Brexit discussion thread IV

wexie

trellheim wrote: »

Wasn’t it Jeremy Hunt not Dom Raab with the Soviet Union/EU comparison Peregrinus ?

Yes, been some interesting replies to it, especially from some of the former eastern block politicians intimately familiar with the USSR

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-jeremy-hunt-history-book-ussr-comparison-conservative-conference-a8563126.html

A commission spokesperson suggested Mr Hunt was ignorant of history and could benefit “from opening a history book from time-to-time”.

“Dear Jeremy Hunt,” he said. “I was born in Soviet gulag and [have] been imprisoned by KGB a few times in my life. Happy to brief you on the main differences between EU and Soviet Union. And also why we escaped the USSR. Anytime. Whatever helps.”

ancapailldorcha

That's certainly disappointing. While unpopular simply by virtue of being Health Secretary during the coalition years, I was expecting Hunt to be a whopping improvement on his predecessor. Alas.

trellheim

It’s playing to the party faithful but it’s not the message for Eu27 support anyway

J Mysterio

trellheim wrote: »

It’s playing to the party faithful but it’s not the message for Eu27 support anyway

Thats it. At the end of the day, they should be focusing their energy on negotiating with the EU, but they're still deadlocked jmin negotiations with themselves.

The moment Brexit sprung, the great majority of our political class came together with one voice.

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

Well if he wanted to say cage - he could have simply said cage.

These are planned speeches, written and proof read many times. These are not off the cuff remarks. Words have meanings and politicians know this.

Not sure why you think his preordained speech needs a more generous alternate interpretation to the one that was quite clearly intended.

I do wonder whether this is a strategy from the Conservatives, where if they invoke the USSR enough it will stick in people's minds and if Labour goes for a position which is close to remaining in the EU it will be easy to make the connection of Labour and the USSR. Maybe I am giving too much credit to the Conservatives though.

Winters wrote: »

Dominic Rabb today. I hope Monsieur Barnier is saving these.

I wonder what flexibility he thinks there is in the UK White papers. Do they only want half the cake instead of the full one?

Peregrinus wrote: »

They're not "simply sleepwalking into a crash-out". More plain speaking from the EU at this point, coupled with a threat to "legally follow up" on the backstop (there's no backstop without a withdrawal agreement, so what does this even mean?) would feed straight into the "bullying, intransigent EU" line that the Brexiters are spinning at the moment. This would be very stupid.

HMG knows exactly what the score is. They do not need to be told again, and particularly not in a way which will make it more difficult for them to move.

We are in the party confererence. All kinds of nonsense, much of it offensive, was always going to be spouted at the party conference, and HMG was never going to risk moving in the smallest degree until after the party conference. There is no need to react intemperately, therefore, when all kinds of offensive guff is trotted out, and HMG appears frozen; this is exactly where we expect to be.

It's notable that much of the guff is from nonentities; either anonymous delegates or angry backbenchers like IDS. The only statement that has attracted any pushback is Raab's incredibly ill-judged Soviet Union comparison, and that has mostly attracted push-back from the former Warsaw Pact countries that the UK had until Salzburg hoped would press its case in the European Council. So, a bit of an own goal there.

Certainly no need for a walk-out by the EU at this point. That would definitely make a withdrawal agreement impossiable, and a crash-out Brexit therefore inevitable. Why would we want to do that? Keep talking; that keeps open th space in which the UK can move, if it going to move. If it doesn't move, and a crash-out results, well, we're no worse off than if we walked out, plus it would be slightly less easier for the UK to blame us.

Hunt seems to have pivoted his view on Brexit. This is not due to the benefits he sees of leaving the EU or that he has been convinced of the merits of the arguments regarding immigration or sovereignty. He has changed his minds because of the arrogance of the EU in the negotiations. He voted remain but because the EU doesn't want to give the UK all it wants by leaving, in which case you should have voted Leave if you thought all that was possible, he now backs leaving the EU.

The cynic may just suggest that he is positioning himself for a leadership bid and staking his claim for the Brexiteer wing of the Conservatives when the Rees Mogg/Johnson bids fall through.

Jeremy Hunt rebuked by EU after Soviet prison comparison

Hunt told party conference delegates he had voted to remain in the EU but now supported leave because of what he called the EU’s “arrogance” during Brexit negotiations. He said the EU seemed to want to “punish” a member for leaving, and likened its tactics to the Soviet Union’s.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's certainly disappointing. While unpopular simply by virtue of being Health Secretary during the coalition years, I was expecting Hunt to be a whopping improvement on his predecessor. Alas.

He is unpopular because he was in charge of the dismantling of the NHS. Just like Theresa May should be known for the Windrush scandal, Jeremy Hunt should take the blame for the collapse of the NHS. Talking of local policies, anyone else notice how little policies or talk of anything that would help people in their daily lives there has been at the conference so far? It seems like everything is around Brexit.

Rees Mogg has however weighed in and said that the Conservatives should start looking at improving people's lives after they have delivered Brexit. I do wonder how he thinks that will be possible after the effects of Brexit hits the country and the people. Maybe they should have thought about the people and how all of this effects their lives?

Conservative conference: Ruth Davidson calls for 'practical, pragmatic' Brexit - Politics live

His quotes are in the post that was posted at 14h18.

Rees-Mogg, who has been viewed as a potential successor to May, said that it was time for the Tories to focus more on their domestic policy agenda.

“Once we have delivered Brexit we have to get on with health and housing, we have to be saying to people ‘we are going to improve your life’,” he said.

In a swipe at the party leadership, he added: “What resonates with people is when you say ‘we will make your lives a little bit better’ and frankly we are not saying that at the moment.”

trellheim

But if your following the negotiations I just don’t see it...Is it a Dead Cat ? Or are the really

Enzokk

This is a very interesting article on how the Conservatives seems to have totally shifted their stance on Brexit. I think this should let anyone know what would have happened had Theresa May actually gotten her majority in the last election.

'I am not allowed not to agree': Julie Girling on being a remain Tory MEP

The vote was only a sign of a deeper estrangement between the remain-supporting MEP and a party that had mostly embraced Brexit. Since the decision to leave the EU, she says, “I just felt there is a lack of any space to have discussions around policy and a beginning of an atmosphere of unless you’re 100% with us you are the enemy. The party just has no place for somebody like me who didn’t agree. I am just not allowed not to agree.”

After the June 2016 vote, Girling reluctantly supported the leave result that many of her constituents had voted for. But she was soon alienated when May embarked on a policy of leaving the EU customs union and single market – “the hardest possible Brexit”.

A turning point was the 2016 party conference, where the prime minister declared that anyone who identified as a citizen of the world was a “citizen of nowhere”, which Girling describes as “that nasty speech”, and then a subsequent speech in which May set out her Brexit red lines. “When she first came out with these red lines I was really astonished,” says Girling, who had expected a softer Brexit to reflect the narrowness of the 52-48 result of the referendum.

“I’ve been a member of the party for more than 40 years, and for 38 of those years the party has been pro-Europe. It’s had its difficulties,” she says, recalling John Major’s battles with the Maastricht rebels and David Cameron’s decision to pull out of the mainstream centre-right bloc in the European parliament, the EEP. “Then overnight Mrs May decided ‘we are all Brexiteers now’ and that just is a place I just can’t go.”

She makes some very good points. Why does a close vote mean you do not take in any view from the opposing side? The FPTP voting has really made the thinking in the UK political classes very narrow. Even a small majority is seen as a reason not to listen to the other side.

Junkyard Tom

DUP MP tells LBC reporter he'd welcome a border in Ireland 'build it as high as they want'.

twitter.com/ShelaghFogarty

Phillip Hammon: UK will enforce hard border.

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall

How horribly predictable.

badtoro

This stuff from Hunt is why I wouldn't be unhappy with a hard Brexit, let the EU focus on what's good for the EU and stop any hint of accommodation for this Brexiteer Govt. I've had a gut full of their antics anyway. Let them reap what they sow.

By the way, I'm a farmer in case anyone might think I'm insulated from the effects of Brexit.

Infini

They can talk about building a border etc but to be very blunt if the Brit's bring down the GFA because of THEIR arrogance, foolishness and short sighted stupidy then if a Hard Brexit happen's we should basically through the EU block ANYTHING that might benefit them down the line until they either cop on or there's a border poll as part of any agreement. In short, if they create a situation that leads to civil disorder on our island because they allowed the Dumbáss Unionist Party to wreck a 20 year peace treaty that ended the troubles on our island they need to pay a high political cost for it.

The conservative and the DUP are probably the most reckless, stupid and idiotic bunch to be around in recent years and to be honest you cannot argue with idiots, they're too stupid to listen to reason. They only respond to the hard crushing reality when they're basically forced to.

I'd be honest the EU in October should basically say there is no deal possible because of the Brits being utterly dishonest and completely unable to trust them to make a deal and let them deal with the consequences of being utterly locked out of major markets. The cold reality of a Hard Brexit needs to be shown to make them see the stupidity of their ways.

Inquitus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How horribly predictable.

Despite all the Unicorns May and co seem to believe in, it has always been a fact, mentioned many times on here that if they crash out on WTO terms, they will have to erect a border, they have no choice.

wexie

Infini wrote: »

They can talk about building a border etc but to be very blunt if the Brit's bring down the GFA because of THEIR arrogance, foolishness and short sighted stupidy then if a Hard Brexit happen's we should basically through the EU block ANYTHING that might benefit them down the line until they either cop on or there's a border poll as part of any agreement. In short, if they create a situation that leads to civil disorder on our island because they allowed the Dumbáss Unionist Party to wreck a 20 year peace treaty that ended the troubles on our island they need to pay a high political cost for it.

Without wanting to derail the thread (too much)....what would the consequences of bringing down the GFA be, realistically, at this stage.

I certainly have a fair understanding of what a border might entail economically but I'm really curious about this, are there really still people out there that would use it as an excuse to go back to the bad/good old days?

Leroy42

Just watched C4 news from the Tory conference, Soubry and JRM in a stand up interview with Jon Snow. Soubry really laid into JRM, tbh he was pretty dumbstruck and she hit him with so facts that he simply had no answer to. It the hardest I have seen him treated in any interview, and this was by a fellow party member.

At one stage Snow simply said that is this the real Tory party rather than the facade in the hall. JRM tried to quip that they agreed on most things, and Soubry drying claimed she doubted that.

Jebus, the Tory's really are in total disarray.

Earlier, you had some guy defending Hunt comments about Russia saying that the EU were forcibly stopping the UK from leaving so in effect Hunt really was right, at least in message if not his choice of words.

This is the Tory conference, the advertisement to the rest of the country about how great the Tory party is!

mayo.mick

What the hell are they putting in the water over there? Its getting madder!

https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1046734191101018112

badtoro

Inquitus wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How horribly predictable.

Despite all the Unicorns May and co seem to believe in, it has always been a fact, mentioned many times on here that if they crash out on WTO terms, they will have to erect a border, they have no choice.

I am just curious, but whos responsibility will the erection of a hard border be, and why? Will it be up to us in Ireland, or the British?

mickoneill31

badtoro wrote: »

I am just curious, but whos responsibility will the erection of a hard border be, and why? Will it be up to us in Ireland, or the British?

If you want to control goods / people coming into your country then you have to enforce a border.
So in reality, both sides. We could enforce the border on our side and the UK doesn't have to enforce their side. The problems with that though are 1: it doesn't "take back control" and 2: why would anybody enter into one of these cool new trade deals with the UK if they don't restrict goods going in. They can just send in their goods without any restriction.

Rhineshark

So apparently there's another Cunning Plan, by which May is agreeing to limited checks on goods and in return...the entire UK will stay in the CU as a temporary backstop.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

175 days more of this...

Leroy42

wexie wrote: »

Without wanting to derail the thread (too much)....what would the consequences of bringing down the GFA be, realistically, at this stage.

I certainly have a fair understanding of what a border might entail economically but I'm really curious about this, are there really still people out there that would use it as an excuse to go back to the bad/good old days?

I have no idea,but I suspect it will be far less than some people claim.

However, it seems and astonishingly risky approach to take on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking.

That the Brexiteers have given no indications of the positives that the UK can expect, it seems irresponsible in the extreme to play with fire in such a way.

Igotadose

mayo.mick wrote: »

What the hell are they putting in the water over there? Its getting madder!

https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1046734191101018112

Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Read "Mistakes were made, but not by me" to understand the Tory mindset about Brexit

An Ciarraioch

Rhineshark wrote: »

So apparently there's another Cunning Plan, by which May is agreeing to limited checks on goods and in return...the entire UK will stay in the CU as a temporary backstop.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

175 days more of this...

Only 17, if there's no new proposal before the next summit ...

Infini

wexie wrote: »

Without wanting to derail the thread (too much)....what would the consequences of bringing down the GFA be, realistically, at this stage.

I certainly have a fair understanding of what a border might entail economically but I'm really curious about this, are there really still people out there that would use it as an excuse to go back to the bad/good old days?

I don't know if it will truly go back to the bad ol days but the fact is that if the conservatives and their DUP friends collapse what ended dacades of troubles for their own political bull then there would be quite a few unhappy about this. People dragged out of the EU, hit in the pocket, losing rights, forced into a recession/depression, having unwanted borders put up and all to satisfy the DUP idiots and the little englanders braindead mentality of brexit will certainly not end well unless the people of NI get a say in this expecially since a Majority voted to stay. If its a border poll as the price then thats what has to happen.

Infini

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Only 17, if there's no new proposal before the next summit ...

I honestly think well see the real endgame in 2 weeks. The way the Tories are acting the maggot atm there will be no chance of progress come the october summit and the EU will have to take a much more agressive stance against this BS.

murphaph

badtoro wrote: »

This stuff from Hunt is why I wouldn't be unhappy with a hard Brexit, let the EU focus on what's good for the EU and stop any hint of accommodation for this Brexiteer Govt. I've had a gut full of their antics anyway. Let them reap what they sow.

By the way, I'm a farmer in case anyone might think I'm insulated from the effects of Brexit.

I'm starting to feel the same. These characters need it. I do feel sorry for remainers though but they should be much more vocal too.

Enzokk

wexie wrote: »

Without wanting to derail the thread (too much)....what would the consequences of bringing down the GFA be, realistically, at this stage.

I certainly have a fair understanding of what a border might entail economically but I'm really curious about this, are there really still people out there that would use it as an excuse to go back to the bad/good old days?

I believe someone in this thread provided a link where it was roughly explained that the GFA is basically a fudge for both sides. For unionists it keeps NI as part of the UK where they can keep their British identity and for nationalists it keeps the border open to Ireland so they can pretend that they are still Irish and not British. Both sides can just close their eyes and imagines they have won and have gotten what they want, sort of.

Do we really want to change the dynamic that has brought peace for the last 20 years?

Hurrache

As no surprise to anyone bar the UK government, the DUP is not happy, again
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1046834426666254336?s=19

UsedToWait

wexie wrote: »

Without wanting to derail the thread (too much)....what would the consequences of bringing down the GFA be, realistically, at this stage.

I certainly have a fair understanding of what a border might entail economically but I'm really curious about this, are there really still people out there that would use it as an excuse to go back to the bad/good old days?

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have no idea,but I suspect it will be far less than some people claim.

However, it seems and astonishingly risky approach to take on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking.

That the Brexiteers have given no indications of the positives that the UK can expect, it seems irresponsible in the extreme to play with fire in such a way.

I think that any infrastructure erected by the British will be targeted, be it by vandals, community groups, or the ghosts of Brexit past.

That being the case, they'll need to be fortified and defended, which leads us down a dangerous road.

Rhineshark

Infini wrote: »

I honestly think well see the real endgame in 2 weeks. The way the Tories are acting the maggot atm there will be no chance of progress come the october summit and the EU will have to take a much more agressive stance against this BS.

And then they will act surprised and offended at the deeply unreasonable EU being mean to them and pretending they have not been forcing this outcome. Their followers will lap up that it's all the fault of the EU/Remainers and the Remainers will seethe. Mind you, they do seem to be doing a lot of unreported protesting.

Despite all efforts to avoid it, it did end up coming down to the border - at least to Tory eyes. But what was supposed to happen was that the EU countries would fold and throw Ireland under the bus something something cake. Or just possibly that it was no deal all along - which it was for the ERG.

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

As no surprise to anyone bar the UK government, the DUP is not happy, again
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1046834426666254336?s=19

It will be interesting to see what gives. The DUP has no reason to move from their position, yet if they push too hard they could force a new election. If they do give in they will be seen as pushovers though.

The government on the other hand needs a backstop agreement as they actually need a deal and no-deal really isn't an option. However they cannot push too hard against the DUP.

Added to this they still don't have enough votes to get Chequers through as the ERG will vote against it and Labour confirmed they will as well. So even if Theresa May can convince the DUP to bend, will she be able to get the ERG to bend as well?

Infini

Enzokk wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what gives. The DUP has no reason to move from their position, yet if they push too hard they could force a new election. If they do give in they will be seen as pushovers though.

The government on the other hand needs a backstop agreement as they actually need a deal and no-deal really isn't an option. However they cannot push too hard against the DUP.

The DUP are a liability to May and I would say she knows it. There was talk of a snap November election possibly to dislodge the DUP headbangers once and for all.

They might think they have no reason to move right now but their time is limited and if they dont change their position the Conservatives would have no problem throwing them under the bus to suit their interests.

Rhineshark

Why are the DUP freaking out about this? This is not going to fly with the EU - they want the whole UK to stay in the CU but have limited *goods checks* in the sea.

Am I missing something or is this nonsense? The lack of SM probably makes it irrelevant anyway.