Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

flatty

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JamieJBartlett/status/1055362716569878528

Basically Corbyn has lost serious support in the 17-24 age group according to the above poll. The good news is The Tories no matter the leader are probably ****ed next election , however I suspect this age group have watched him try and play both sides regarding Brexit and are understandably fuming no matter how much the likes of Owen Jones etc tries to spin it.

The longer he plays that game, I think unions and young left wingers will get more and more pissed off. The more we learn about how difficult Brexit will be, his stance may be political suicide.

That's one thing I'd love about a second vote, what would Corbyn and May do? Both were soft remainers who were not on the front lines and have tried to keep both sides happy with at best moderate support.

I don't think either were, or are, soft remainers. Theresa May is a me feiner. Corbyn is a zealot. Neither could lie straight in bed.

Folkstonian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Which begs the question-if the conditions you voted on have changed or you were misled,is`nt it reasonable to  think a second vote whether Scotland(remain in the UK) or Britain(remain in the EU) is a sensible option?

Absolutely! The Scots were told by Better Together that remaining in the UK was the only way to keep the pound, trade with the rest of the UK and EU membership. One of those promises was undone only a few years afterwards so, yes I think the SNP have grounds to seek a second Indyref even if it's against the will of so-called sovereignty-obsessed Tories.

I’m quite sure this is factually incorrect. The idea of an EU referendum was very well established by the time of the Scottish referendum on independence. It didn’t appear out of a vacuum in 2015.

The Scots couldn’t have kept any control of sterling following independence, as confirmed by the U.K. govt and the Bank of England, and Scottish trade with England is worth four times that as trade with the EU.. this will inevitably be heavily disrupted if they become independent.

Why is it a fear campaign with regard to Scotland to explain the reality of changing their relationship with England to become less integrated? It wasn’t simply a fear campaign with Brexit, I think we all agree, what is the difference?

lawred2

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’m quite sure this is factually incorrect. The idea of an EU referendum was very well established by the time of the Scottish referendum on independence. It didn’t appear out of a vacuum in 2015.

The Scots couldn’t have kept any control of sterling following independence, as confirmed by the U.K. govt and the Bank of England, and Scottish trade with England is worth four times that as trade with the EU.. this will inevitably be heavily disrupted if they become independent.

Why is it a fear campaign with regard to Scotland to explain the reality of changing their relationship with England to become less integrated? It wasn’t simply a fear campaign with Brexit, I think we all agree, what is the difference?

Cameron announced an in out referendum in February 2016

Folkstonian

Enzokk wrote: »

The capitulation to single market and customs union membership but being out of the EU has moved a step closer, not by anything the UK or EU has done but by Russia.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1055363460291272704

Interesting development. Not sure what it means for the theories that Russia was meddling behind the scenes to destabilise Britain and weaken the EU? Certainly a bit of a gamble to make this step at this point in time, given all it will do is increase the likelihood of Britain staying more closely aligned to Europe economically

RobMc59

Folkstonian wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

The capitulation to single market and customs union membership but being out of the EU has moved a step closer, not by anything the UK or EU has done but by Russia.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1055363460291272704

Interesting development. Not sure what it means for the theories that Russia was meddling behind the scenes to destabilise Britain and weaken the EU? Certainly a bit of a gamble to make this step at this point in time, given all it will do is increase the likelihood of Britain staying more closely aligned to Europe economically

Harper

Have a look at sputnik news or russia today,russia is spending vast amounts on anti western propaganda and is constantly trying to undermine European and NATO unity-the incident in Salisbury was probably because russia thought the UK weak and alone due to its stupidity over brexit.

A Dub in Glasgo

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’m quite sure this is factually incorrect. The idea of an EU referendum was very well established by the time of the Scottish referendum on independence. It didn’t appear out of a vacuum in 2015.

The Scots couldn’t have kept any control of sterling following independence, as confirmed by the U.K. govt and the Bank of England, and Scottish trade with England is worth four times that as trade with the EU.. this will inevitably be heavily disrupted if they become independent.

Why is it a fear campaign with regard to Scotland to explain the reality of changing their relationship with England to become less integrated? It wasn’t simply a fear campaign with Brexit, I think we all agree, what is the difference?

The idea of a Brexit remotely happening was miles away during the Scottish referendum in 2014. During the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, the SNP put a manfesto pledge that they will call for another referendum if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will

The Scottish Parliament has already passed a motion that gives Nicola Sturgeon the authority to begin negotiations with UK parliament on a second independence referendum

LeinsterDub

lawred2 wrote: »

How would Scotland give Ireland a land bridge to the continent?

Well post a border poll and IndRef 2 it will just be a matter of driving to Belfast.

ancapailldorcha

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’m quite sure this is factually incorrect. The idea of an EU referendum was very well established by the time of the Scottish referendum on independence. It didn’t appear out of a vacuum in 2015.

The Scots couldn’t have kept any control of sterling following independence, as confirmed by the U.K. govt and the Bank of England, and Scottish trade with England is worth four times that as trade with the EU.. this will inevitably be heavily disrupted if they become independent.

Why is it a fear campaign with regard to Scotland to explain the reality of changing their relationship with England to become less integrated? It wasn’t simply a fear campaign with Brexit, I think we all agree, what is the difference?

That's a bit vague. The Tory right has wanted out for a long time. It was just never close to happening until we got the perfect storm of a pitifully weak PR man masquerading as a politician leading the Conservatives, a wafer-thin majority in the commons that nobody expected and no Lib Dems to veto it which was the plan.

A campaign that is based on fear tactics isn't necessarily wrong. I never claimed that fearmongering is inherently false. It depends on the individual claims made which must be assessed on their own merits. For instance, World War 3 won't be happening because of Brexit but it seems that the economy will most likely take a hit due to reduced access to the single market though this is still not definite.

I'm not pro-Independence but I'm becoming a lot less unsympathetic to the idea upon seeing the Scots being dragged out of the EU simply because David Cameron was afraid of his backbenchers.

Enzokk

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’m quite sure this is factually incorrect. The idea of an EU referendum was very well established by the time of the Scottish referendum on independence. It didn’t appear out of a vacuum in 2015.

The Scots couldn’t have kept any control of sterling following independence, as confirmed by the U.K. govt and the Bank of England, and Scottish trade with England is worth four times that as trade with the EU.. this will inevitably be heavily disrupted if they become independent.

Why is it a fear campaign with regard to Scotland to explain the reality of changing their relationship with England to become less integrated? It wasn’t simply a fear campaign with Brexit, I think we all agree, what is the difference?

The Scottish referendum was in 2014, it was in the 2015 manifesto of the Conservatives that if they had a majority they would call a in out referendum on EU membership. It is disingenuous from Cameron to use EU membership in the campaign when he was thinking about calling a referendum on that membership a year later.

If he was sure he was going to call for the Brexit referendum at the time it just shows how low he was willing to go to get his way, to knowingly state what could be not true as he couldn't guarantee that the UK would stay in the EU if he was going to call a referendum on their membership. I don't know if this was the case though.

As to the relationship between Scotland and England in case of independence, at the time both were in the single market and customs union and the idea was to have this continue so there would not have been a change to their trading relationship. If they did vote for independence and Brexit still went ahead this would have changed it but you can only argue on the facts and at the time of there was no indication that the UK was leaving the EU.

So the question really is, when did David Cameron know he was going to put in their manifesto about the Brexit referendum and did he let the Scottish electorate know that their word on EU membership could not be guaranteed?

Folkstonian wrote: »

Interesting development. Not sure what it means for the theories that Russia was meddling behind the scenes to destabilise Britain and weaken the EU? Certainly a bit of a gamble to make this step at this point in time, given all it will do is increase the likelihood of Britain staying more closely aligned to Europe economically

No theory on meddling, just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO. This will make a very tough time just a little more complicated because WTO tariffs were the holy land for Brexiteers but when even that will be subject to further negotiations if they leave the EU without a deal it will just make the safety of single market membership and a customs union with the EU that much more desirable for the UK.

It could have been Djibouti to formally object and the outcome is the same, this time it just happened to be Russia instead of another WTO member to formally object.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Well post a border poll and IndRef 2 it will just be a matter of driving to Belfast.

And where do you go from there?

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This from Raab in the Commons this morning:

"There is a risk of no deal, especially if the EU engage in a deliberately intransigent approach."

Of course.

Someone posted the reuquirements for a successful negotiation (as put forward by a Union negotiator) the other day. A very useful contribution. Viewing this statement in that context at this hour is... mind boggling.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

And where do you go from there?

Obviously towards An Droichead na DUP

brickster69

No theory on meddling, just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO. This will make a very tough time just a little more complicated because WTO tariffs were the holy land for Brexiteers but when even that will be subject to further negotiations if they leave the EU without a deal
Russia are not objecting to the UK's tariffs they are objecting, as other countries are to quota's agreed between the Uk and EU. No country could object to the tariffs because they are the exact same as they were before so no nation can justify harm to them. 
The UK has already designated these in Euros so as not to cause objections over currency fluctuations. Had to laugh on here about people saying the stupid UK had made a mistake by putting Euros down instead of Pounds 
Here is a link so you understand a little more on the matter.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/

An Ciarraioch

How did Harry Cole become a political correspondent?

http://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1055502615813992448

Anthracite

Enzokk wrote: »

The capitulation to single market and customs union membership but being out of the EU has moved a step closer, not by anything the UK or EU has done but by Russia.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1055363460291272704

I see the Telegraph has not found space to publish this story...?

Rhineshark

brickster69 wrote: »

No theory on meddling, just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO. This will make a very tough time just a little more complicated because WTO tariffs were the holy land for Brexiteers but when even that will be subject to further negotiations if they leave the EU without a deal
Russia are not objecting to the UK's tariffs they are objecting, as other countries are to quota's agreed between the Uk and EU. No country could object to the tariffs because they are the exact same as they were before so no nation can justify harm to them. 
The UK has already designated these in Euros so as not to cause objections over currency fluctuations. Had to laugh on here about people saying the stupid UK had made a mistake by putting Euros down instead of Pounds 
Here is a link so you understand a little more on the matter.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/

Quotas refer to the amount of X good that can be imported under a trading arrangement before tariffs or a higher band of tariffs are applied.

So yes, it is about tariffs and quotas. And countries were always guarenteed to object.

brickster69

Quotas refer to the amount of X product that can be imported under a trading arrangement before tariffs or a higher band of tariffs are applied.

So yes, it is about tariffs and quotas. And countries were always guarenteed to object.
 In effect the UK will be a new WTO member but other members are wanting the EU to keep quotas not decrease quotas from what they are obliged now. They are saying we should still be able to sell the same amount as before despite the UK leaving as when a new country joins the EU quotas do not go up.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/comments-on-proposed-trqs/

keane2097

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

How did Harry Cole become a political correspondent?

http://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1055502615813992448

What would you expect from a pig only a grunt

steddyeddy

There's something which I worry about here. I think that Brexiters have lowered the bar in terms of what sort of rubbish politicians can get the public to believe. They are completely in denial about Britain's place in the world, the world in general, trading, international law, Britain's legal obligations and Britain's history. Now all of that ranges from the amusing to the infuriating to most of us across the pond. The fact is that without an EU deal it's likely every other country can act as the rule giver to Britain. So I wonder what happens when reality sinks in and ordinary Britons deal with the consequences of their stupidity?

I think that there's a strong possibility that Brexiters will never accept that they played a role in their country's demise. They'll see it as a fact that the world's out to get them and this will lead to a generation of very bitter British people. I don't want to make comparisons to post-WW1 Germany and the resentment the Germans had for the rest of the world but I think there's a case to be made that some people will feel very hard done by the EU and international trading partners.

RobMc59

brickster69 wrote: »

No theory on meddling, just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO. This will make a very tough time just a little more complicated because WTO tariffs were the holy land for Brexiteers but when even that will be subject to further negotiations if they leave the EU without a deal
Russia are not objecting to the UK's tariffs they are objecting, as other countries are to quota's agreed between the Uk and EU. No country could object to the tariffs because they are the exact same as they were before so no nation can justify harm to them. 
The UK has already designated these in Euros so as not to cause objections over currency fluctuations. Had to laugh on here about people saying the stupid UK had made a mistake by putting Euros down instead of Pounds 
Here is a link so you understand a little more on the matter.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/

This good news for the remainers and a blow to the Brexiteers and those with any other kind of agenda.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

No theory on meddling, just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO. This will make a very tough time just a little more complicated because WTO tariffs were the holy land for Brexiteers but when even that will be subject to further negotiations if they leave the EU without a deal
Russia are not objecting to the UK's tariffs they are objecting, as other countries are to quota's agreed between the Uk and EU. No country could object to the tariffs because they are the exact same as they were before so no nation can justify harm to them.
The UK has already designated these in Euros so as not to cause objections over currency fluctuations. Had to laugh on here about people saying the stupid UK had made a mistake by putting Euros down instead of Pounds
Here is a link so you understand a little more on the matter.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/

Russia weren't the first according to this


And iirc, NZ were quickly followed by anumber of others including (which I found hilarious at the time) Argentina.

brickster69

Of course they were not the first. Some other poster said " just stating that Russia was the first country to formally object to the UK schedules at the WTO " which is plainly wrong.
Most of the countries objecting are agri / food exporters which for them they see the EU as a huge market ( which it is  ) The UK's quota is just a big bonus for them if the EU has to offer bigger quotas or keep the same. 

Folkstonian

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's something which I worry about here. I think that Brexiters have lowered the bar in terms of what sort of rubbish politicians can get the public to believe. They are completely in denial about Britain's place in the world, the world in general, trading, international law, Britain's legal obligations and Britain's history. Now all of that ranges from the amusing to the infuriating to most of us across the pond. The fact is that without an EU deal it's likely every other country can act as the rule giver to Britain. So I wonder what happens when reality sinks in and ordinary Britons deal with the consequences of their stupidity?

I think that there's a strong possibility that Brexiters will never accept that they played a role in their country's demise. They'll see it as a fact that the world's out to get them and this will lead to a generation of very bitter British people. I don't want to make comparisons to post-WW1 Germany and the resentment the Germans had for the rest of the world but I think there's a case to be made that some people will feel very hard done by the EU and international trading partners.

Certainly an attitude among some of my friends at home. Resigned to the fact that we are going down, but we will go down fighting and take as many as we can with us. And a few of these friends would not be the sort of people you’d maybe expect to hold that combative outlook.

However this episode in European history turns out, Britain and Europe are now certainly going to be weaker, more divided, and less influential. And the wounds will take decades to heal.

C’est la guerre, I suppose.

Scoondal

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's something which I worry about here. I think that Brexiters have lowered the bar in terms of what sort of rubbish politicians can get the public to believe. They are completely in denial about Britain's place in the world, the world in general, trading, international law, Britain's legal obligations and Britain's history. Now all of that ranges from the amusing to the infuriating to most of us across the pond. The fact is that without an EU deal it's likely every other country can act as the rule giver to Britain. So I wonder what happens when reality sinks in and ordinary Britons deal with the consequences of their stupidity?

I think that there's a strong possibility that Brexiters will never accept that they played a role in their country's demise. They'll see it as a fact that the world's out to get them and this will lead to a generation of very bitter British people. I don't want to make comparisons to post-WW1 Germany and the resentment the Germans had for the rest of the world but I think there's a case to be made that some people will feel very hard done by the EU and international trading partners.

But you cannot deny the will of UK citizens to ask to voluntarily leave EU.
EU is not a dictatorship or an invading country. All EU member countries may leave EU if they wish.
This is not what British colonies were allowed.
We, EU, give UK rights that they never gave to their colonies. We, EU, are the more progressive union of countries, regions and cultures that give mutual benefits.
If UK wants out, then they should be out.
We can criticise UK politics or deluded UK citizens or populist culture, etc. ... the fact is UK citizens voted to leave EU.
EU should facilitate this exit as easily as possible.

ancapailldorcha

Scoondal wrote: »

But you cannot deny the will of UK citizens to ask to voluntarily leave EU.

Why not? There have been multiple marches in London recently, the latest involving 700,000 people marching for a referendum on the final deal. It's true that the UK voted to leave the EU on the 23rd June 2016. It's far from objective that people still want to leave. If it were, the Brexiteers would have no problem with a referendum on the final deal. But such a referendum is a means to hold them to account and given the farcical performance on their part over the last few years, it's one they know they'd lose.

Scoondal wrote: »

EU should facilitate this exit as easily as possible.

How do you know that it isn't?

Scoondal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why not? There have been multiple marches in London recently, the latest involving 700,000 people marching for a referendum on the final deal. It's true that the UK voted to leave the EU on the 23rd June 2016. It's far from objective that people still want to leave. If it were, the Brexiteers would have no problem with a referendum on the final deal. But such a referendum is a means to hold them to account and given the farcical performance on their part over the last few years, it's one they know they'd lose.



How do you know that it isn't?

It was impressive to see so many demonstate on a final deal vote. 48% of the voters voted to remain.
But opinion polls show very little shift of opinion.
EU totally accept that UK will leave EU. The Irish government accept the democratic vote. The details have to be worked out but UK are definitely leaving EU.
The only big question now is ... Will it be a hard Brexit (good) or a No deal Brexit (bad).

An Ciarraioch

Except a hard Brexit is a no deal Brexit!

HugoRune

UK could leave the EU and stay in the single market. i.e. honour the referendum result and minimise the damage.

ambro25

Scoondal wrote: »

EU should facilitate this exit as easily as possible.

By any measure of objectivity you care to consider, so far the EU has done exactly that.

Scoondal

HugoRune wrote: »

UK could leave the EU and stay in the single market. i.e. honour the referendum result and minimise the damage.

Of course they could !
The UK electorate did not vote for the type of Brexit (soft = EEA, hard = WTO but with EU agreements , or no deal = WTO trade rules, thousands of new agreements).
I love seeing arrogance destroyed.