Brexit Discussion Thread VI

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

Questions for Nigel Farage (if you're reading Ivan. )

How come Brexit has not been as easy to deliver as you said it would be?
Were you aware the Leave campaign was overspending during the referendum campaign?
Do you still think there should be a second referendum (as he said previously on Andrew Marr show)?
What do you think should happen if the deal is rejected this evening?

When will you be moving to the South of France with your EU pension or what do you see as your next steps if britain crashes out of the UK. Will you be around to clean up your mess ?

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would it be any different from the 1st ref. If remain does win, why wouldn't the Brexiteers demand a 3rd vote? Remain knew the process of the 1st vote. Whether it was through their own lack of engagement or the desire of the people, Leave won. It appears that the majority have accepted that decision.

So now they are faced with how best to deliver on that, TM's deal being on the best offer on the table.

A 2nd ref won't solve anything

A 2nd referendum will result in either of 3 results

1. Remain win by a significant margin (something like 55-45 or more)
2. Brexit win by a significant margin (something like 55-45 or more)
3. It's another close result


Results 1 or 2 would resolve a lot.

If there's a significant remain result. Brexit should be cancelled and lets never speak of this ever again.(Brexiteers would complain a lot but to be honest, they're gonna complain regardless of what happens, even if you give them exactly what they want, they'll blame everyone else for the consequences of their own choices)

If there was a significant Brexit result then any of the MPs who are holding off on voting for a deal because they are hoping that brexit can be reversed will switch to supporting the least worst brexit deal on the table. This is probably a majority of the Parliament.

If there is a close result, then if Brexit wins, they'll have won 2 referendums in a row so there's no way there will be another vote on this. A significant percentage of remainers will accept that brexit is inevitable and the few vocal dissidents will have no political capital

If there is a close result and remain wins, TM or whoever the PM is then, will have the full array of options available to him/her and the cabinet/parliament can vote on what they think is best for the country without being constrained by the result of the first referendum.


One thing that I really want to emphasise. If there isn't a 2nd referendum, then no matter what happens, Britain will still be extremely divided. No matter what happens, you'll have the majority of the population opposed to whatever the outcome of Brexit is. Any negative consequences will cause resentment and anger by those who feel they were not listened to or betrayed which will be the majority of the population, because no brexit outcome has majority support.

Even if there is a No deal brexit, the hardcore brexiteers who wanted this all along, will still blame everyone else for the negative outcomes because they will think the EU and WTO and the rest of the world are conspiring against them to punish them for exercising their sovereignty

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they were never going to give her anything before the HoC even voted. Why she wasted 5 weeks is beyond me as nothing was achieved.

But if the vote passes with the amendment (not today but maybe in a few weeks), TM could offer the EU a final 'avoid no deal' offer.

Would Leo really opt for a chaotic No Deal brexit, with massive problems for ROI trade through the UK, not to mention having to erect a border with NI, rather than give a time limit? Maybe even something like 10 years?

You seem to be prescribing to the Dominic Raab school of thought here, that if they hold fast until the end the EU will bed and give them what they want.

As for what we want, if there is a time limit to the backstop then it is not a backstop but an arrangement that will only last until that time. What happens if Gove becomes PM and he has no time for the GFA and by just waiting out the time limit it would mean that the GFA falls apart? Do you want to take that risk?

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

Would Leo really opt for a chaotic No Deal brexit, with massive problems for ROI trade through the UK, not to mention having to erect a border with NI, rather than give a time limit?

Has Leo taken over negotiations from Barnier, Tusk and Juncker? :eek: I missed that! :P

Sarcasm aside, the answer is: yes. Even if the current WA was passed this evening, the RoI's trade route through the UK is still at risk from the dysfunctional politics over there, that shows every sign of continuing for years yet. Given that Leo doesn't actually have an option - that choice lies firmly with the madHouse of Commons - "opting" for a chaotic No Deal would be the most effective way to clear the air, and help our British neighbours understand weigh up the advantages of (future) EU membership versus life in the WTO wilderness.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

You seem to be prescribing to the Dominic Raab school of thought here, that if they hold fast until the end the EU will bed and give them what they want.

As for what we want, if there is a time limit to the backstop then it is not a backstop but an arrangement that will only last until that time. What happens if Gove becomes PM and he has no time for the GFA and by just waiting out the time limit it would mean that the GFA falls apart? Do you want to take that risk?

No, I'm just trying to game play out the process. This is clearly, well IMO, that the plan from the UK is, to try to get the EU to bend at the end.

It is much more powerful to have a passed vote on the table than merely the suggestion that it may pass if X.Y or Z is obtained. IMO, it would have moved the situation on.

Would the EU give in? Well that is the question I am asking. I, personally, do not see any benefit in doing so but then I have been of the opinion that hard brexit is the ultimate destination since the vote and this is all just delaying that. It horrible, and certainly something Ireland never wanted, but it is the reality that we are facing into a very different situation than many of us how grown up with.

Tell me how

Akrasia wrote: »

A 2nd referendum will result in either of 3 results

1. Remain win by a significant margin (something like 55-45 or more)
2. Brexit win by a significant margin (something like 55-45 or more)
3. It's another close result


Results 1 or 2 would resolve a lot.

If there's a significant remain result. Brexit should be cancelled and lets never speak of this ever again.(Brexiteers would complain a lot but to be honest, they're gonna complain regardless of what happens, even if you give them exactly what they want, they'll blame everyone else for the consequences of their own choices)

The justification of a second referendum is just too difficult, it is too easy for Brexiteers to say that May was always a remainer, she negotiated an EU friendly deal and now wants to sideswipe the democratic vote to leave.

If they leave, change government, have issues and then want to come back, at least democracy would be seen to have been upheld.

But that can't happen overnight and the potential trouble in the years after the leave for them, us, and the eU project will influence if they do ever want to return.

Enzokk

When I hear Theresa May going on about how the MPs in the HoC must come together now to vote for her deal, surely she should have discarded with the one party show that Brexit so far has been in the UK and made this policy a cross party effort. That way she could have shared the blame if it went wrong instead of owning it all.

Also, Norway also voted around 52-48 not to join the EU and we know what deal they have, that should have indicated what type of deal they should have been aiming for instead of the fantasy they have been pursuing.

EdgeCase

In the Farrage interview:

Could they at least bring a panelist on who's an expert in European treaty law and also an economist with a strong background in trade policy?

Seems reasonable to bring fact checking into all of those discussions.

Adamcp898

Arlene on Bloomberg TV at 11:45

https://www.bloomberg.com/live/europe

Tell me how

EdgeCase wrote: »

In the Farrage interview:

Could they at least bring a panelist on who's an expert in European treaty law and also an economist with a strong background in trade policy?

Seems reasonable to bring fact checking into all of those discussions.

They should, but they won't. I'd say a critical part of any of these bookings is agreeing structure. Having a debate, and having an interview are too very different things.

I wonder does Nigel have a list of questions he will refuse to answer. I doubt it or it would have leaked by now but I think he at least will have agreed on what he is going to be asked or else he simply would not appear.

Christy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

In the Farrage interview:

Could they at least bring a panelist on who's an expert in European treaty law and also an economist with a strong background in trade policy?

Seems reasonable to bring fact checking into all of those discussions.

I doubt Farage would agree to an interview where facts are allowed take a starring role.

He will be let put the blame everywhere but himself.

GM228

Loved Betty Boothroyds comment:

“Are the young people of Britain to be stripped of their rights on the whim of people who peddled rubbish in a referendum and are afraid to be challenged in another...”

A wise lady.

https://twitter.com/conor_pope/status/1085102080984002560?s=19

Awesomeness

The Swine and Murrison amendments will both be rejected by the EU as they limit the backstop. The Murrison amendment states that the backstop would cease in Decemeber 2021. The backstop would not even be enacted till December 2022. So they want to stop it a year before it starts

Expect it to pass so

GM228

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1085121753729388544?s=19

Topgear on Dave

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Arlene on Bloomberg TV at 11:45

https://www.bloomberg.com/live/europe

Also on RTE News Now.

Dominic Raab on earlier, all speakers very confident in leaving the EU.


Edit: I admire their confidence. Trade with the rest of the world is where it is lads, forget the EU.

This will go down well in Arlenes local at election time.

Tell me how

GM228 wrote: »

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

Would be better if there was footage or audio of said Minister actually saying there would be further negotiations.

I'll wait to see this confirmed.

Enzokk

GM228 wrote: »

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

Well if we think that leaving without a deal is the worst outcome and there is a chance that offering May new wording to the deal will help they should try it. As the tweet says,

"German Foreign Minister Maas says if May's Brexit deal is rejected by parliament today there could be new talks with the EU!"

That is no guarantee there would be new talks. If the result will be the same what use would the talks be? Is there a different deal that the EU could have offered, if there is why was it not offered to get it through?

So many questions, we will just have to see what the vote holds tonight and what the response to the result will be.

Penn

Tell me how wrote: »

Would be better if there was footage or audio of sad Minister actually saying there would be further negotiations.

I'll wait to see this confirmed.

'Further talks with the EU' could mean anything, including extending the withdrawal date.

GM228

Tell me how wrote: »

Would be better if there was footage or audio of sad Minister actually saying there would be further negotiations.

I'll wait to see this confirmed.

Seems to be a misleading Tweet and headline from Reuters:-

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-maas/germany-says-eu-ready-to-talk-if-uk-rejects-brexit-deal-idUKKCN1P9132

Germany says EU ready to talk if UK rejects Brexit deal

STRASBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union could hold new talks with Britain if parliament in London rejects the Brexit agreement on Tuesday, Germany’s foreign minister said, but he ruled out significant changes to the treaty.

Speaking to reporters at the European Parliament, Heiko Maas said: “The agreement stands, as it is. I doubt very much that the agreement can be fundamentally reopened. If there were a better solution, it would already have been put forward.”

Contradictory.

Seth Brundle

GM228 wrote: »

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1085121753729388544?s=19

I note the following response...
https://twitter.com/DubLoony/status/1085136528836313090

Topgear on Dave

THis press conference is great stuff. David Davis very confident for three reasons and EU has weakness.

- We have a floating currency.

- Right to make own decisions.

- We have all the upsides of future trade deals with bigger faster growing countries.


On th EU side: ROI will suffer, France, Spain, Belgium and NL will suffer.

robinph

Further talks would consist of...

May: We had a vote and would like a different deal.
EU: That's interesting but no. Now go away and try again.

Charles Babbage

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Arlene on Bloomberg TV at 11:45

https://www.bloomberg.com/live/europe

Was she hiding behind the "bollocks to Brexit" bus?

Topgear on Dave

David Davis: We will go back to them with an offer of a free trade deal, we will be in a strong position. "Canada +++" etc etc etc


"A brighter and better future"

Hurrache

Enzokk wrote: »

"German Foreign Minister Maas says if May's Brexit deal is rejected by parliament today there could be new talks with the EU!"

I would have thought Deal or No Deal there WILL be further talks with the EU. Not necessarily about changing the WA though.

Here's a little quiz to see how knowledgeable we all are on Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/15/quiz-how-well-have-you-been-following-brexit?CMP=twt_gu

Adamcp898

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Also on RTE News Now.

Dominic Raab on earlier, all speakers very confident in leaving the EU.


Edit: I admire their confidence. Trade with the rest of the world is where it is lads, forget the EU.

This will go down well in Arlenes local at election time.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Was she hiding behind the "bollocks to Brexit" bus?

Must've been delayed. She's appearing next on Bloomberg.

Christy42

robinph wrote: »

Further talks would consist of...

May: We had a vote and would like a different deal.
EU: That's interesting but no. Now go away and try again.

Yeah the headline was a flat out lie by Reuters. Pity as I held them in high regard.

Donald Trump

GM228 wrote: »

Hum, I though the EU insisted their wouldn't be.

https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1085121753729388544?s=19

I am sure there will be talks.


Doesn't necessarily mean they'll be about the WA




Might be about how much the UK will have to pay per week to extend A50 to allow them to get their house in order. And be demanding payment up front of that 39bn



If I was in the EU, I'd be demanding a fairly steep price to extend it

CelticRambler

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

- We have all the upsides of future trade deals with bigger faster growing countries.


On th EU side: ROI will suffer, France, Spain, Belgium and NL will suffer.

Yeah. It's a real shame the RoI, France, Spain, Belgium & NL have to work together, with nothing to offer those bigger faster growing countries in future trade deals, other than access to a single market of 500.000.000 people ... :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

A couple of quotes from Arlene published on the RTE site today...

Mrs Foster told the audience she had déjà vu having come to London to argue against the Withdrawal Agreement before the Meaningful Vote was pulled in December.

"We said to the Prime Minister she had to get rid of the backstop and get a Withdrawal Agreement that can be lived with".

"I don't think she even asked to get rid of the backstop."

"Tonight will be historic but for the wrong reasons," DUP leader Arlene Foster said in a post on Twitter ahead of the vote in parliament on the deal.

"We will oppose the toxic backstop & vote against the WA," she said, referring to the Withdrawal Agreement.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1085146573082972160