Brexit discussion thread IV

Angry bird

Scotland will leave if there isn't a deal. Given the lies they swallowed in their Indy ref, given the way their MPs have been sidelined at Westminster, she may decide to leave regardless of any deal, lesser than than EU membership. NI may well follow shortly after. Both are well shot of an increasingly insular England in my view. This is what may well happen, brought about by appalling political leadership and faction fighting.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What's with the reference to Glasgow rather than Edinburgh?
Apologies for the rather OT trivial question, just strikes me as an odd one.

The SNP conference is in Glasgow so using the city the interview was held in to make the point also Glasgow is the biggest city with the most employment

lawred2

prinzeugen wrote: »

Scotland can't lose its EU membership as its not a member. The UK is/was.

The SNP claims that the majority of Scottish people want to remain in the EU are not 100% correct.

Only 41/6% of eligible voters wanted to remain in the EU. The rest voted leave or didn't vote for whatever reason.

41.6% is not a majority. And the SNP need to realise that a vote to remain does not translate into a vote for independence.

Oh lordy... Can you hear the sounds of those goalposts being manhandled out of the ground?

Could you do the same arithmetic for the entire UK please? Because it's easy to make the argument that the majority in the UK didn't vote for Brexit either using your reasoning.

Hurrache

This could be an interesting case
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1009/1001863-ni_brexit_rights/

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh lordy... Can you hear the sounds of those goalposts being manhandled out of the ground?

Could you do the same arithmetic for the entire UK please? Because it's easy to make the argument that the majority in the UK didn't vote for Brexit either using your reasoning.

By the same token, 70% of eligible voters did not vote for the Tories in the last election.

Anthracite

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh lordy... Can you hear the sounds of those goalposts being manhandled out of the ground?

Could you do the same arithmetic for the entire UK please? Because it's easy to make the argument that the majority in the UK didn't vote for Brexit either using your reasoning.

I assumed his post was satire.

Enzokk

So some Brexiteers have had some things to say in the past couple of day, unsurprisingly they have been, well just idiotic.

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1049577714443784192

My apologies for the language in the tweet but I cannot go back to January 2017 to find the original tweet on Daniel Hannan's account.

Then we have Owen Patterson who has come up with this brilliant observation,

https://twitter.com/OwenPaterson/status/1049199778742063104

It takes some doing to argue that people were warned about the consequences of a leave vote when the same Owen Patterson had this to say during the election,

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/986953001595211776

Now that may be a little unfair towards Patterson as its not his whole answer, so lets look at where he was able to get more time to articulate his answer.

So in effect we have Owen Patterson arguing here that while he talked about not leaving the market, whatever that means, people should have been aware that leaving the EU means leaving the single market because they were warned by the Remain campaign that this would happen. The objections of the likes of Farage, Hannan and even Patterson himself that it doesn't mean this during the referendum counts for nothing it seems.

Basically we lied to you but the truth was being told by the other side so don't be so surprised that we will be leaving the EU.

And now I need some paracetemol because their arguments make my head hurt.

Econ__

Enzokk wrote: »

Japan has offered the UK access to the TPP. This would be huge for the UK, the EU already has or is busy negotiating deals with 9 of the 11 nations in the TPP and the UK will not have access to the EU if they can join the TPP, but a win is a win no matter how small I suppose.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1049219680550969345

The UK are not a Pacific nation. It would be mind numbingly dumb for the UK to become party to such an agreement at the expense of a deep trade agreement with the EU.

BonnieSituation

That's mind numbing

EDIT: the Hannah and Patterson things.

Peregrinus

His position basically seems to be this:

"We lied; the Remain campaign told the truth. People who voted for our lying Leave campaign did so because they believed the Remain campaign, and knew that the Leave campaign was lying."

Leroy42

Econ__ wrote: »

The UK are not a Pacific nation. It would be mind numbingly dumb for the UK to become party to such an agreement at the expense of a deep trade agreement with the EU.

Regardless of the geography of it, the sheer hypocrisy of claiming that the salvation to the damage done by leaving a union is to simply join another union.

Do they really think they will be in charge of making the rules?

One caller, and I use this is anecdotal only, to the James O'Brien show, made the point that a trade deal with the EU would be easy since they were simply making all the current laws, dictated by the EU, into UK law and as such nothing was really changing.

It was totally lost on him that simply saying they were UK laws rather than implemented because of the EU agreements, meant they weren't taking back any control at all.

prawnsambo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's mind numbing

EDIT: the Hannah and Patterson things.

Daniel Hannan is extraordinarily stupid. Or extraordinarily disingenuous. I'm going with the former having read some of his tweets.



Like this one

ancapailldorcha

It gets worse. For one, he once claims that the British invented DNA:

https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/882164149110931456?lang=en

I mean, it's fairly obvious what he meant but when one invests so much into presented oneself into an erudite wordsmith one really should be more scrupulous about such details.

Exhibit two. Mr. Hannan goes for a walk in the magnificent English countryside and expresses pride in said countryside, not unreasonably.



However, for some reason he shares an image taken from the website of a Welsh B&B.

bob mcbob

prinzeugen wrote: »

The SNP seldom use the word "voted". The usual statement is "The people of Scotland want to remain in the EU". That is incorrect.

What they should be saying is "The majority of people that voted wanted to remain in the EU". This is correct.

Thats the point I am making.

Ok using your approach -

The conservatives seldom use the word "voted". The usual statement is "The people of Scotland want to remain in the UK". That is incorrect.

What they should be saying is "The majority of people that voted wanted to remain in the UK." This is correct.

Lets have some consistency here.

trellheim

Arlene's been in with Barnier and has had her red lines out in public again (ooer missus )

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1049606384969441280


And steve baker is promoting technology again https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-iceberg-solving-irish-border-question-tony-smith/

they are gonna need Labour votes to get this baby across the line and not just the wicked witch of the east, Kate Hoey either


( hence the outreach to Labour in the papers last week )

lawred2

trellheim wrote: »

Arlene's been in with Barnier and has had her red lines out in public again (ooer missus )

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1049606384969441280


And steve baker is promoting technology again https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-iceberg-solving-irish-border-question-tony-smith/

they are gonna need Labour votes to get this baby across the line and not just the wicked witch of the east, Kate Hoey either


( hence the outreach to Labour in the papers last week )

but they still want to be wholly free to treat their own residents different from the rest of the UK

briany

lawred2 wrote: »

but they still want to be wholly free to treat their own residents different from the rest of the UK

I remember the time that Belfast City Council voted to have the Union Jack flown above Belfast City Hall only on 18 days of the year, in line with regulations on government buildings throughout the UK. Protests and riots ensued.

Hurrache

trellheim wrote: »

Arlene's been in with Barnier and has had her red lines out in public again (ooer missus )

What a hypocrite when you actually look at how NI is treated differently than the UK, which she's fine with when it actually suits her.

trellheim

Democratic Unionist Party leader Foster twice refused to rule out blocking Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal, saying “we have always said there is only one red line’’ and signaled she was willing to accept a compromise on the Irish border question in the Brexit divorce agreement.

The DUP’s red line is any deal which treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the U.K., Foster said on Tuesday at a televised press conference in Brussels, following a meeting with the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier.

“This is a seminal moment for the constituent parts of the U.K. and that has to be guarded,’’ Foster said. “It shouldn’t be presented as a border in the Irish Sea or as border in the isle of Ireland. That is not the choice. We are trying to find a deal that works for everyone. It’s not a binary choice.”

Some interesting news here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/eu-envoys-said-to-plan-pre-summit-meeting-oct-12-brexit-update

Also I think Raab will be speaking in HoC later

BonnieSituation

Hurrache wrote: »

What a hypocrite when you actually look at how NI is treated differently than the UK, which she's fine with when it actually suits her.

What? Unionist in hypocritical shocker?

Why won't the DUP be challenged on this stuff in any way that makes them squirm?

An Ciarraioch

Some Budget measures to insulate SMEs and agribusiness from Brexit, along with peace funding - appears the details will be in a press release issued after the main speech.

breatheme

trellheim wrote: »

Some interesting news here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/eu-envoys-said-to-plan-pre-summit-meeting-oct-12-brexit-update

Also I think Raab will be speaking in HoC later

So she basically wants to drag the whole of the UK into the backstop... the ERG won't like it.

Leroy42

breatheme wrote: »

So she basically wants to drag the whole of the UK into the backstop... the ERG won't like it.

Well not quite. She is more than happy to see the entire UK leave without a deal, she doesn't really seem to care once it is the entire UK.

An Ciarraioch

BBC's Adam Fleming claims no UK backstop proposal will be published:

https://mobile.twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1049647524087308289

flatty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

BBC's Adam Fleming claims no UK backstop proposal will be published:

https://mobile.twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1049647524087308289

What does that mean?

EdgeCase

flatty wrote: »

What does that mean?

Like everything about this Brexit process, I assume it means that they are trying to fudge something and nobody's quite sure what it means!

From a business point of view, this whole thing is as clear as mud.

Enzokk

flatty wrote: »

What does that mean?

I suspect she cannot get an agreement within her party and her partners on what backstop agreement they want to pursue most likely. Seems that this would mean no November summit then as the EU was looking for progress before committing to the November meetings.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

What does that mean?

It means either:

a) No Deal Crashout in March

or

b) May playing cards close to her chest until the very last minute in November, then presenting EU and Westminster (especially the DUP) with one last option to avoid No Deal Crashout.

catrionanic

If that is the case, she underestimates the DUP. They are far too pig-headed to vote in the national interest, should the national interest in any way threaten their perceived Britishness. They will absolutely favour a no deal crash out over an Irish sea border.

She needs to find ten allies from elsewhere, to replace her ten DUP nutters.

Spook_ie

Leroy42 wrote: »

Regardless of the geography of it, the sheer hypocrisy of claiming that the salvation to the damage done by leaving a union is to simply join another union.

Do they really think they will be in charge of making the rules?

One caller, and I use this is anecdotal only, to the James O'Brien show, made the point that a trade deal with the EU would be easy since they were simply making all the current laws, dictated by the EU, into UK law and as such nothing was really changing.

It was totally lost on him that simply saying they were UK laws rather than implemented because of the EU agreements, meant they weren't taking back any control at all.

But they wouldn't be joining a union they would be joining a trading pact, people keep forgetting that the EU wants closer political union, something many in the UK don't want, they would love a trading partnership with the EU but not an ever closer political one.