Brexit discussion thread III

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Because it is a huge negative, the 12 billion required annually is proportionately a completely different prospect for the UK than it is to ROI.


Add to that all the other costs of reunification and the long term economic issues that will likely ensue and right now reunification from a financial and economic view does not make sense. It could take us all decades to recover if it is implemented badly.

The 12 bn is not really what it costs though. All sorts of figures can be quoted and the costs can't be computed honestly until we know the breakdowns.
I and many like me, tend to think how much partition has cost socially and economically since it was imposed on the island.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 12 bn is not really what it costs though. All sorts of figures can be quoted and the costs can't be computed honestly until we know the breakdowns.
I and many like me, tend to think how much partition has cost socially and economically since it was imposed on the island.

The problem for NI is, as the Brexit debate showed, is that facts aren't really important. If the story is that NI is costing Britain £12bn per year, thats £230m per week, think if what could be done for the NHS with that. In fact, take the brexit dividend, and add the NIexit dividend and bham, problem solved.

blanch152

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The Ashcroft poll shows a similar trend, huge shift in opinion to a fairly close balance. Like the poll last week this shows more Protestants in favour of a United Ireland than Catholics in favour of the UK, albeit mostly Alliance voters. The DUP would be wise to consider the trend here.

Interesting poll.

The figures of 97% and 98% for Sinn Fein and the DUP are staggering, groupthink on a huge scale.

It shows a polarised divided sectarian society, with both sides entrenched.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting poll.

The figures of 97% and 98% for Sinn Fein and the DUP are staggering, groupthink on a huge scale.

It shows a polarised divided sectarian society, with both sides entrenched.

Which is why the GFA needs to be preserved.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting poll.

The figures of 97% and 98% for Sinn Fein and the DUP are staggering, groupthink on a huge scale.

Well, not really. The DUP is a party committed to the union, so it’s not surprising that everyone in the DUP would vote for the union. And same goes as regards SF and a united Ireland.

If that’s groupthink, then every group of people identified by a shared idea is an example of groupthink. Did you know that 100% of “Repeal the Eighth” activists identified as pro-choice? Groupthink!

murphaph

Interesting that s clear majority of decided middle class middle ground (Alliance) voters would favour union with Ireland over GB. I would have expected the reverse. Times they are a changin.

ambro25

UK could lose £10bn a year in City-related tax revenue after Brexit

Sir Mark Boleat, who was chairman of the City of London Corporation until last year, said a seepage of jobs from the capital was already underway and that the political rows over a deal or no-deal outcome was now “irrelevant” to City chief executives.

“It is no longer contingency planning. If you are running a bank it is non-negotiable. The regulators won’t allow it,” he said.

“This is a 10-year operation. In the short term it won’t be noticeable in terms of staff. Banks won’t be putting out press releases saying they are moving some of their operations because of Brexit because they don’t want the publicity. They are just getting on with it."

“Those who suggested that some business would move were accused of scaremongering,” he will say before listing 15 major banks and financial services who have already set up on the continent or Dublin.

Independent verification, for any doubter. Or I could take photos of the new plaque outside our building (one of the already-relocating City firms is our new neighbour, as it happens).

That tax base isn’t coming back for a decade, at the most optimistic.

Accessorily, that is Boris and Theresa’s “dividend” walking straight out the door early, £ms and £ms at a time: small brooks eventually make big rivers.

That one figure is far bigger than their net contribution, which is pretty funny to be fair. Meth heads would handle this better.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

That one figure is far bigger than their net contribution, which is pretty funny to be fair. Meth heads would handle this better.

To be fair the Octopus guessing winners in football could do better than this; but that's simply because May only cares about staying in power and Tory are torn apart from infighting making that possible. It's the perfect storm in a sense because if Tory was in any way united May would have been forced down a given route (or simply be removed) but due to the infighting that's not happening. Hence we're in the eye of the storm while May is forced to stay rotating around and around bouncing between the storm walls of issues around her but not really doing or going anywhere.

This is also why I stated before and I will keep stating why hard crash out by accident is the most likely outcome. This is not because it's desired in any form but simply because it's the outcome that requires no action to happen; any other outcome requires May to rally the parliament into voting for a proposal and that simply seems impossible atm between Tory infighting and Corbyn's complete abdication of being an opposition leader trying to oust May. Hence Corbyn will sit back and put out great one liners and dogma but will do nothing to stop a hard crash out (as he's a Brexiteer in reality) and May is to weak to get her party to change course leaving the default option which requires no one to do anything in practice as the most likely outcome even if it is the worst outcome for everyone.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not really. The DUP is a party committed to the union, so it’s not surprising that everyone in the DUP would vote for the union. And same goes as regards SF and a united Ireland.

If that’s groupthink, then every group of people identified by a shared idea is an example of groupthink. Did you know that 100% of “Repeal the Eighth” activists identified as pro-choice? Groupthink!

You will see plenty of sinister buzzwords employed to try and deny what is happening. Groupthink is a new one on me.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The Ashcroft poll shows a similar trend, huge shift in opinion to a fairly close balance. Like the poll last week this shows more Protestants in favour of a United Ireland than Catholics in favour of the UK, albeit mostly Alliance voters. The DUP would be wise to consider the trend here.

The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed? The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.

It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.

Leroy42

You've got to hand it to May, she is some survivor. The can kicking is really something to behold.

Enzokk

On the vote today it seems as the Tory Rebels (at least some, the person bringing forth the amendment will vote against it) have folded like I thought they would, even when they have not secured any assurances or the amendment they were seeking. The Labour party can learn from the Conservatives when it comes to standing together. They go against their principles so easily when it comes to votes, it seems that party will always be ahead of personal beliefs.

https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1009436514105810945

Also, to add to the list of spineless moves from Theresa May, she strongly disagrees with Donald Trump and his policy of child concentration camps, but will not cancel his visit later to the UK. Two actions within a few hours today that makes me shake my head at the lack of morals or integrity of politicians in the UK right now.

Theresa May: US border policy 'disturbing' but Trump visit still on

Theresa May has described Donald Trump’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families as “deeply disturbing” and “wrong”, but defended her decision to receive the US president in Britain next month.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, to add to the list of spineless moves from Theresa May, she strongly disagrees with Donald Trump and his policy of child concentration camps, but will not cancel his visit later to the UK. Two actions within a few hours today that makes me shake my head at the lack of morals or integrity of politicians in the UK right now.

TBF to TM, what choice does she really have? She cannot burn any bridges right now, she absolutely needs Trump and the US and needs to be seen to be delivering a trade deal as a sign of the great future in Brexit Britain.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBF to TM, what choice does she really have? She cannot burn any bridges right now, she absolutely needs Trump and the US and needs to be seen to be delivering a trade deal as a sign of the great future in Brexit Britain.

Does not apply to Trump.

He imposed tariffs on his own allies, while visiting North Korea's despot trying to agree a deal like the one with Iran that he walked away from. He is imposing heavy sanctions against China while hoping China will use its influence on NK.

I think Trump has shown his utter contempt for all US allies, Nato, diplomacy, the truth, morality, etc. etc.

Martin Turner's cartoon in today's IT sums him up quite well - pissing on the Statue of Liberty - The full text on the statue reads: 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! ' Just apt to what he is doing down Mexico way.

Leroy42

All very true Sam, but what is her option. Tell him to feck off, that he should stop or she won't be friends?

Do you think that will make Trump change? Or will it leave the UK swinging in the wind at a time that it is looking very likely to crash out of its current trading relationship with the EU.

It may well end up losing out anyway, but at least she needs to keep up the appearance that they have a relationship

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

All very true Sam, but what is her option. Tell him to feck off, that he should stop or she won't be friends?

Do you think that will make Trump change? Or will it leave the UK swinging in the wind at a time that it is looking very likely to crash out of its current trading relationship with the EU.

It may well end up losing out anyway, but at least she needs to keep up the appearance that they have a relationship

Did not some guy come back from Munich eighty years ago waving a piece of paper and declare 'Peace in our time!'

Hmm - sometimes hard decisions have to be made - history is not kind to those who make the wrong choice.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

All very true Sam, but what is her option. Tell him to feck off, that he should stop or she won't be friends?

Do you think that will make Trump change? Or will it leave the UK swinging in the wind at a time that it is looking very likely to crash out of its current trading relationship with the EU.

It may well end up losing out anyway, but at least she needs to keep up the appearance that they have a relationship

As posted above what guarantee does she have that she will get a good deal? If Trump throws a strop because protesters are too loud he will burn her. She can sweet talk to him all she likes he will still do what he likes, and in any case he will not last forever so if the inevitable happens and he leaves his post (by whatever means) she has appeased a brutal would be dictator. Winston Churchill was a racist, but at least he stood by his morals against Germany when the aristocrats were hoping for a good relationship with them in the 1930s.

Just thinking about it, Theresa May has her party in a place where she can do what she wants. When push comes to shove they will vote with the government because they know if a election is called they could lose their seats. This is true of the DUP as well, they are in the driving seat now but if they force a general election because they throw a strop they will be forced to deal with Jeremy Corbyn who has no problems with a united Ireland.

The problem with threatening to vote against the government, if you keep threatening and in the end do as the party needs you lose your strength. The same goes for David Davis, the exception seems to be that he does get his way when he sulks and throws his dummy. The rebels got very little at all with their talk of voting against the government so you can clearly see who has the power in that struggle.

J Mysterio

Its the old question of 'are you dissing Trump, or the office of US president?'.

Even people in the US who are anti-Trump will be offended by him having a visit cancelled.

Trump is a piece of shıt, but it's short-sighted to break down relations. You need to register your dissaproval in other ways.

May will be his best friend when he comes and will presumably try and act less like a humourless witch and be more gregarious and down to earth.

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump is a very particular kind of a piece of ****. Notice how he is all praise for Putin, Kim, the Chinese, the Saudis - he worships strength.

He is contemptuous of his allies, because he sees them as weaklings siding with strong America. The UK would get better treatment from Trump if May rang up and told him to get stuffed.

You might be right

Nevertheless, the point I'm trying to make is that US citizens will feel they have been told to get stuffed, and that antagonistic feeling will last longer than Trump. He may not get another term (please god).

I distinctly remember being at the opening game of the baseball season - Tampa Bay Devil Rays against Toronto Blue Jays. Bush came up on the big screen to deliver a message for the occasion (and General Petraeus threw the first pitch). Two elderly Americans in front of me and one says to the other; "I may not like the guy, but he sure is mah president".

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump is a very particular kind of a piece of ****. Notice how he is all praise for Putin, Kim, the Chinese, the Saudis - he worships strength.

He is contemptuous of his allies, because he sees them as weaklings siding with strong America. The UK would get better treatment from Trump if May rang up and told him to get stuffed.

Maybe she should send him the details of how the Tories are forcing sick and ill MPs to physically go to parliament and vote instead of being able to do it in a car in the grounds of parliament. Seems Trump gets off on treating people like dirt and this would be right down his alley.

'Inhuman' Tory Whips Refuse To Help Sick And Ill Labour MPs To Take Part In Crunch Brexit Vote

Theresa May has been accused of ‘inhuman’ tactics to win a crunch Brexit vote after Labour claimed Tory whips were refusing to help its sick and ill MPs take part.

The row erupted just hours before the expected Parliamentary showdown between the Prime Minister and her ‘Remain rebels’ on the Conservative backbenches.

Labour sources told HuffPost UK that the Tories were refusing to adopt the usual convention of allowing hospitalised MPs to register their vote despite their incapacity.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1009449102181093379

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nevertheless, the point I'm trying to make is that US citizens will feel they have been told to get stuffed, and that antagonistic feeling will last longer than Trump.

Once Trump is gone, he'll have as much support as Nixon does today.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Once Trump is gone, he'll have as much support as Nixon does today.

Would you think it would be as high as that?

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Once Trump is gone, he'll have as much support as Nixon does today.

Not sure about that. No matter what why he leaves, be it through the ballot box, the courts or just time limit, those that worship him will do so regardless. They will find some way to justify him being screwed over by the Swamp or the MSM.

A little anecdote.

Caller to a politics radio show
Caller - Trump is doing great, I am already getting ready to vote for him in 2020.
Host - What has he done specifically that you are happy with?
Caller - everything, but he has got to build the wall, and he has already started.
Host - So is the wall the most important thing to you?
Caller - Yeah, he ran on that No1 promise, he needs to deliver for all of us who voted
Host - So if he doesn't build the wall you won't vote him?
Caller - Well, I probably will as it'll be the Dems or the swamp that held him back.
Paraphrased

I think Trump has such a cult following that people will be very slow to admit they were wrong. Even when the truth about the amounts of money he made out of being POTUS, the payments for Mar-A-Lago, use of Trump hotels, patents for Ivanka etc, they still won't move.

Trasna1

Enzokk wrote: »

On the vote today it seems as the Tory Rebels (at least some, the person bringing forth the amendment will vote against it) have folded like I thought they would, even when they have not secured any assurances or the amendment they were seeking. The Labour party can learn from the Conservatives when it comes to standing together. They go against their principles so easily when it comes to votes, it seems that party will always be ahead of personal beliefs.

https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1009436514105810945

Also, to add to the list of spineless moves from Theresa May, she strongly disagrees with Donald Trump and his policy of child concentration camps, but will not cancel his visit later to the UK. Two actions within a few hours today that makes me shake my head at the lack of morals or integrity of politicians in the UK right now.

Theresa May: US border policy 'disturbing' but Trump visit still on

I don't think we can get on our high horse with regards to Trump. If he were visiting Ireland, the Irish government wouldn't rescind the invitation.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1586968

The UK have their job advertisement up for creating and leading the team for airspace negotiations.

About time.

flutered

Leroy42 wrote: »

You've got to hand it to May, she is some survivor. The can kicking is really something to behold.

if possible it will be kicked along until april19, unless the eu 27 says enough is enough

flutered

Leroy42 wrote: »

All very true Sam, but what is her option. Tell him to feck off, that he should stop or she won't be friends?

Do you think that will make Trump change? Or will it leave the UK swinging in the wind at a time that it is looking very likely to crash out of its current trading relationship with the EU.

It may well end up losing out anyway, but at least she needs to keep up the appearance that they have a relationship

put the uk in place of the statue of liberty in that cartoon, for all trumps thinks about it, he idolises power and mullah nothing else, look at how he has turned his presidency into a money making racket

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1586968

The UK have their job advertisement up for creating and leading the team for airspace negotiations.

About time.

Comedy gold

Open to UK, Commonwealth and European Economic Area (EEA) and certain non EEA nationals.

So in theory you could get the job and then get deported after Brexit.

Or more likely you could be an EEA citizen who doesn't get the job despite being more qualified than the person who does and sue based on being rejected for not having future travel rights, even those haven't been defined yet.

Capt'n Midnight

ambro25 wrote: »

UK could lose £10bn a year in City-related tax revenue after Brexit.
...
Accessorily, that is Boris and Theresa’s “dividend” walking straight out the door early, £ms and £ms at a time: small brooks eventually make big rivers.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks/former-uk-financial-district-leader-sees-75000-brexit-job-losses-idUKKBN1JG1KV

75,000 well paid jobs going then.

The EU can't give the UK "Mutual Recognition" because that breaks the four freedoms rule, it puts them ahead of the EEA countries, and without oversight from the European Courts it even puts them ahead of EU countries.




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-siemens/siemens-uk-boss-give-us-clarity-on-how-post-brexit-trade-will-work-idUSKBN1JG1U5
Head of Siemens UK is upset.



The Brexit bonus is tiny.
And it's putting at risk the 52% of the $1.1 trillion UK trade in goods last year that was with the EU.



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44523513
They've promised* to match the EU funds for farming until 2022, it was £3Bn last year.

Take that one promise away from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures and you get
2020/21 Zero
2021/22 £300m - which is less than the weekly amount on that red bus.
2022/23 £2.8 Bn - about half the optimistic cost of a GPS system


*no I don't believe they will honour the promise. Grove had already said it would be linked to "environmental" stuff. And besides the Fishermen involved in the Cod Wars who lost their livelihoods had to wait over 35 years to get a measly grand in compo.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cod-wars-payment-is-too-little-too-late-gmwlh9djhcm

Leroy42

This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening;

Rees-Mogg DEMOLISHES Verhofstadt's claim that EU cannot flex its 'SACROSANCT' rules for UK

BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg dismantled the European Union's negotiating strategy, telling EU Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt there is "considerable evidence" the bloc ignored its own rules to reach an agreement on previous occasions.

JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't.

His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.

Verhofstadt gave a bit of a waffley answer, but my bet is that inside he was screaming "why the hell should we? You feckers caused all this mess and now you want us to change for you". But being a diplomat he merely said they couldn't.

Capt'n Midnight

To give an example of how the UK is part of the European supply system.
There could be a shortage of fizzy drinks and beer.

https://www.gasworld.com/breaking-news-co2-supply-crisis-hits-europe/2014944.article

It appears the UK is hardest hit – with only one major CO2 plant operating as we go to press. Very reliant on imports from Scandinavia and also the Netherlands – the UK is doubly impacted in that there are limited movements across the Channel due to the plant shut-downs in the Benelux and France limiting product to ship.

We're probably out on a limb ourselves , but our links to the continent have improved since the announcement of Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Oh dear,

you only have to look at how long other EU trade deals took, where both sides were serious, to realise how possibe this is.

Guy Verhofstadt warns MPs of 'two decade' Brexit ratification

He said it would take the entire two-year transition period, which is due to kick in after Brexit on 29 March 2019, to sort out the details of future trading relations between the EU and UK.

But he warned MPs that it would take a lot longer if the political statement published in the autumn was not clear enough about what kind of relationship the EU was going to have with the UK.

Blowfish

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't.

His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.

I was actually watching that. JRM was trying to make the point that both the EU and UK could just not bother putting up a border if there was no deal. Verhofstadt said there had to be a border because of the EU rules, at which point JRM was saying they could just bend them as they've done it before.

Of course, the reality is that JRM is utterly wrong as not putting up a border would violate the WTO Most Favoured Nation rule. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt in that he's just completely unaware of this rather than trying to mislead, but someone should really sit him down and explain why this isn't an option as it's doing him no favours that his argument for hard brexit relies on it.

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening;

Rees-Mogg DEMOLISHES Verhofstadt's claim that EU cannot flex its 'SACROSANCT' rules for UK

BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg dismantled the European Union's negotiating strategy, telling EU Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt there is "considerable evidence" the bloc ignored its own rules to reach an agreement on previous occasions.

JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't.

His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.

Verhofstadt gave a bit of a waffley answer, but my bet is that inside he was screaming "why the hell should we? You feckers caused all this mess and now you want us to change for you". But being a diplomat he merely said they couldn't.

Except of course neither the Maastricht Treaty (or the TEU to be exact) nor any other EU Treaty states that the EU member states can’t give a “bailout” loan to an EU member state.

As for the rest, JRM needs to understand that “Brexit means Brexit”.

J Mysterio

Fantastic article here from Tom Peck in the Independent (UK). A bit direct in parts too!

"The Moment Brexit lost its Dignity"

Not sure there was ever any dignity in it to be lost though.

mickoneill31

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening;



JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't.

His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.

Verhofstadt gave a bit of a waffley answer, but my bet is that inside he was screaming "why the hell should we? You feckers caused all this mess and now you want us to change for you". But being a diplomat he merely said they couldn't.

The eu can bend the rules. But they'll do this for an eu member (eg the NI backstop to help Ireland). As you say, why would they do it for a third country (eg. when the UK tried to get the backstop for the whole UK to help the UK). I don't know why the UK still doesn't get this.
They're not going to get exceptions just because they're the UK. That only worked when they were part of the club.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed?

They are the respondents' own identifications.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.

Again, the respondents' own identifications.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.

This information is in the full poll report. Out of 1,666 respondents in NI, 290 identified as "no religion", 204 did not identify a party for which they voted, and 97 did not say how they voted in the Brexit referendum.

Peregrinus

Trasna1 wrote: »

I don't think we can get on our high horse with regards to Trump. If he were visiting Ireland, the Irish government wouldn't rescind the invitation.

Perhaps not. But we did have the wit not to invite him in the first place.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening . . .

JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't.

His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.

Because it doesn't suit us.

It suits us to bend the rules to support the union and express solidarity with its members. It doesn't suit us to bend the rules to undermine the union and incentivise leaving. How can that be hard to grasp?

Leroy42

So the rebellion turned out to be nothing, swept aside when the potential of having a new election and losing TM as PM was no doubt put to them. In the end they sided with the Tory party.

So now the government can go ahead on the basis of getting no deal.

The Express (I know not a surprise) seems to take this almost gleefully. Finally the UK can hold the threat of No-Deal over the heads of the the EU to get what they want. Of course they have always been holding that threat, this vote hadn't changed that it was an attempt to try to give parliament a voice to stop a no deal should it happen.

And having that threat certainly is something to have, although I would question the value they are placing on it. There is little doubt that the EU do not want a no deal scenario, and as such will try to avoid it within reason. Unfortunately, TM has painted red lines down all the areas that the EU would be looking for any concessions from the UK in return for a deal and so there appears little that the EU can actually offer them, save for some small things like access to Galileo, Eurotron etc.

But the risk to the UK of a No Deal to the UK is immeasurably worse, both in absolute and % terms. Even the UK have produced reports that show just how bad it would be, and the EU know that. So how much of a threat is it really? It like a bank robber saying he will kill himself unless he gets given the plane by the cops, but they will have to clean up the blood!

I don't understand why the UK cannot see this. i get the usual position that one must always have point at which you ware prepared to walk away, but that doesn't always hold true.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the rebellion turned out to be nothing, swept aside when the potential of having a new election and losing TM as PM was no doubt put to them. In the end they sided with the Tory party.

So now the government can go ahead on the basis of getting no deal.

The Express (I know not a surprise) seems to take this almost gleefully. Finally the UK can hold the threat of No-Deal over the heads of the the EU to get what they want. Of course they have always been holding that threat, this vote hadn't changed that it was an attempt to try to give parliament a voice to stop a no deal should it happen.

And having that threat certainly is something to have, although I would question the value they are placing on it. There is little doubt that the EU do not want a no deal scenario, and as such will try to avoid it within reason. Unfortunately, TM has painted red lines down all the areas that the EU would be looking for any concessions from the UK in return for a deal and so there appears little that the EU can actually offer them, save for some small things like access to Galileo, Eurotron etc.

But the risk to the UK of a No Deal to the UK is immeasurably worse, both in absolute and % terms. Even the UK have produced reports that show just how bad it would be, and the EU know that. So how much of a threat is it really? It like a bank robber saying he will kill himself unless he gets given the plane by the cops, but they will have to clean up the blood!

I don't understand why the UK cannot see this. i get the usual position that one must always have point at which you ware prepared to walk away, but that doesn't always hold true.

The trouble is that a no deal scenario will not impact in the slightest on the living standards of those at the sharp end, the jrms of this world, surely one of the most unpleasant people in European politics, will actually make a lot of money. The people it will effect are either those who didn't want to leave, or plenty who haven't quite understood the box they have opened here.
May has totally ignored the views of 48% of the then voting age population, and, in truth, likely a small majority of the population now. She will be reviled in years to come.

Leroy42

But it isn't just JRM. It is a large part of the media and if we are being honest a large portion of the population.

Polls seem to suggest little movement in attitudes since the vote, if anything people simply just want to get on with it. If it was JRM alone then he would be treated much the same of Farage was, a nice segment on the news but not to be taken too seriously.

But like Farage, JRM does speak for what a lot of people believe (and of course their is the argument about how they ended up believing it).

trellheim

But like Farage, JRM does speak for what a lot of people believe

JRM and Farage are loons plain and simple. If you get your news off the crisp packet that is the Mail or the Sun then of course you are going to want out.


In other news Juncker addressing a joint houses of the Oireachtas later. Not sure thats going to help matters lol

Leroy42

They might well be loons, but a significant portion of the population and certainly the parliament as a whole, agree with them. The government and Labour would. whilst not agreeing with everything, agree with the fundamental position of Brexit.

Mezcita

Juncker in the Dail now.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/dail-eireann-live/

"Ireland's border is Europe's border and it is our priority".

Laois_Man

Mezcita wrote: »

Juncker in the Dail now.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/dail-eireann-live/

"Ireland's border is Europe's border and it is our priority".

So disingenuous, it's nauseating!
Surely everyone knows we're just a stick for them to beat the EU dissident Brits with!!

kunst nugget

Laois_Man wrote: »

So disingenuous, it's nauseating!
Surely everyone knows we're just a stick for them to beat the EU dissident Brits with!!

How's it disingenuous? It's not like Britain got booted out of the EU, they created this headache of the the border in Northern Ireland by leaving of their own accord - the EU is there to protect the interest of its member states.

Water John

One suspects Laois Man is being ironic.

kunst nugget

Water John wrote: »

One suspects Laois Man is being ironic.

Ah... it can be hard to tell sometimes.