Brexit discussion thread IV

Imreoir2

Spook_ie wrote: »

No but it is a member county, suppose they had an option of joining the six because of their opposition to gay marriage or Donegal to join because of opposition to abortion, they don't because they were Irish referendums, likewise the Brexit referendum wasn't a NI, Scottish, Welsh, English referendum but a UK one

It's not a member county, its just a county. They don't have a choice in the matter. It's not a comparable situation.

You can go ahead and argue that if things were different, things would be different, but thats not really a path for usefull discussion if you ask me.

revelman

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU are not really unsubtle gansters, they have set out their position and have little reason to deviate from it, either to play hardball or to make concessions.

I do understand where you are coming from but surely the realpolitik in the background was to make life as difficult as possible so that something like this might happen i.e. a second referendum where they change their minds?

Even if what the EU has done was entirely for principled reasons, you can't deny that this would have been at the back of their minds?

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KeohaneDan/status/1043620195787583489


Can't make out the text in the article but...

Yes, Boris Johnson and the free-market thinktank, the IEA, propose an "Anglo-Irish treaty on goods", even though the British have been burned enough times attempting bilaterals.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Yes, Boris Johnson and the free-market thinktank, the IEA, propose an "Anglo-Irish treaty on goods", even though the British have been burned enough times attempting bilaterals.

The Brexiteers have not really moved on from the referendum campaign, two and a half years later and they have moved from signing trade deals in Berlin to signing trade deals in Dublin.

Water John

Are they that stupid that they don't know that ROI cannot negotiate a treaty with them. Are they suggesting that the EU negotiate on our behalf?

Problem with the Labour Party Conference and its decisions is that it will heavily weigh in favour of Corbyn. It's views may not reflect the views of Labour voters.

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

I do understand where you are coming from but surely the realpolitik in the background was to make life as difficult as possible so that something like this might happen i.e. a second referendum where they change their minds?

Even if what the EU has done was entirely for principled reasons, you can't deny that this would have been at the back of their minds?

Ultimatly, Brexit is dificult because Brexit is a terrible idea. Thats not the EU's fault. The EU presumably are willing to let the UK stay if they have a second referendum, but have never made any atempt to push that onto the agenda in the UK. The EU does not interfeer in the demostic politics of its members, even leaving members. The EU did not have to play hardball for a second referendum to come back onto the table in the UK. Escaping from the Brexit nightmare is reason enough for it to come back on its own.

The EU have not gone out of their way to make life as dificult as possible, they have acted in the interests of their members and nothing more. They could have made the whole process much harder for the UK. In reality they have tried to de-dramatise the process and offer cover for the British PM where they could to make it easier for her to move to an acceptable position. They could not make Brexit into a success for the UK though, nothing could have done that.

revelman

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ultimatly, Brexit is dificult because Brexit is a terrible idea. Thats not the EU's fault. The EU presumably are willing to let the UK stay if they have a second referendum, but have never made any atempt to push that onto the agenda in the UK. The EU does not interfeer in the demostic politics of its members, even leaving members. The EU did not have to play hardball for a second referendum to come back onto the table in the UK. Escaping from the Brexit nightmare is reason enough for it to come back on its own.

The EU have not gone out of their way to make life as dificult as possible, they have acted in the interests of their members and nothing more. They could have made the whole process much harder for the UK. In reality they have tried to de-dramatise the process and offer cover for the British PM where they could to make it easier for her to move to an acceptable position. They could not make Brexit into a success for the UK though, nothing could have done that.

I respect your views but fundamentally disagree with them. The notion that the EU does not interfere in the domestic politics of Member States sounds fine in theory but is not actually the reality. As one example, consider the financial crisis and the way the EU stepped in to basically run places like Greece (as part of the so-called 'troika').

In my view the EU has engaged in plenty of drama and then turns around and talks about dedramatising. I think you view the EU as somehow this neutral, benign, non-political actor. It couldn't be further from this in my view.

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

In my view the EU has engaged in plenty of drama and then turns around and talks about dedramatising. I think you view the EU as somehow this neutral, benign, non-political actor. It couldn't be further from this in my view.

No, I view the EU as being a much larger and much more powerful actor that is also less damaged by the worse case scenario and much better prepared for the worst case scenario. The EU holds all the cards and has less reason to play games as a result.

It's not neutral or benign, it is working in the interests of its members. If its members interests were best served by pushing the UK off a cliff, then it would be bye bye UK. The EU recognises that a deal which respects the integrity of the EU, including the Customs Union and Single Market, is in the best interests of its members and that is what it is working for.

Call me Al

Water John wrote: »

Are they that stupid that they don't know that ROI cannot negotiate a treaty with them. Are they suggesting that the EU negotiate on our behalf?

Problem with the Labour Party Conference and its decisions is that it will heavily weigh in favour of Corbyn. It's views may not reflect the views of Labour voters.

Of course they know this won't work. They're banking that a sizable number of their supporters dont know anything beyond brexit means brexit.

Thus is purely for domestic purposes.

Calina

revelman wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ultimatly, Brexit is dificult because Brexit is a terrible idea. Thats not the EU's fault. The EU presumably are willing to let the UK stay if they have a second referendum, but have never made any atempt to push that onto the agenda in the UK. The EU does not interfeer in the demostic politics of its members, even leaving members. The EU did not have to play hardball for a second referendum to come back onto the table in the UK. Escaping from the Brexit nightmare is reason enough for it to come back on its own.

The EU have not gone out of their way to make life as dificult as possible, they have acted in the interests of their members and nothing more. They could have made the whole process much harder for the UK. In reality they have tried to de-dramatise the process and offer cover for the British PM where they could to make it easier for her to move to an acceptable position. They could not make Brexit into a success for the UK though, nothing could have done that.

I respect your views but fundamentally disagree with them. The notion that the EU does not interfere in the domestic politics of Member States sounds fine in theory but is not actually the reality. As one example, consider the financial crisis and the way the EU stepped in to basically run places like Greece (as part of the so-called 'troika').

In my view the EU has engaged in plenty of drama and then turns around and talks about dedramatising. I think you view the EU as somehow this neutral, benign, non-political actor. It couldn't be further from this in my view.

Arguably the UK has engaged in significantly more drama given the antics and comments of the former Foreign Secretary, the comments about being a bloody difficult woman, the fight of the summer regarding time tabling, the antics in Salzburg including the reading of the Die Welt article to 27 other EU leaders and yesterday's theatrics at No 10. The UK Government has been playing to the gallery at all stages but not obviously negotiating in good faith given the follow up to December's agreement in principle regarding Northern Ireland as an example.

EU doesn't play to the UK gallery. They have been monumentally patient in the face of UK rank idiocy tbh. The UK did not prepare contingencies for one outcome of an ill advised, ill defined and poorly run referendum. The governing parties don't speak with one voice, the senior governing party cannot speak with one voice and in fact the cabinet does not speak with one voice. All of the drama in this mess is rooted in UK behaviour. Tusk has on more than one occasion offered the UK the gift of stepping back from hitting itself in the face with a hammer. Macron also. Many MEPs have spoken of the sadness and loss to the EU project of Britain. But the response on the UK side has been a mixture of angry pride, wilful ignorance and rank impoliteness. The overwhelming narrative has been They Need Us More Than We Need Them and so they have made demands which make it clear that in fact the UK needs more from the EU than it has ever been willing to admit. To compare that to the need to provide economic and especially technical aid to Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal is to fundamentally misunderstand the contexts of each. Ireland suffered by aligning itself with Anglo-Saxon mores in terms of financial regulation, the so called light hand. Greece, Portugal and Spain are all comparatively recently free of dictatorship which brings certain lack of experience in terms of how the then EEC and now EU operates. Arguably Spain and Portugal are learning faster than Greece but in their defence they probably had greater cultural exchange given proximity to the core. Greece has always been somewhat physically isolated from the core along with not speaking one of the more commonly used languages and for many years it was also the only one which wrote with a different alphabet.

Brexit is a selfish choice which leaves neither side better off. Even in the worst of the financial crisis, Greece continues to prefer membership to not membership. It is worth noting btw that Tsipras in Greece has demonstrated remarkable political survival in a country not always known for political stability, and that in the face of continuing economic change.

Could Brexit have been handled better by the UK government? In practical negotiating terms yes, in political terms, almost certainly not. There is a fundamental lack of civic knowledge within the UK, even around its own constitution, along with its media environment, epitomised by Up EURs tyoe headlines, that pretty much excluded the presentation of a rational approach. It is very sad but not totally surprising when you look a) at that media environment b) at the divisions in their education system and how that has been messed around and c) at the current cohort of political leadership across the benches. There is none.

I have long been of the opinion that this goes hand in hand with UK monolingualism. Reporting around - fir example - the last French presidential election was borderline insane, even in the broadsheets. So the UK, for understanding what is happening outside the English language bubble, is ill equipped. This enables things like the outcome of Salzburg to be...spun, for want of a better word. No PM is ever going to admit to screwing up but then, although Cameron's humming on resigning was close, but an ability to see all sides without using the prism of a subset of EU media, might well keep them more accountable.

But, we are where we are. And the UK still wants everything to remain the same except no nasty foreigners (on which their economy and elements of their health service depend) and no sharing of the cost of running the infrastructure that has allowed them to prosper within the EU. All the benefits, none of the sacrifices. It is like thinking you can be a concert pianist without ever practising.

Itssoeasy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU are not really unsubtle gansters, they have set out their position and have little reason to deviate from it, either to play hardball or to make concessions.

What I found funny and slightly baffling about Theresa mays comments about the EU not explaining why they are against the checkers plan is that the EU have been clear about their concerns about the plan since it was announced. The EU reaction cabt have been a bolt from the blue.

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

Illustrating in one fell swoop how an impending second referendum is not in the UK's national interest.

If a second referendum is held and the options are on the table on what would occur for a specific result then it will be in their interest. If the choices are we stay in the EU or we leave the EU and will only have a trade deal with them. No integration on EU institutions and no more single market. You could then have debates around the impact each decision will have. Also, they would need to acknowledge that NI will be separate from the UK as well.

If you satisfy these requirements and people know what they are voting for then at least if they vote to leave they know the consequences of what they voted for. At the moment we have people who voted for Brexit on the back of lies and this is why it cannot work.

Water John wrote: »

Are they that stupid that they don't know that ROI cannot negotiate a treaty with them. Are they suggesting that the EU negotiate on our behalf?

Problem with the Labour Party Conference and its decisions is that it will heavily weigh in favour of Corbyn. It's views may not reflect the views of Labour voters.

I am not sure what Boris Johnson thinks he can achieve but it really seems like he is repeating the mistakes. As commented Ireland cannot be separate from the EU unless we leave the EU. I guess that is his proposal, if the EU can propose that NI be in the single market and customs union then they can propose that Ireland leave the EU. It will not work though.

On the Labour conference, it seems that a poll has suggested that they overwhelmingly favour a second referendum. They are also overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU. The problem for Jeremy Corbyn is he is in power on the back of the membership and he told them their voices will dictate the party because their voices elected him as leader and their voices saved him when his leadership was challenged.

He may be able to silence the membership but the unions are also in favour of a second vote. So if he marginalizes the membership and the unions who is he left with?

I have no doubt that should he run against those new voices that he got to support him he will be shown the door at the next Labour election.

Tom Watson tells Corbyn: ‘We must back members on new Brexit vote’

About 90% of Labour members say they would vote to remain in the EU if there were a referendum now, while 86% back a public vote on the outcome of the negotiations, with just 8% against. Support for another referendum stands at 93% in London among Labour members, 82% in the rest of the south, and 86% in the north. The poll also revealed that should a general election be called, 74% of members want a commitment for a new referendum included in Labour’s manifesto.

Corbyn and the shadow cabinet want the conference to focus on Labour’s radical economic agenda, and plans to boost equality. Speaking at Labour Women’s conference yesterday, Corbyn said: “The Tories may talk about equality. They may say their government delivers for all, but the lived experience of women in Britain tells a different story.

I bet that Corbyn wants to focus on the economic agenda instead of Brexit. That is one area he is in tune with the membership. He will want to avoid Brexit like the plague, but I don't think he can again this year. It is there front and centre.

It is a little funny that again the issue he wants to avoid is the issue that will get him what he wants. Brexit may bring about a new general election but he doesn't want to talk about it because his view is not his members view. The same as stating his members will have a voice, but how enthusiastic will be be about that voice when its not in his interest.

This Labour conference will be interesting to follow to see if his office in engaged in shenanigans to try and avoid Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What I found funny and slightly baffling about Theresa mays comments about the EU not explaining why they are against the checkers plan is that the EU have been clear about their concerns about the plan since it was announced. The EU reaction cabt have been a bolt from the blue.

The surprise at Salzburg was not that the EU cannot accept Chequers, it was that they got tired of helping May out domestically by making poilte noises about it. They went and told the truth. Out loud. In public.


Chequers is nonsense. The brexiteers are lying to you all.


They even laughed about it. Have some cake, sorry, no cherries.

judeboy101

Corby will back 2nd vote IF conference tells him to

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-prepared-to-back-second-brexit-vote-but-would-prefer-general-election-11506145

murphaph

revelman wrote: »

If true, this could be a massive game-changer and might even be impetus for the EU to play even harder ball. The elephant in the room though is what happens if the Brexiteers prevail second time round too?

A country that shoots itself in the foot can be helped. A country that then reloads and shoots itself in the head is simply beyond help and must be let sink. If the young don't come out (and fly home if expats like so many young Irish do to shape our country's future!) then they deserve Brexit in all it's red, white and blue passport glory.

Leroy42

Corbyn, and Labour, have been part of the problem. With TM being in such a weak position, a leader like Blair would have held them to account for the sheer imcompetence of how it was being handled. Rammed him the divisions within the Tory party, demanded that the DUP were questioned more the impact of their position on the UK as a whole.

The fact that the leader of the opposition would prefer to avoid talking about Brexit, its the single biggest thing that has happened to the UK in generations and he not only wants to talk about something else, he actively avoids talking about it.

It would actually be far better for the UK if he came out and supported TM, that would remove the threat of ERG and the others and TM and the UK would actually be as one and be in a stronger position. One of the main problems that TM, shown up in the December Agreement, is that she has no control. She can wail all she likes, she can bang the table and make demands, but the EU know that nothing is agreed until she goes back and asks others if its ok.

All those people that supported Corbyn, and seemingly continue to do so, baffle me. He may talk about change and a new way but he has shown himself to be quite incapable of leading. He only did relatively well in the last GE because TM was so abject, he is only doing relatively well in the polls now because again TM is so abject and the Tories are in such disarray. It is clear that Corbyn will never be able to deliver on what he talks about simply because he will never be able to make the tough decisions. He has never had to.

It is a real shame for the UK that in this time when it needs leaders it is 'led' by TM and the only alternative if Corbyn. In addition, the smaller parties, mainly Lib Dem, have completely imploded. At a time that they should be surging they are devoid of anything even resembling energy.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Yes, Boris Johnson and the free-market thinktank, the IEA, propose an "Anglo-Irish treaty on goods", even though the British have been burned enough times attempting bilaterals.

As an EU member the Irish government would not be able to partake in such trade talks surely..

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

As an EU member the Irish government would not be able to partake in such trade talks surely..

And there you have it. Brexiter logic. What David Davis spent 18 months trying to do and TM thought she could do via Macron etc. Even Donald Trump got it on the eleventh attempt with Angela Merkel. You MUST deal with the EU.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

As an EU member the Irish government would not be able to partake in such trade talks surely..

Its almost as if the UK haven't bothered to work out the actual details of the EU and what it entails.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its almost as if the UK haven't bothered to work out the actual details of the EU and what it entails.

Looking at their history within the UK, they have always tried to push the EU in their preferred direction while opting out of those things they do not like such as Shengen or the Euro, or can avoid paying for, like their fraudulent rebate (based on collection of excess customs dues).

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its almost as if the UK haven't bothered to work out the actual details of the EU and what it entails.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Looking at their history within the UK, they have always tried to push the EU in their preferred direction while opting out of those things they do not like such as Shengen or the Euro, or can avoid paying for, like their fraudulent rebate (based on collection of excess customs dues).

But this is the maddest thing. People were told to vote leave to "Take back control" when in fact the UK was enjoying a disproportionate amount of time at the EU's helm. The UK's membership was possibly the most privileged and it's been discarded because a weak leader was too craven to actually lead his party.

Leroy42

Its when the spout such nonsense as Anglo-Irish Trade deal, and yet TM is talking about respect!

This is again back to the thinking, at least in political circles, that a no deal is only really concerned with citizens rights, transition, the Irish border and €39bn payment.

They fully believe that all the other stuff will simply be dealt with as part of side deals, or simply by the EU not doing anything or changing anything. For eg, the planes will continue to fly just because.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But this is the maddest thing. People were told to vote leave to "Take back control" when in fact the UK was enjoying a disproportionate amount of time at the EU's helm. The UK's membership was possibly the most privileged and it's been discarded because a weak leader was too craven to actually lead his party.

To be fair to Cameron (and I'm only being faintly supportive here), he had to do something to stop the bleed to UKIP and silence the eurosceptics. It's been a festering sore in the Tories for ever and he thought his plan would work. At the time, I don't think anyone thought it would fail, I certainly didn't, but imo it was the way they went about it rather than the actual fact of it that caused the problem.

LeinsterDub

Lemming wrote: »

Not all EU funding is for grand structural projects. A lot of it is grants aimed at businesses & social organisations. More than enough spread around Sheffield, never mind anywhere else but you'd never know it because it's not advertised. There's a map website that shows funding based on your postcode/region, thus why I am aware of where such funding has gone.

What few grand structural project sorts I've seen in and around Yorkshire - and I would imagine it's similar for the rest of England - is if there is mention of EU funding, it's in the smallest print possible.

https://www.myeu.uk/#/ posted this before. But the EU's funding has touched every part of England

ancapailldorcha

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair to Cameron (and I'm only being faintly supportive here), he had to do something to stop the bleed to UKIP and silence the eurosceptics. It's been a festering sore in the Tories for ever and he thought his plan would work. At the time, I don't think anyone thought it would fail, I certainly didn't, but imo it was the way they went about it rather than the actual fact of it that caused the problem.

I see what you're getting at. He expected a remain result and he didn't expect the referendum result to define his government so he wanted it out of the way as soon as possible. There was no contingency plan for a Leave victory as we saw save for Mark Carney's for the Pound. He then went on to hobble the Stronger In campaign so that we got the limp-wristed scaremongering that failed so dismally.

Whether UKIP would have continued to chew at the Conservatives voter bloc is a question that will never be answered. Nigel Farage said on multiple occasions that they were winning, not with Tory voters but with disaffected working class communities in the north who usually vote Labour. First past the post does a surer job of protecting the incumbent parties than people voting for them ever will. Cameron had already ceded ground to his Eurosceptics by leaving the EPP and promising a referendum on future transfers of powers to Brussels and all it did was to whet their appetite.

gandalf

Well it looks like we're going to have to ride out a number of rough years here whilst the UK slowly circles around the toilet bowl of obscurity and ruin. That clip from radio LRC and the interviews with the WTO is sobering listening. The prospect is that the UK agrifood sector will be decimated by this self harming exercise that is Brexit. The positive I see from this is it will shift our view from being London centric to being far more aligned with Europe which is a good thing.

Longer term it will accelerate a united Ireland and there is a strong possibility that the UK will cease to exist. It would be ironic that the rabid right wing of the Tory party will lead to the UK's demise. What Adolf failed to do Jacob, Boris and Nigel look like they will succeed.

gandalf

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You mean Putin? The Russians quite openly support Nigel Farage [1], who knows what money was funnelled in his direction (as they done for Le Pen)
Splitting the EU and the UK would play perfectly towards his grander geopolitical goals.

[1] warning you will feed dirty after reading this: https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201807201066540718-trump-meeting-putin-farage/

Well we all know that Vlad and the boys number one priority is to destabilise Europe and break up the EU. The useful idiots listed above have done their level best to help achieve this whether willingly or unknowingly.

laugh

Not sure if you guys saw this from the Financial Times at the time of Brexit:

Capt'n Midnight

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://i.imgur.com/HotOwOA.png

seems they are just going around in circles, we've been here before

Maybe it'll put the frighteners up the DUP ?

I can't see May calling an election now. Not now that they've tweaked the constituencies a bit to get a few more seats for themselves and the DUP.
If Parliament agrees the changes to boundaries, the new constituencies will take effect at the next scheduled General Election in 2022.

Unless somehow the polls show a landslide win and with continued austerity that's unlikely. Look what happened last time too.

They could call an election if the purpose was to pass the buck, but that would be political suicide, there's no shortage of backstabbers in her party.

trellheim

If anyone remembers back,the situation is very like when Cameron went to the EU to try and get treaty changes, didn’t have any real luck ,and appealed to Merkel directly with ,again, little . That process led directly to the referendum as Cameron could not shut up the Eurosceptics after that.

The point I want to make is that the EU is remaining consistent both in the 27 and from Barnier