuts and it seems there's either no leadership in the UK at all anymore, or that the leadership is on a suicide mission for some reason. Does someone have an agenda of causing maximum economic damage to the UK? If so, why? Or, is it really just the flowering of the tabloid jingoism and football hooligan style of English nationalism gone mainstream?0 -
The whole notion that you can leave something this complex without a transition period is nothing short of tabloid insanity. If the UK and the EU were to just end their relationship abruptly, for no particular reason, you're looking at risking economic chaos and probably a global recession.
I don't even understand what the incredible rush is. It's a peaceful, technical, completely voluntary exit from what is primarily an intergovernmental organisation that they were voluntarily members of. They're not trying to leave the British Empire or the USSR. The EU's only concern is that they don't end up undermining the other members and that they don't cause some kind of major economic mess.
What would a sudden exit achieve? Nothing other than introduce huge risks, chaos and probably cause a lot of economic damage to the UK primarily, to some of the EU and probably to the global economy.
The tabloids and the Brexiteers are engaging in paranoid war-like fantasies from what I can see.
A lot of them seem to be incredibly angry at the EU, for no rational reason, and are prepared to destroy their own economy in a rush to burn all bridges.
The whole thing's nuts and it seems there's either no leadership in the UK at all anymore, or that the leadership is on a suicide mission for some reason. Does someone have an agenda of causing maximum economic damage to the UK? If so, why? Or, is it really just the flowering of the tabloid jingoism and football hooligan style of English nationalism gone mainstream?
It's all of these things mentioned there plus a sickness of megalomania that has as well infested the USA which is called 'Make .... Great Again'. Some nostalgia about the past comes also into it and that all together is the poisoned mixture that made Brexit. The 'master brewer' of that is Farage and his 'henchmen and helpers' are the tabloids and various second class politicians like BoJo and this gang. This development has been going on for more than just the 25 years since this twatter Farage came to the surface. There is a long ongoing anti-EU Sentiment among certain diehard Tories in the Tory Party and the present UK PM Mrs May is nothing but the puppet for them which they use as they please. She has shown time and again that she has no guts and no sense of leadership and therefore to choose the term 'puppet' to discribe her and her conduct as party leader and PM is just about right by myself.
I have been following this Brexit development in the UK media (the tabloids excluded because I despise them) and noticed that no matter how often and no matter how substantial and evidently (by the right logical conclusions and recent negative developments regarding the UK economy and her international standing) the warning by experts have been published, to no avail because Brexiteers hate them experts much more than anything because they and their facts stand in the way of the wishful thinking cloud-cuckoo-land-vision of post-Brexit Britain.
Brexit was irrational from the outset, is insane in its development and will catastrophic in its effect when it becomes reality. The present circumstances are not the reality which are to be anticipated once the UK has exited the EU and the transition period has ended, it is just the prelude of what will come. The reactions on the financial markets in the wake of the BrexitRef result immediately after the results were announced seem to have not been enough of a taste for the Brexiteers. They have simply ignored or downplayed it.0 -
It's all of these things mentioned there plus a sickness of megalomania that has as well infested the USA which is called 'Make .... Great Again'. Some nostalgia about the past comes also into it and that all together is the poisoned mixture that made Brexit. The 'master brewer' of that is Farage and his 'henchmen and helpers' are the tabloids and various second class politicians like BoJo and this gang. This development has been going on for more than just the 25 years since this twatter Farage came to the surface. There is a long ongoing anti-EU Sentiment among certain diehard Tories in the Tory Party and the present UK PM Mrs May is nothing but the puppet for them which they use as they please. She has shown time and again that she has no guts and no sense of leadership and therefore to choose the term 'puppet' to discribe her and her conduct as party leader and PM is just about right by myself.
I have been following this Brexit development in the UK media (the tabloids excluded because I despise them) and noticed that no matter how often and no matter how substantial and evidently (by the right logical conclusions and recent negative developments regarding the UK economy and her international standing) the warning by experts have been published, to no avail because Brexiteers hate them experts much more than anything because they and their facts stand in the way of the wishful thinking cloud-cuckoo-land-vision of post-Brexit Britain.
Brexit was irrational from the outset, is insane in its development and will catastrophic in its effect when it becomes reality. The present circumstances are not the reality which are to be anticipated once the UK has exited the EU and the transition period has ended, it is just the prelude of what will come. The reactions on the financial markets in the wake of the BrexitRef result immediately after the results were announced seem to have not been enough of a taste for the Brexiteers. They have simply ignored or downplayed it.
They never fully decolonized hence why the queen is also the head of 16 other countries besides the UK and the charade of the commonwealth is still running.0 -
I won't object you in anything you said.GalwayMark wrote: »It's all of these things mentioned there plus a sickness of megalomania that has as well infested the USA which is called 'Make .... Great Again'. Some nostalgia about the past comes also into it and that all together is the poisoned mixture that made Brexit. The 'master brewer' of that is Farage and his 'henchmen and helpers' are the tabloids and various second class politicians like BoJo and this gang. This development has been going on for more than just the 25 years since this twatter Farage came to the surface. There is a long ongoing anti-EU Sentiment among certain diehard Tories in the Tory Party and the present UK PM Mrs May is nothing but the puppet for them which they use as they please. She has shown time and again that she has no guts and no sense of leadership and therefore to choose the term 'puppet' to discribe her and her conduct as party leader and PM is just about right by myself.
I have been following this Brexit development in the UK media (the tabloids excluded because I despise them) and noticed that no matter how often and no matter how substantial and evidently (by the right logical conclusions and recent negative developments regarding the UK economy and her international standing) the warning by experts have been published, to no avail because Brexiteers hate them experts much more than anything because they and their facts stand in the way of the wishful thinking cloud-cuckoo-land-vision of post-Brexit Britain.
Brexit was irrational from the outset, is insane in its development and will catastrophic in its effect when it becomes reality. The present circumstances are not the reality which are to be anticipated once the UK has exited the EU and the transition period has ended, it is just the prelude of what will come. The reactions on the financial markets in the wake of the BrexitRef result immediately after the results were announced seem to have not been enough of a taste for the Brexiteers. They have simply ignored or downplayed it.
They never fully decolonized hence why the queen is also the head of 16 other countries besides the UK and the charade of the commonwealth is still running.0 -
-
Rain Ascending wrote: »And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves.
I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans.
I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment.
However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers).
The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could.
However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.
Yes, it has barely started, and has the potential to utterly gigantic before all this is over.
One of the core elements of what Wylie is asserting, is that CA completely under invoiced the Brexit campaign (and US races starting in the House/Senate races) because Robert Mercer was "investing" in CA to further his aims, not to make a profit. That is outrageous and everyone should be worried about what has been won, by whom, and to what end ? That should be a showstopping statement, but isn't, probably because the general public do not yet understand the consequences. As you said though, that's why the Nix sting helped.
The other thing is that we don't yet what Bob Mueller knows, but I'm hoping Mercer gets justice in due course.0 -
I may have missed it. Did the Commons vote on the transition deal arranged last week or did it need one ?0
-
Leave.eu having a go at Corbyn for antisemitism, and then they come out with this:
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/979331640987176960
There some hypocritical bigots. No fan of Corbyn, but its pretty clear these lads don't give a **** about racism or bigotry as there happy to engage in it themselves.0 -
It's quite scary to see just how weird things are getting in the UK. It's almost like as if the pragmatic centre has been completely silenced.0
-
I see it that way too, otherwise this farce will never end and the EU can't afford to be fooled beyond the time limits set for that by Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Why the hell not? What do any of us care what the UK government pretends to its own public?
Hard Brexit will cost the EU billions of Euros in hard cash.
So let the UK bumble along in transition pretending to brexit - as long as nothing changes, it won't cost the EU much. A 10 year gradual transition to a real Brexit of some kind is also preferable to a 1 year crash out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali : Bear in mind that beyond Ireland, there's far, far less sense of concern about Brexit. It's barely even registering in the media in a lot of countries.
A crash out is not desirable, but from the EU members' perspective, neither is an indefinitely dragged out situation where the UK opts to have one foot in and one foot out and shafts the rest of us, which is exactly what they have been overtly planning to do.
For example, negotiating trade deals with 3rd countries and then acting as a backdoor into the single market seems to be one of the openly discussed things they seem to think is completely reasonable.
Even from an Irish prospective, having the UK in a semi-detached situation with full access to the market and operating as a low-regulation tax haven would basically create extremely unfair competition for Ireland.
Whatever happens, this has to be drawn to a timely conclusion as well as avoiding economy mayhem.
The "cake and eat it" proposals really are grossly unfair on the EU-27, including Ireland.0 -
It's quite scary to see just how weird things are getting in the UK. It's almost like as if the pragmatic centre has been completely silenced.
It's fascinating to watch. It's like watching an entire country having a collective nervous breakdown.
How they can extricate themselves from this mess is anyone's guess. It might take them 10 or 15 years to deal with the after effects of the nuttiness that is underway at the moment. Sociologists of the future will have a field day trying to analyse this period.0 -
I honestly think there's a lot more going on in the UK system than just Brexit. It's more of a symptom of discontent. Things are on the surface of it OK, but there's all sorts of stuff been bubbling away for years. They have a tendency to blame the EU for everything, because that's what the tabloids tend to do i.e. take the anger, and focus it on a target which may be nothing to do with the cause of the anger in the first place.
What shocked me was back when the London (and then other cities) rioted and it was all swept back under the carpet without much discussion as to what the fundamental causes were.
Also, when you look at a lot of the reasons given for Brexit, they're similar to Trump supporters wanting a reduction of exposure to globalisation, more local control over policies and so on. However, they've actually voted for the exact opposite as the Tories are going to deliver - extreme capitalism and remove many of the more socially-focused protections that the EU has pushed, due to the balancing influence of more socialist countries like France and the Nordic states.
One of the other aspects that's also forgotten a lot is that many of the die-hard free market aspects of the EU were driven by the UK. It wasn't some meek little passive member of the EU. It shaped many of its policies and tended to push it quite hard away from any kind of a more centrist socially focused Europe.
They're being sold the idea that Brexit is taking back control, yet the Tories are pushing the notion that part of that is throwing everything the global markets and deregulating absolutely everything.
What worries me is that at the core of Brexit there's a complete contradiction: A closed Britain, that's somehow going to be the most open market that the world's ever seen.
I really don't think the UK population is anything near as right wing or as pro-liberal economic values as the Tories and this agenda will ultimately come a cropper.
I predict a riot before this is all done!
Also it will be interesting to see where the EU goes without the influence of the UK pushing endless market opening and privatisation agendas. I've a feeling it will probably look a lot more like the Nordic and Central European model than the neoliberal one that's been somehow pushed quite aggressively by some at its core. How Ireland fits into that is another question, although we aren't all that liberal economically in some ways, only when it suits us.0 -
For example, negotiating trade deals with 3rd countries and then acting as a backdoor into the single market seems to be one of the openly discussed things they seem to think is completely reasonable.
Yes, but we don't care what they think. During the transition period, EU rules apply, the end.
And since the transition period doesn't end for many, many years, Brexit is just jingoistic talk in the UK papers for many, many years and costs the EU very little.
In fact, other EU members gain somewhat, since we strip important EU agencies out of the UK, and we get to pitch to inward investors that Brexit means they should not invest in the UK.
Meanwhile the UK continues to pay and obey EU rules. Extend that as long as you like, guys.0 -
Well, from an investment point of view, you'd be a bit overoptimistic to invest somewhere that's got no guarantees of market access. Whatever transition deal is in place, it is temporary and will end.
The UK's inevitably going to go through some major bumps. I can't really see how that's avoidable.
I also still feel they're pinning far too much hope on Trump and the Republicans. It's quite possible that Trump will be up against a largely democratic house after the midterms and completely tied up in impeachment proceedings until the end of his presidency, and that could well be followed by a sensible, sane Democratic presidency in the states that could end up seeing the UK's position as very unhelpful in terms of US policy in Europe.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yes, but we don't care what they think. During the transition period, EU rules apply, the end.
And since the transition period doesn't end for many, many years, Brexit is just jingoistic talk in the UK papers for many, many years and costs the EU very little.
In fact, other EU members gain somewhat, since we strip important EU agencies out of the UK, and we get to pitch to inward investors that Brexit means they should not invest in the UK.
Meanwhile the UK continues to pay and obey EU rules. Extend that as long as you like, guys.
I remember someone online making a joke, about the possibility of the UK, never actually leaving the EU, but the Brexit process just dragging on and on and on forever.0 -
-
I honestly think there's a lot more going on in the UK system than just Brexit. It's more of a symptom of discontent. Things are on the surface of it OK, but there's all sorts of stuff been bubbling away for years. They have a tendency to blame the EU for everything, because that's what the tabloids tend to do i.e. take the anger, and focus it on a target which may be nothing to do with the cause of the anger in the first place.
What shocked me was back when the London (and then other cities) rioted and it was all swept back under the carpet without much discussion as to what the fundamental causes were.
Also, when you look at a lot of the reasons given for Brexit, they're similar to Trump supporters wanting a reduction of exposure to globalisation, more local control over policies and so on. However, they've actually voted for the exact opposite as the Tories are going to deliver extreme capitalism and remove many of the more socially-focused protections that the EU has pushed, due to the balancing influence of more socialist countries like France and the Nordic states.
One of the other aspects that's also forgotten a lot is that many of the die-hard free market aspects of the EU were driven by the UK. It wasn't some meek little passive member of the EU. It shaped many of its policies and tended to push it quite hard away from any kind of a more centrist socially focused Europe.
They're being sold the idea that Brexit is taking back control, yet the Tories are pushing the notion that part of that is throwing everything the global markets and deregulating absolutely everything.
What worries me is that at the core of Brexit there's a complete contradiction: A closed Britain, that's somehow going to be the most open market that the world's ever seen.
I really don't think the UK population is anything near as right wing or as pro-liberal economic values as the Tories and this agenda will ultimately come a cropper.
I predict a riot before this is all done!
Also it will be interesting to see where the EU goes without the influence of the UK pushing endless market opening and privatisation agendas. I've a feeling it will probably look a lot more like the Nordic and Central European model than the neoliberal one that's been somehow pushed quite aggressively by some at its core. How Ireland fits into that is another question, although we aren't all that liberal economically in some ways, only when it suits us.
Yes indeed, it's almost certainly symptomatic of a country that is in a mess, unsure of itself and deeply divided.
The right wing press and UKIP claimed that the EU was the cause of all Britain's problems but of course they were convenient scapegoats.
One theory I've heard is around the rise of English nationalism and that such individuals are far from comfortable with the "UK" and "Great Britain" tag. The overwhelming number of Brexiteers (even the public ones) seem to be English nationalists.0 -
When you think about it though, the UK is quite an odd concept. It's not a federal state nor is it a confederation of any type. It's more "England and others" and really has never developed beyond that.
There's a huge amount of centralisation of power in London and a very strong resistance towards any kind of meaningful reform. Even the way devolution was done was an absolute mess. They have differing levels of devolution for different parts, and no devolution at all for regions of England, which are far larger than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Then you've no distinction between national government and a federal level, so the decisions are being taken in a single parliament with almost parallel systems operating in the same house.
There's no federal legal system, but for some reason English/Welsh law is supreme. The central bank is still the Bank of England, not the UK Central Bank. Even the term Britain gets swapped for the UK all the time, when that specifically excludes Northern Ireland which is part of the UK, but not Britain e.g. Team GB in the olympics and I've never really found I can distinguish between what's British and what's English, yet I can clearly distinguish between British and Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, which tends to make me feel that British is just an extension of English.
I think as an Irish person, living in the Republic, all of those contradictions and weird crossovers in UK/British/English identity are very clear and were a big part of why this country left the UK. The non-English bits of the UK were never really seen as equal partners, more as conquests.
Then all the countries playing sports independently, which is unique to the UK.
You'd really expect the UK to have developed into a proper federal democracy, with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and probably 4 or 5 English states with a federal legal system, a federal parliament and a clear distinction between what each level of government does. Instead, it just remained as an ad hoc mess and a continuous identity crisis since the Middle Ages really.
It's a very strange setup.
To a degree, I think that may play into why the UK (or rather England) has extreme difficulty understanding how a quasi-federal Europe works. The idea that you can actually have a fair system where competing interests are able to come to agreements and where members are all treated equally and fairly, as opposed to having say a supreme state bossing the others around, seems to beyond their comprehension.
When you look at how they tend to interpret the EU, they've always seen it as Germany running Europe. Or, sometimes France, but never as an actual federal (and I use that term advisedly as people get upset at it) body with a strong focus on trying to ensure equal status between members, fairness, consensus decisions and so on.
I'm not saying the EU's perfect, it's very much always a work-in-progress, but it's nothing like the over-centralised monster that the UK tabloids tend to paint. You can see that clearly when a regional parliament in Belgium nearly took down CETA or when they will have to go through at least 27 (and probably more) full democratic processes to sign off on any Brexit deal.
I'm not trying to slag the UK off, but I just think they've a hell of a lot of problems that need to be addressed internally that are nothing to do with the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good news everyone. IDS has come out on LBC radio today and said that dealing with the issue of NI border trade is "easy to do".
Mr Duncan Smith told LBC: "You don’t need to talk about a hard border for goods that have been shipped for long distances because you just increase the number of operators that are licensed to declare before they reach the border.
"Bear in mind Northern Ireland is two percent of Ireland’s total trade that crosses that border, it’s very small indeed. Therefore it’s very controllable, very easy to do."
He didn't expand on it, but seems we have all been worried about nothing!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement