Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

An Ciarraioch

briany wrote: »

If the British parliament opts to revoke A50, I wonder what the likelihood of proper civil disorder and violence would be from the remaining Brexiteers on the ground? And would UKIP go from being a boogeyman for the Conservatives to sweeping however many dozens of their seats in the next British GE?

Even in the post WA polls, UKIP were on 7-8%, but the way FPTP works, parties have to win approximately 20% of the vote before they become a concentrated electoral threat.

Water John

If the UK says the backstop position will be staying in the CU and SM, the EU will accept that. The joke is Davis is right that could be negotiated in a few days.

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

Raab is being reckless with such commentary. This is straight up nationalistic fire stoking.

This succinctly surmises the whole Leave movement to be honest.

kowtow

I think the most striking thing about the draft deal as published is the relative lack of detail on the future relationship - together with a commitment to fill in some more of that detail in the coming days. I think that was deliberate and sensible.

To my mind, May (and her EU interlocutors) are playing this difficult hand just about as well as it can be played given the state of negotiations we have reached. Last week's cabinet resignations and drama served to let the steam off the situation in London and since then May has more or less had the better of the press grid.

If I had to bet I would say:

1. Brussels will add plenty of generous wording to the unfinished future text (including, perhaps, more commitment to consider alternatives [technology etc.] to the backstop and a re-affirmation that nobody wants the backstop implemented)... that built in leeway was what Gove et. al. sniffed out when they made the decision to remain in the cabinet.

2. May will return from Brussels with a spring in her step, continue to rally businesses to support the cause, and begin to push very heavily against Labour MP's whose vacillation runs the risk of either a "no deal" or a "no Brexit". I also think she might characterize the vote as a free vote - she has nothing to gain by whipping it and doing so will increase the pressure on Labour if it can be painted as a matter which is above mere party politics.

In the end, the ERG / DUP rebellion will be contained (although most will vote against on principle) and it's just possible that enough of Labour will simply vote to get the deal done rather than (as they will remind us) running the risk of a no deal crash out. Honour will be satisfied on all sides.

The ERG leadership thing is a sideshow, to the extent that it is anything at all.

kowtow

lawred2 wrote: »

Raab is being reckless with such commentary. This is straight up nationalistic fire stoking.

Raab's problem - and I say this as someone who doesn't totally disagree with him - is that even if he is correct it is too late to do anything practical about it.

Tell me how

kowtow wrote: »

I think the most striking thing about the draft deal as published is the relative lack of detail on the future relationship - together with a commitment to fill in some more of that detail in the coming days. I think that was deliberate and sensible.

To my mind, May (and her EU interlocutors) are playing this difficult hand just about as well as it can be played given the state of negotiations we have reached. Last week's cabinet resignations and drama served to let the steam off the situation in London and since then May has more or less had the better of the press grid.

If I had to bet I would say:

1. Brussels will add plenty of generous wording to the unfinished future text (including, perhaps, more commitment to consider alternatives [technology etc.] to the backstop and a re-affirmation that nobody wants the backstop implemented)... that built in leeway was what Gove et. al. sniffed out when they made the decision to remain in the cabinet.

2. May will return from Brussels with a spring in her step, continue to rally businesses to support the cause, and begin to push very heavily against Labour MP's whose vacillation runs the risk of either a "no deal" or a "no Brexit". I also think she might characterize the vote as a free vote - she has nothing to gain by whipping it and doing so will increase the pressure on Labour if it can be painted as a matter which is above mere party politics.

In the end, the ERG / DUP rebellion will be contained (although most will vote against on principle) and it's just possible that enough of Labour will simply vote to get the deal done rather than (as they will remind us) running the risk of a no deal crash out. Honour will be satisfied on all sides.

The ERG leadership thing is a sideshow, to the extent that it is anything at all.

From the outset the EU said the future relationship would not be negotiated until the WA is signed off.

Rightly so.

This is currently a mess because of UK shenanigans at cabinet, parliament, party, confidence and supply agreement and opposition levels.

listermint

briany wrote: »

If the British parliament opts to revoke A50, I wonder what the likelihood of proper civil disorder and violence would be from the remaining Brexiteers on the ground? And would UKIP go from being a boogeyman for the Conservatives to sweeping however many dozens of their seats in the next British GE?

not very high id say, You can see by the ERGs latest efforts how 'real' feeling there is for Brexit.

Very little frankly, not enough to drive disorder bar a minority of lunatics that follow Tommy R and the likes.


Minority groups

farmchoice

Tell me how wrote: »

From the outset the EU said the future relationship would not be negotiated until the WA is signed off.

Rightly so.

This is currently a mess because of UK shenanigans at cabinet, parliament, party, confidence and supply agreement and opposition levels.

indeed so any bones that the eu throw may now in the political declaration can be taken back in the actual negotiation.

may can sell it as a win and god knows a hell of a lot of worse and bigger lies have been bought by the British population as a whole and parliament in particular in this whole sorry debacle, so no reason to think she wont get away with this one.

especially if it suites nearly everyone to believe it.

Sam Russell

Bombardier losing 500 jobs in NI. Is it Brexit related? Or Trump related?

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Raab's problem - and I say this as someone who doesn't totally disagree with him - is that even if he is correct it is too late to do anything practical about it.

Yes. If only somebody with Raab's understanding and insight has been appointed as Brexit secretary while the negotiations were under way, think how different things might have been.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They either go with this deal or crash out.

Or they withdraw A50 and Remain.

Or they take this as a Withdrawal Agreement, and then negotiate Norway+backstop as the Future Arrangement. Or they take this and extend the Transition indefinitely.

This is only one step, there is a long way to go yet.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or they withdraw A50 and Remain.

Or they take this as a Withdrawal Agreement, and then negotiate Norway+backstop as the Future Arrangement. Or they take this and extend the Transition indefinitely.

This is only one step, there is a long way to go yet.

Nitpick: Indefinite extension of the transition is not on offer. From the EU perspective it would be both politically and legally objectionable so, even if the UK wanted it, I doubt they could have it.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Indefinite extension of the transition is not on offer. From the EU perspective it would be both politically and legally objectionable so, even if the UK wanted it, I doubt they could have it.

There is only one time limited extension available in the WA. I would think the maximum transition could be 4 years.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. If only somebody with Raab's understanding and insight has been appointed as Brexit secretary while the negotiations were under way, think how different things might have been.

If I remember correctly the day he was appointed it was stressed that his role would be primarily to stay at home and prepare for no deal... perhaps that was lost on him with the excitement of the appointment.

The reality is that Theresa May and Robbins have been micro-managing this process all along and undercutting the various ministers appointed. If David Davis had been awake in the first place it might have been better for him to go earlier and make a fuss when something could be done - but he didn't and for better and for worse that is where they all find themselves. We'll have to wait for the autobiographies to get a better view.

What matters now, to my mind, is whether they can get this deal through Parliament. I'm not sure that I would vote for it - but I'm more pig headed than the average politician!

For what it's worth I think a second referendum would carry (a) a risk of an even stronger vote to leave and (b) a more significant risk of a close remain result with an even more serious breakdown in trust in democracy. The same goes for any unilateral withdrawal of A50.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

If I remember correctly the day he was appointed it was stressed that his role would be primarily to stay at home and prepare for no deal... perhaps that was lost on him with the excitement of the appointment.

The reality is that Theresa May and Robbins have been micro-managing this process all along and undercutting the various ministers appointed. If David Davis had been awake in the first place it might have been better for him to go earlier and make a fuss when something could be done - but he didn't and for better and for worse that is where they all find themselves. We'll have to wait for the autobiographies to get a better view.

What matters now, to my mind, is whether they can get this deal through Parliament. I'm not sure that I would vote for it - but I'm more pig headed than the average politician!

For what it's worth I think a second referendum would carry (a) a risk of an even stronger vote to leave and (b) a more significant risk of a close remain result with an even more serious breakdown in trust in democracy. The same goes for any unilateral withdrawal of A50.

Huh ?

What is this nonsense! and where did you get it from

seamus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Bombardier losing 500 jobs in NI. Is it Brexit related? Or Trump related?

Possibly neither. Bombardier have sold big chunks of their aircraft lines to other companies, probably to focus on a smaller set of products with better margins & long-term prospects.

Brexit and tariffs may have played some part in deciding that Belfast had to go, but it was probably always going to be at risk.

kowtow

listermint wrote: »

Huh ?

What is this nonsense! and where did you get it from

From memory, and I'm not going to go hunting down quotes - but this is what the bbc said at the time:

Asked whether Mr Raab would be in charge of the talks, No 10 said Mrs May had "always been, from the outset, the lead negotiator".

But a spokesman said there was a "huge body of work to be done, in terms of preparations for the UK leaving the EU and that obviously includes no-deal preparations as well".

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

If I remember correctly the day he was appointed it was stressed that his role would be primarily to stay at home and prepare for no deal... perhaps that was lost on him with the excitement of the appointment.

The reality is that Theresa May and Robbins have been micro-managing this process all along and undercutting the various ministers appointed. If David Davis had been awake in the first place it might have been better for him to go earlier and make a fuss when something could be done - but he didn't and for better and for worse that is where they all find themselves. We'll have to wait for the autobiographies to get a better view.

What matters now, to my mind, is whether they can get this deal through Parliament. I'm not sure that I would vote for it - but I'm more pig headed than the average politician!

For what it's worth I think a second referendum would carry (a) a risk of an even stronger vote to leave and (b) a more significant risk of a close remain result with an even more serious breakdown in trust in democracy. The same goes for any unilateral withdrawal of A50.

Why do you think that a second referendum carries a risk of a stronger vote to leave?

Infini

briany wrote: »

If the British parliament opts to revoke A50, I wonder what the likelihood of proper civil disorder and violence would be from the remaining Brexiteers on the ground? And would UKIP go from being a boogeyman for the Conservatives to sweeping however many dozens of their seats in the next British GE?

There could be far less disorder from a cancellation of Brexit than from No Deal crash since the former doesnt involve people losing anything tangeble. The Bullshíteers have been shown to be exactly what they are: Incompetent, Ideological, Braindead Stupid idiots with no plan, no common sense and nothing to show except tired worn out lies and empty soundbytes.

If anything should Brexit be cancelled to the relief of many the best way of containing any fallout would be to go after all the lies, corrupt money and any party that was being used as a tool for Russian interference. Brexit is one of the greatest scams in recent history perpetuated by lies, cheats and Bullshít. The only way this can be contained is by holding those to account who spew misinformation and lies counter the rot that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Professor Moriarty

Infini wrote: »

There could be far less disorder from a cancellation of Brexit than from No Deal crash since the former doesnt involve people losing anything tangeble. The Bullshíteers have been shown to be exactly what they are: Incompetent, Ideological, Braindead Stupid idiots with no plan, no common sense and nothing to show except tired worn out lies and empty soundbytes.

If anything should Brexit be cancelled to the relief of many the best way of containing any fallout would be to go after all the lies, corrupt money and any party that was being used as a tool for Russian interference. Brexit is one of the greatest scams in recent history perpetuated by lies, cheats and Bullshít. The only way this can be contained is by holding those to account who spew misinformation and lies counter the rot that allowed this to happen in the first place.

At least get off the fence and offer an opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why do you think that a second referendum carries a risk of a stronger vote to leave?

If it did (and it doesn't) at the very least it would give the Government a stronger mandate to go for a no-deal Brexit; as it stands, it seems a significant portion of the electorate who voted Leave were not informed that a no-deal Brexit was even a possibility.

Zubeneschamali

listermint wrote: »

Huh ?

What is this nonsense! and where did you get it from

The BBC story is here.

Raab was just an errand boy taking messages between Robbins and May.

Leroy42

I thought JRM performance yesterday summed up Brexit for me. Despite repeated claims of the power and influence of ERG, when the time came to make the move JRM was left to plead with people to send in letters otherwise TM would remain in charge for the next election.

Gone was the talk about Brexit, the need for national unity, respecting the will of the people. HE was reduced to pleading for someone to please help him out of the massive hole he has dug.

Out muscled by Brussels (they always held all the cards) and now seemingly out outmanoeuvred by TM, he was reduced to a, IMO, pathectic sight of almost crying for someone to make it all better.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If it did (and it doesn't) at the very least it would give the Government a stronger mandate to go for a no-deal Brexit; as it stands, it seems a significant portion of the electorate who voted Leave were not informed that a no-deal Brexit was even a possibility.

It would depend on the wording but if Remain were an option in a binary referendum then I think it would easily defeat a hard Brexit. I also think that if May's agreement was a third option then Remain would still win.

Shelga

I don’t know why any news outlet is giving Davis airtime. He has repeatedly shown himself to be a complete cretin and a charlatan. It is scary how many people will believe you if you are a white middle aged man with a posh accent, who sounds like he knows what he’s on about.

It would be like me announcing my views to a meeting room in my company, after I’ve resigned in a huff because I cannot do the job.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

From memory, and I'm not going to go hunting down quotes - but this is what the bbc said at the time:

So basically you have nothing to back that up and the quote doesnt either.


Grand

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why do you think that a second referendum carries a risk of a stronger vote to leave?

Primarily because the weapons available to the campaigns have evolved since 2016, and they have evolved in favour of Leave.

I have stressed repeatedly here that the Brexit vote was primarily an issue of Sovereignty - and whilst we can argue back and forth for ever here about the concept of sovereignty and pooling and sharing and globalization for the average voter the issue translates very quickly to one of National pride - and in this case it is easy to portray national pride as having been damaged.

The very fact that the UK is "being made to vote again" is a perfect background to the campaign. Few could doubt that the EU really does seem to be an impossible-to-leave construct - the hotel California of popular parlance. Add in the treatment of Theresa May in Brussels (which genuinely offended people), a few EU political speeches advocating EU Empire, EU armies etc. etc. and the scene is set for a vote to defend the Nation and Democracy.

On the other hand the original Brexit warnings - project fear - have largely not come true, the economy is booming (on the ground at least). It will be easy to portray the remainers as bad losers (which offends the British sense of fair play) and the struggle against Europe as a David vs Goliath match - all in all lots for Leave to work with and not a lot more for Remain than they had back in 2016.

I'm not making a case here - just pointing out how easy it will be to run an emotive campaign without ever going near the distasteful immigration issues etc.

listermint

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The BBC story is here.

Raab was just an errand boy taking messages between Robbins and May.

The article has Labour spokes people talking about sidelining and Raab and Conservatives saying the opposite.

Concrete stuff there ...

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

I thought JRM performance yesterday summed up Brexit for me. Despite repeated claims of the power and influence of ERG, when the time came to make the move JRM was left to plead with people to send in letters otherwise TM would remain in charge for the next election.

Gone was the talk about Brexit, the need for national unity, respecting the will of the people. HE was reduced to pleading for someone to please help him out of the massive hole he has dug.

Out muscled by Brussels (they always held all the cards) and now seemingly out outmanoeuvred by TM, he was reduced to a, IMO, pathectic sight of almost crying for someone to make it all better.

This is probably why Mogg has been so reticent to take up a more responsible position in the whole process because he doesn't really believe himself to have the backing to steer Brexit in his preferred direction. Instead, he has been using the illusion of power and influence in order to make May blink. But this was always going to be called out when push came to shove.

Zubeneschamali

listermint wrote: »

The article has Labour spokes people talking about sidelining and Raab and Conservatives saying the opposite.

Raab says he was not sidelined on the job because May sidelined him Day One:

Mr Raab, who was a leading figure in the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, insisted he had not been sidelined, telling MPs it had always been the case that Mrs May was in overall charge of the talks and the announcement amounted to some "shifting of the Whitehall deckchairs".

He said the prime minister had suggested the changes to him on the day he was offered David Davis's job and he had agreed to them.