Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

charlie14

kowtow wrote: »

According to Tony Connolly the latest direction is some sort of "review" mechanism - third party? - for the NI backstop.

I've always felt that the UK "agreed" last December to a backstop assuming that both sides really wanted - in good faith - to work for a solution which made it unnecessary. At some subsequent point the backstop seemed to become the preferred solution itself and the UK realized that it had been out-maneuvered.

We're getting somewhere with the CU - the present suggestions look to be uncomfortable on both sides if left unfinished, not just on the UK side - but clearly something more needs to be written in for each side to feel that the other will be kept honest once the ink is dry.

I would seriously worry if what she is lookijg for is a third party review. They very rarely if ever favour one side over the other.
I really do not see where we we`re getting with the present suggestion without clarification whether along with staying in the CU like the rest of Britain, NI is also remaining in the SM.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote:

Ireland and the EU need to be very careful here. The Brexiteers are slippery customers and deceitful and would think nothing of reneging on any agreement they had previously signed.

Think that looking at tweets from Simon, Leo and Sabine this morning, they're well aware of it.

Each of them all but said "We know what ye are trying to do".

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm against brexit but think some of the posters on this forum seem to think the UK has committed a terrible sin to want to leave the EU-if it's a no deal brexit it will hurt the UK but all this talk of "watch them come crawling back " and they'll soon realise their mistake-40 years of gutter press..blah blah blah-where is all that bile and bitterness coming from?

Yes, it is a gutter press, because you don't see such hostility in any other European mainstream paper. You just don't - show me one. Calling judges traitors, invoking the "will of the people", constant attacks on the EU, the Ireland (and the Irish), conspiracy theories about the Germans (and the French). The list goes on.

Example:


And here is a list of lies manufactured by the UK gutter press and associated "politicians":
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index
The fact that the EC has a website dedicated to lies spread in the UK and not in any other country gives you a hint about the situation.

I think no one on this forum is really anti-UK or anything like that, but the situation with English media and political discourse is really bad and that's why we talk about it. You can try denying it, but sadly it's a reality.

Angry bird

Because there is no consensus in the UK, these allows the Brexit hardliners a greater voice than their numbers in HoC actually warrant. May took a gamble calling the election last year, but she was not wrong to call it, she engaged in a terrible campaign. I forget the actual majority she inherited, something like 12, but she actually needed 60 plus to have the ability to ignore the ERG. The polls gave her a big lead and looked good to return a huge majority when she called the election. Problem was and is, she's too wooden and just not the inspirational leader type that GB needs desperately at this point. Instead we're left to deal with the likes of Raab in cabinet and JRM on the side lines in a position that absolutely does not suit Irish interests.

All this means, ever lasting negotiation within Westminster. A no deal remains a distinct possibility, no matter how logic says otherwise.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

There are those in Labour who either want Brexit themselves, or are afraid of facing their constituents if they don't support the democratic vote to leave (leaving Aaron Banks and such aside).

Less and less. Latest studies suggest that every single Labour MP sits for a constituency where a majority backs a second referendum.

Tell me how wrote: »

There are certainly as many pro-Brexit labour MP's as there are DUP MP's. Question is, are there enough to counter Tory rebels.

The issue is not how may pro-Brexit Labour MPs there are; it's how many Labour MPs would vote for May's Brexit.

This is quite a different question. Extreme pro-Brexit Labour MPs - e.g. Kate Hoey - might vote against May's Brexit because they don't think it's brexity enough. Conversely, anti-Brexit Labour MPs might vote for May's Brexit if they were persuaded that the likely alternative was a no-deal Brexit.

The key question here is whether Labour will whip its members to vote against May's brexit. You'd expect so, given that May's brexit will not meet Labour's six tests. (No Brexit will.) But is it possible that Labour leadership will not want to risk (a) being blamed for no-deal Brexit and/or (b) triggering chaos which may lead to no Brexit at all, and will seek to avoid this by allowing members a free vote?

Id be very surprised if the corbynistas allowed a free vote. Its not really in their nature.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

Id be very surprised if the corbynistas allowed a free vote. Its not really in their nature.

Corbyn defied the Labour whip more than 400 times when Labour were in power.

Tell me how

flatty wrote: »

Id be very surprised if the corbynistas allowed a free vote. Its not really in their nature.

I'd actually be more surprised if the constrained members to a party vote.

It would allow people to grandstand against the party position, whichever way they were going.

Strazdas

Tell me how wrote: »

Think that looking at tweets from Simon, Leo and Sabine this morning, they're well aware of it.

Each of them all but said "We know what ye are trying to do".

Even if some on the British side might intend keeping to the agreement, there are others who would be plotting how to get out of it, especially all of the hard Brexiteers.

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Id be very surprised if the corbynistas allowed a free vote. Its not really in their nature.

Corbyn defied the Labour whip more than 400 times when Labour were in power.

Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. The corbynistas with their momentum paramilitary wing have not shown great tolerance to internal dissent thus far.

flatty

As an aside, what would people expect sterling to settle at vs the euro if a deal of some sorts is done?

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

As an aside, what would people expect sterling to settle at vs the euro if a deal of some sorts is done?

I think Sterling is already settled expecting a deal to be done, it's already priced in.

The scary question is what would happen to Sterling if the City decide a no deal crashout is coming.

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

As an aside, what would people expect sterling to settle at vs the euro if a deal of some sorts is done?

I think Sterling is already settled expecting a deal to be done, it's already priced in.

The scary question is what would happen to Sterling if the City decide a no deal crashout is coming.

It's still bouncing around a lot.

Mc Love

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think Sterling is already settled expecting a deal to be done, it's already priced in.

The scary question is what would happen to Sterling if the City decide a no deal crashout is coming.

Tank possibly. If it does tank, and we have to pay import taxes on top of any goods we import from the UK, it's not likely to save us any money.

Rhineshark

flatty wrote: »

Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. The corbynistas with their momentum paramilitary wing have not shown great tolerance to internal dissent thus far.

I've seen this sort of talk from normally reasonable posters but none of them have explained what they meant. Far as I know it's a pack of students that flooded into the party primarily out of dislike of Tory Brexit (plus students tend to be a bit more liberal) and were highly enthused for Corbyn (that seems to be waning).

How are they a "paramilitary wing" and, given my understanding of the term is along the lines of the IRA, what exactly do you mean by the phrase? Strikes me as rather "Continuity Remain" or terrorist antifa.

Dyr

Leo must be loving this, getting to tell the Brits to cop themselves on every few weeks. Great PR

flatty

Rhineshark wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. The corbynistas with their momentum paramilitary wing have not shown great tolerance to internal dissent thus far.

I've seen this sort of talk from normally reasonable posters but none of them have explained what they meant. Far as I know it's a pack of students that flooded into the party primarily out of dislike of Tory Brexit (plus students tend to be a bit more liberal) and were highly enthused for Corbyn (that seems to be waning).

How are they a "paramilitary wing" and, given my understanding of the term is along the lines of the IRA, what exactly do you mean by the phrase? Strikes me as rather "Continuity Remain" or terrorist antifa.

I'm not talking about brexit. I'm talk g about them flooding the labour executive with their own, however antisemitic or controversial, and I'm talking about their ongoing agitation to deselect mps perceived to be too centrist.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

As an aside, what would people expect sterling to settle at vs the euro if a deal of some sorts is done?

I think Sterling is already settled expecting a deal to be done, it's already priced in.

The scary question is what would happen to Sterling if the City decide a no deal crashout is coming.

At the sniff of a deal sterling rises quickly so if a deal is agreed I believe it will hit 1.25 or higher.

ArmaniJeanss

flatty wrote: »

Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. The corbynistas with their momentum paramilitary wing have not shown great tolerance to internal dissent thus far.

This is where Corbyn will have to defer to/agree with Keir Starmer - e.g., Starmer decides the 6 tests haven't been met, JC agrees and the plp whips to vote No. It's much more difficult for anyone to defy the whip in this case as not only are you defying the current leader you are also defying his possible successor.

This would keep the numbers voting with the government down to single digits (Hoey, Field etc)

LeinsterDub

Bambi wrote: »

Leo must be loving this, getting to tell the Brits to cop themselves on every few weeks. Great PR

I'd imagine he'd love it more if the Brits copped themselves on and weren't on the brink of driving off a cliff while threatening to run us over as they do.

RobMc59

What happens if some EU members want to push through a brexit deal?-I ask as it appears Germany and Poland are apparently very keen for a deal to go through..

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

What happens if some EU members want to push through a brexit deal?-I ask as it appears Germany and Poland are apparently very keen for a deal to go through..

Ireland are even keener to see a deal than Germany and Poland, we are the ones most affected by Brexit.

Water John

EU countries haven't diverged, despite the UK's best attempts to date.

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

What happens if some EU members want to push through a brexit deal?-I ask as it appears Germany and Poland are apparently very keen for a deal to go through..

Nothing without managing to swing at least two thirds of the countries to join 'em and 100% for the post brexit trade deal.

charlie14

RobMc59 wrote: »

What happens if some EU members want to push through a brexit deal?-I ask as it appears Germany and Poland are apparently very keen for a deal to go through..

With May asking for a review, then if that is the case with Germany, especially with Merkel off the stage in a few years time now perhaps looking more towards domestic affairs than European, it would make me wonder what May hopes to achieve from a review now that wasn`t there before.

charlie14

Nody wrote: »

Nothing without managing to swing at least two thirds of the countries to join 'em and 100% for the post brexit trade deal.

If it comes down solely to the backstop being the cause of a no deal I wonder would that hold true though if Germany were determined to get a deal.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

What happens if some EU members want to push through a brexit deal?-I ask as it appears Germany and Poland are apparently very keen for a deal to go through..

Everyone is very keen for a deal to go through, that does not mean cutting your own legs off to get one.

swampgas

charlie14 wrote: »

If it comes down solely to the backstop being the cause of a no deal I wonder would that hold true though if Germany were determined to get a deal.

The EU caving on the backstop would do the EU lots of reputational damage, internally and externally. Internally, it would be a message that smaller countries will be thrown under the bus at the last minute if it suits the majority or the larger countries. It's not a message that would encourage EU cohesiveness. Externally it would indicate that the EU's consistent position up to now has been a bluff and that the EU will cave at the last minute if brinkmanship is used. Not a good precedent when there are future trading arrangements and political crises to be negotiatied.

I really can't see the EU making blunders on such a scale for the sake of a deal with the UK that might very well collapse anyway. The EU have to think long term here. The UK should be thinking long term but don't seem to be able to see beyond the next 24 hours.

keane2097

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is where Corbyn will have to defer to/agree with Keir Starmer - e.g., Starmer decides the 6 tests haven't been met, JC agrees and the plp whips to vote No. It's much more difficult for anyone to defy the whip in this case as not only are you defying the current leader you are also defying his possible successor.

This would keep the numbers voting with the government down to single digits (Hoey, Field etc)

Is there some extra imperative on Labour members not to defy the whip that won't apply to Tories when the time to vote arrives?

You seem to be implying that the various Labour factions will be cowed by it but the various Tory factions won't.

An Claidheamh

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Well the Irish version left out the Whitehall official saying that Ireland were f**ked, so there's a degree of pandering to national audiences and not providing the full account in case it upsets the apple cart

What did he say Ireland were f#+ked on relation to?

Please tell me it's not another "we'll destroy your economy more than ours"?

Incidentally, similar to another British newspaper posing as Irish - the Sun - disgusting.

Furthermore, I remember that nobody Brendan O'Neill writing in the Irish Times a couple of years ago about Ireland "bullying" poor Britain.
He referred to the Irish as "We".

Just another, as was said earlier, alt-right careerist.

ArmaniJeanss

charlie14 wrote: »

If it comes down solely to the backstop being the cause of a no deal I wonder would that hold true though if Germany were determined to get a deal.

All of this and RobMc59s posts are based on the idea that the other European countries aren't going to be pay any heed to a border issue, the effect is has on the people either side, the potential strife and body count it might brings. Basically the 'why are the paddies fretting about nothing?' line which the UK media tries to put out.

Almost a quarter of the EU countries have had major border issues in the current generation (the Balkan countries, Cyprus) and the rest have had border issues a couple of generations ago (arguably the main reason the EU was set up was to stop such border issues causing wars again), so I don't think we've a huge lot to worry about here. They may be annoyed by it and wish it wasn't an issue, but I don't think they'll be asking us to grin and bear it.