Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

L1011

EdgeCase wrote: »

I think speculating on SF changing a long-standing and very core position that they have held since the foundation of their party is simply a waste of time.

They gave up on council abstentionism, they gave up on Dáil abstentionism, they gave up on Stormont abstentionism and they recognised the police and courts in NI.

They have no issue changing long standing core positions!

Nody

cml387 wrote: »

It's inconceivable that Brexit wouldn't happen, without a new referendum. I just don't see how TM thinks that's an option if the vote is defeated, other than a sad attempt to scare the Brexiteers.

You are missing a key point in your argument which is what's the number 1 issue beyond everything and anything for TM? Answer: To remain a PM for as long as possible. Nothing else matters to her beyond that point; hence if she thinks calling for a new referendum would risk her getting outed now instead of after crash out then she' likely to prefer the crash out...

RobMc59

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They were elected because of their abstentionist stance, not inspite of it.

When I asked the question I thought it a relevant subject and it does seem to divide opinion-personally I believe it's a missed opportunity in an extraordinary situation that we may never see again.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I asked the question I thought it a relevant subject and it does seem to divide opinion-personally I believe it's a missed opportunity in an extraordinary situation that we may never see again.

People could have voted for another Nationalist party who would have taken their seats - the SDLP - but they didn't.

keane2097

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I asked the question I thought it a relevant subject and it does seem to divide opinion-personally I believe it's a missed opportunity in an extraordinary situation that we may never see again.

Based on the last few years I doubt the opportunity to criticise a British PM for incompetence is a once in a lifetime thing.

An Ciarraioch

The final ruling in the Article 50 case will be delivered on Monday morning - so 24 hours before MPs vote.

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I asked the question I thought it a relevant subject and it does seem to divide opinion-personally I believe it's a missed opportunity in an extraordinary situation that we may never see again.

I think at this point, it is irrelevant and a distraction. Bear in mind they play a long game. Staying out of the way in the context is prudent, meanwhile, the numbers are going there way.

As a general note, the question of SF comes up in this thread regularly. Always but always at a pount at which distraction from some idiocy in London is required.

Anyone who reads the threads knows this. SF by voting against the government can change nothing unless there are a bunch of rebels at least or the DUP vote with. SF would need to extract serious concessions out of the Tories to vote with them. The kind of concessions no UK government is even remotely enabled to deliver. Voting with the Tories for anything would destroy SF completely no matter if unification was delivered or not. SF are effectively powerless and staying out of the way of flying muck. I cannot stand them but they are basically valueless here. Bringing them up is a distraction.

Leroy42

So Tm is off renegotiating the deal without actually telling the EU that she is doing it. She is planning on giving the UK parliament a veto on whether a backstop comes into effect!

The Prime Minister is understood to have discussed the latest veto plans with small groups of rebels in a desperate bid to get them to change their mind ahead of the Commons showdown.

She aired the plan publicly for the first time on Thursday morning, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The backstop is talked about as if it’s automatic. Actually it is not automatic – there is a choice.

“If we do need [further talks] there is a choice to be made and I am looking at the question of the role of parliament in that choice and then what would happen thereafter.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-theresa-may-backstop-irish-border-withdrawal-agreement-vote-parliament-mps-a8670231.html

So the UK are aghast that they must agree with the EU on the ending of an agreement, but think the EU will be happy to simply let the UK make decisions that effect the EU without any input from the EU? Only last week TM stated, in the HoC, that any deal requires a backstop.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Tm is off renegotiating the deal without actually telling the EU that she is doing it. She is planning on giving the UK parliament a veto on whether a backstop comes into effect!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-theresa-may-backstop-irish-border-withdrawal-agreement-vote-parliament-mps-a8670231.html

So the UK are aghast that they must agree with the EU on the ending of an agreement, but think the EU will be happy to simply let the UK make decisions that effect the EU without any input from the EU? Only last week TM stated, in the HoC, that any deal requires a backstop.

Whenever you're trying to please two opposing sides, you're going to find yourself doing an awful lot of double-talking and deceit.

ArmaniJeanss

boggerman1 wrote: »

Listening to James O'Brien on lbc.an idiot from Derbyshire saying thanks to EU there are roads to nowhere in Ireland built.when asked to name them naturally he was stumped.god almighty the education system in England has a lot to answer for.but still he wants brexit full steam ahead cause.......he wasn't sure why.

Ireland does have plenty of roads to nowhere. Ironically though they were actually constructed during the 1840s Famine under a Westminster directive, google 'Ireland famine roads'.

Topgear on Dave

L1011 wrote: »

They gave up on council abstentionism, they gave up on Dáil abstentionism, they gave up on Stormont abstentionism and they recognised the police and courts in NI.

They have no issue changing long standing core positions!

Absolutely agree, but timing is everything and this isn't the time.

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Tm is off renegotiating the deal without actually telling the EU that she is doing it. She is planning on giving the UK parliament a veto on whether a backstop comes into effect!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-theresa-may-backstop-irish-border-withdrawal-agreement-vote-parliament-mps-a8670231.html

So the UK are aghast that they must agree with the EU on the ending of an agreement, but think the EU will be happy to simply let the UK make decisions that effect the EU without any input from the EU? Only last week TM stated, in the HoC, that any deal requires a backstop.

at present at the end ( under the terms of the WA) of the transition period the uk has a choice if a satisfactory FTA has not being agreed.
they can chose to extend the transition period by 1 or 2 years or they can enter the backstop arrangement.


this is the choice may is offering parliament as opposed to the government deciding. they get to chose between the rock and the hard place.

funkey_monkey

Shelga wrote: »

What are the chances of Brexit just not happening at all now?

That option definitely seems more likely than crashing out with no deal, no?

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

Imreoir2

boggerman1 wrote: »

Listening to James O'Brien on lbc.an idiot from Derbyshire saying thanks to EU there are roads to nowhere in Ireland built.when asked to name them naturally he was stumped.god almighty the education system in England has a lot to answer for.but still he wants brexit full steam ahead cause.......he wasn't sure why.

To be fair, one of them does go to Cork...

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Yep, I'll be switching to Amazon.es, .fr, .de .it.... 😁

Amazon is a good example. They obviously do a huge amount of business in Ireland, I wonder what plans they have for Irish customers?

seamus wrote: »

Assuming no deal, then you will see a bit of a jump.

At the moment UK retailers who sell decent amounts into Ireland (think Amazon), charge our own rate of 23% VAT on the sale. But the goods are not subject to customs duties.

After a no-deal exit, the UK site will sell the product to you ex-VAT, but Irish customs will require that you pay duty + VAT on the item.

If the item costs less than €150, no duty will be collected on it, but VAT will be.

So, not a major issue for the typical kind of online sales, since most are probably under €150.

However, the package will be stopped and held by the carrier until you pay the VAT. So what was previously a simple transaction with a package that arrived 3 days later, now becomes a far more annoying transaction that may take two weeks to reach you.

For this reason alone, most people will switch to other EU suppliers for online shopping.

farmchoice

i have been listening to most of the HOC debate on the WA so far.
the most striking think is how incredibly badly informed they all are about everything that has happened since article 50 was triggered.

about the negotiations, what the WA is, what the political deceleration is,what is in the WA, what a backstop is, what this backstop is for and why it exists.


and this ignorance extends to every party, front benches included. its mind boggling.

john mc Donnell has been outlining labours position and its all unicorns to beat the band and the torys cant even pick it apart because out from ken clarke they dont have an notion what hes talking about.

CelticRambler

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

Nope. There were several other deals on offer (cf the "Barnier Staircase") but Theresa May drew so many red lines to appease the Brexiteers she painted herself into a corner where a bad deal does almost look worse than no deal.

funkey_monkey

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. There were several other deals on offer (cf the "Barnier Staircase") but Theresa May drew so many red lines to appease the Brexiteers she painted herself into a corner where a bad deal does almost look worse than no deal.

Thanks - I had forgot about that.
I thought the Canada style deal didn't resolve the border?

josip

John Calm Ballerina wrote: »

Yep, I'll be switching to Amazon.es, .fr, .de .it.... 😁

Amazon is a good example. They obviously do a huge amount of business in Ireland, I wonder what plans they have for Irish customers?

It might be a huge amount of business from our perspective, but I doubt if Amazon will lose much sleep about the impact of Brexit on Ireland.
They probably have much bigger concerns just on the UK impacts of Brexit.

CelticRambler

Looking beyond Brexit-day, I came across a NYT article discussing why Trump's MAGA strategy is fatally flawed, and there are parallels for the UK, specifically this:

as overall spending grows, an increasing share goes to services, not goods. Consumption of manufactured goods keeps rising, but technological progress lets us produce those goods with ever fewer workers; so the economy shifts toward services.

By the way, if you want to know what “services” means: Of the four occupations the Department of Labor expects to add the most jobs over the next decade, three are some kind of nursing (food workers are the fourth). And if you can’t imagine how a prosperous economy can be built on services, bear in mind that health care is a large source of middle-class jobs, and could provide even more with the right policies.

My own dealings with the employment services in France have highlighted the same trend: young people are being trained for non-existent jobs that they dream about when the real-world demand lies increasingly in providing geriatric care. Similarly,it was shown in that Stephen Fry Brexit video posted a few days ago, half of government spending goes on education, healthcare (which is dominated by costs for keeping people alive beyond their best-before date) and pensions.

We've seen that the British workforce to date has been unable fulfill the demand for workers in education and healthcare, with the shortfall being made up of EU migrants firstly, and mostly Asian/Middle-Eastern immigrants afterwards. If Britain follows where America leads, and becomes ever more dependent on the healthcare industry to keep the economy afloat, who's going to keep it running - more immigrants?

seamus

Brexit is a big issue for Amazon. They have 49 distribution warehouses in the EU and 16 of these are in the UK, more than any other individual state.

While it's likely a reflection of the size of the UK market, there's no doubt they rely quite heavily on the UK centres to distribute into the EU. Amazon would never talk about it though.

There are also legal issues for AWS data centres, and accounting issues for their software development offices in the UK.

demfad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n_wPxAd41js&app=desktop

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46460194

Good BBC Video and article (Finally) on the search for the source of Aaron Banks £8 million funding of Brexit: £2 Million to 'Better for the Country limited' and £6 million to LeaveEU.

The ICO referred the matter of the sources of Banks Referendum Funding to the UK National Crime Agency saying they suspected crimes had taken place.
Money for British elections must transparently come from the UK. Banks money allegedly came from a company called Rock Services of London but may have come from Rock Services in the Isle of Man. As the accounts for these companies are not transparent and the money is not coming from the company Banks says it was: crimes have been committed by providing False information to the Electoral Commission in order to use illegitimate funding.
The £8 million spent by Banks was not legitimate. To understand how serious this is this amounts to more than the ENTIRE official Remain campaign allowance.
The Russian ambassador to the UK who Mueller described as a central figure in Trump-Russia had met with banks and Wigmore several times at key points leading up to the Referendum. Other Russian officials met with them including a Russian spy deported after the Skripal poisoning. These meetings continued after the referendum at key points in Trump campaion (Day Bannon was appointed Campaign Manager, they met Ambassador in London day after "Bad Boys" Trump tower photo).
They were offerred Gold mining deals backed by Sberbank. Banks runs diamond mines in SA which are perfect for laundering money.

Potential Illegal spending by Leave campaigns to date:

• Vote Leave to BeLeave: £1m Crime + Fine
• LeaveEU/BFTCL : £8m Highly likely illegal source and Crime committed (regardless of Russian connection or not)

=£9 million.

This doesn't include undeclared benefits in kind by Cambridge Analytica to LeaveEU, or payments by DUP/VeteransForLeave to AIQ or DUP dark £1/2m

In a high Court case, This Oxford Professor alleges that the Vote Leave/AIQ illegal overspend alone was enough to swing the Vote to Leave. Thats just a million. We are looking at probably £9m. There is no way in hell that Leaves would have won without cheating and committing crimes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

RobMc59

demfad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=n_wPxAd41js&app=desktop

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46460194

Good BBC Video and article (Finally) on the search for the source of Aaron Banks £8 million funding of Brexit: £2 Million to 'Better for the Country limited' and £6 million to LeaveEU.

The ICO referred the matter of the sources of Banks Referendum Funding to the UK National Crime Agency saying they suspected crimes had taken place.
Money for British elections must transparently come from the UK. Banks money allegedly came from a company called Rock Services of London but may have come from Rock Services in the Isle of Man. As the accounts for these companies are not transparent and the money is not coming from the company Banks says it was: crimes have been committed by providing False information to the Electoral Commission in order to use illegitimate funding.
The £8 million spent by Banks was not legitimate. To understand how serious this is this amounts to more than the entire official Leave campaign allowance.
The Russian ambassador to the UK who Mueller described as a central figure in Trump-Russia had met with banks and Wigmore several times at key points leading up to the Referendum. Other Russian officials met with them including a Russian spy deported after the Skripal poisoning. These meetings continued after the referendum at key points in Trump campaion (Day Bannon was appointed Campaign Manager, they met Ambassador in London day after "Bad Boys" Trump tower photo).
They were offerred Gold mining deals backed by Sberbank. Banks runs diamond mines in SA which are perfect for laundering money.

Potential Illegal spending by Leave campaigns to date:

• Vote Leave to BeLeave: £1m Crime + Fine
• LeaveEU/BFTCL : £8m Highly likely illegal source and Crime committed (regardless of Russian connection or not)

=£9 million.

This doesn't include undeclared benefits in kind by Cambridge Analytica to LeaveEU, or payments by DUP/VeteransForLeave to AIQ or DUP dark £1/2m

In a high Court case, This Oxford Professor alleges that the Vote Leave/AIQ illegal overspend alone was enough to swing the Vote to Leave. Thats just a million. We are looking at probably £9m. There is no way in hell that Leaves would have won without cheating and committing crimes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?

BonnieSituation

Nah. Thr wilful ignorance of the British public enabled this to be like shooting fish in the barrel.

Sympathy is in short supply.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

In that case getting the public to buy into such a well funded, organised brexit campaign was like shooting fish in a barrel for the cheating brexiteers-perhaps the British public should be cut some slack?

There is truth in that, except that this info has been out in the open for ages and yet a very large portion of the British public seem totally unconcerned and just want them to "get on with it" in terms of Brexit and the very notion of a second vote is seen as an affront to democracy.

kalych

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

Isn't that an argument against virtually anything?
"Screw my bank for keeping me on the hook by giving me the best rate in the market for mortgages. They are just trying to tie me down."
"I have to stay alive because the alternative of committing suicide is not great either, even though I hate my life?"

You can twist anything positive this way.

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Does this not prove to a certain extent the Brexiteers point about the EU? The deal being offered is so bad that remaining is a better option.

it doesn't prove anything. There is nothing stopping the Uk from leaving the EU. The problem is that the UK know that simply leaving without any deal is madness and thus they need to get some deal. Now why is that? Is that because there is actual value in being in the EU?

I know if I am stuck in a job I hate, or a mobile contract etc that as soon as I get a way out I take that option. What I have done though is considered the alternatives before I hand in my notice. The UK haven't done of that, or indeed even understood what they were getting in the first place.

The EU have considered the options presented by the UK and have come to a negotiated position. The UK is still free to opt for any of three choices

Leave with no Deal
Accept the deal and leave on that basis
Remain.

The point that the offer is worse than the position they currently simply shows the Brexiteers to be the liars they are. They made the EU out to be the worst thing to ever happen to the UK, and now are saving that actually they have could have been much worse!

funkey_monkey

TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it.
EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper.

Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union.

Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

That only leaves remain option.


I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

TM's deal is a bad for remainers and brexiteers. The majority of MP's are against it.
EU states the deal is what it is - you can change the font or the colour of the paper.

Canada does not resolve the border problem to their liking as NI remains in CU and in their eyes is tantamount to breaking up of the union.

Everyone agrees No Deal would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

That only leaves remain option.


I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

But what options do you want there to be? It is pretty clear now that the promises of easy trade deals, money for the NHS, only positive impacts on the economy as portrayed by the Brexiteers were never a possibility.

That doesn't mean the EU is not being fair. I would actually be of the view that they have been too accommodating, but that is very much open to argument.

That the deal is not everything they wanted does not make it a bad deal. It is a bad deal in terms of what they currently have. So that is why there is now talk of Remain even from the likes of Johnson, with the caveat that its all the fault of TM and not simply the reality of the siutation.

ArmaniJeanss

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm pro remain, but I feel like there is not enough spread of opinions in here.

It sounds like you are looking for a pro-Brexit opinion that stands up to scrutiny, and someone to come up with a fair deal that simultaneously satisfies the EUs four freedoms, TMPMs red lines, and the UKs obligations under the GFA.


There are some good posters here but...……..