Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Berserker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They will simply tell May No, go back to Westminster and get the votes for the deal we already made. Or don't - but there will be no extensions for this nonsense, so you crash out in weeks.

The EU is preparing for an extension period til July.

joe40

There are no good options in all of this, but the best would be a WA with the backstop.

However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.

From a Pragmatic approach would it not be better to agree to a time limited backstop, say 5 years. The common consensus is that the backstop won't be necessary in event of FTA. I know it is conceding ground and I realise a time limited backstop isn't really a backstop, but if the alternative is "no deal" which will mean a border anyway why not concede this.

Maybe that's why I'm not a negotiator, but this does seem to be a high stakes game of chicken.

Akrasia

Here's an email I have just sent to thehardshoulder@newstalk.com

Dear Sir/Madam



I am very much looking forward to Ivan’s interview with Nigel Farage which is due to take place later today.



I know that Ivan prides himself on asking tough questions and getting to the substance beneath the story, so here are a short list of questions that I think are highly relevant to Mr Farage’s role in the ongoing Brexit crisis.



Did you concede defeat 52:48 for remain on referendum night knowing a poll told you the true result so that Crispin Odley and other backers of Brexit could make a fortune (he made £300m) on the sharp rise and then absolute crash of sterling in the 2 hours after the result?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/25/nigel-farage-denies-shorting-value-of-sterling-on-night-of-brexit-vote



Is it true that you have been interviewed twice by Robert Mueller and are a subject (probable target) of his investigation?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/13/nigel-farage-mueller-russia-investigation-trump-latest-jerome-corsi-claim



Did you transfer data to/from Julian Assange via thumb drive as reported in US congressional testimony?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russia-inquiry-is-told-nigel-farage-may-have-given-julian-assange-data



Did you illegally organise the use of Cambridge Analytica in Brexit?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/cambridge-analytica-illegal-foreign-donors-leave-eu-arron-banks



Were you aware and part of the conspiracy between Cambridge Analytica and the Internet Research Agency (St Petersburg) to coordinate social media campaigns in Brexit and the 2016 US elections?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/12/facebook-brexit-russia-unresolved-40-questions



Were you involved in organising the transfer of up to £8m of laundered funding from Russia via Aaron Banks to two Leave campaigns?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/01/arron-banks-referred-to-agency-over-suspected-offences-in-brexit-campaign





I look forward to the show today and I hope Ivan is able to use this opportunity to ask the tough unanswered questions that Nigel Farage has thus far avoided and show the world that the Irish media are independent and hard hitting and hold powerful people to account as media is intended to do.



Best regards
(insert real name)

Thomas_IV

lawred2 wrote: »

why would Scotland be taking in people from Northern Ireland?

Ulster Scots they may identify as but they are not some nomadic tribe.

Some uber British flag waving types might struggle with a UI and see fit to relocate to Hull or Wigan but they'll be in the minority

It's not necessary to give too much thought on this theoretical Union between a post-Brexit (means post-UK) NI with Scotland. I was merely mentioning that cos some people were playing with this theory which will never happen.

Better concentrate on what the reality is about to bring in consequence of this meaningful vote in the Commons today when the WA is to be voted down. The DUP is voting it down anyway, Labour will vote it down cos Corbyn wants to have a snap GE and likes to win it in order to get into No 10 (which I hope he'll never get to), the SNP is most probably also to vote it down cos the deal gives NI more advantages and to Scotland disadvantages which is unacceptable to the Scottish govt.

Corbyn has all the way refused to support the Remain camp after BrexitRef 2016 (he was a very reluctant Remain campaigner anyway). He is following his own selfish political aims which is to become PM. The Remain camp could had been more stronger if it wasn't for him, but that's the way it is.

The DUP is - as usual - strongheaded ignoring the will of the majority of the People in NI which voted for Remain in the BrexitRef 2016, that as the world knows by now only for the sake of 'staying British'. SF is just waiting to see the UK breaking apart as a result of a hard Brexit which is to be expected. There is no such a Plan B for Brexit which could be submitted to the Commons within three days. Everybody knows that and it would be unworkable to even produce it in such a short time. This is all about to vote down the deal (which the EU still supports and the EP is to approve by vote) and to bring down the present UK govt. The DUP is acting deliberately against the will of the people of NI and they'll have a lot to answer for that cos they're also still blocking the resume of a functioning NI govt to this day.

Scotland and her govt, as well as the majority of the People there cannot accept a no-deal Brexit. Eventhough the saying goes that there isn't a majority in the UK Parliament for a no-deal Brexit either, this will be the ultimate consequence of voting down that deal cos there isn't a majority for a BrexitRef2 as well, this is also due to the refusal of Corbyn to back up such a Motion in the Commons. He is only interested in snap GE which he will lose because of his stance regarding Brexit. The grassroots of the Labour Party already urged him to back up a BrexitRef2 but he sees that one only as the ultima ratio when his plan fails to get into No 10. But as time is running out, even if the EU is willing to extent the Exit date by a couple of months, there is only one Option for the next weeks which is either to have a snap GE (more likely) or a BrexitRef2 instead (rather unlikely). A BrexitRef2 to take place after a snap GE is very uncertain as neither a new Tory led govt nor a Corbyn led govt would give it a go.

All this will make way for future developments that will certainly lead to the break up of the UK, one way or another when the reality of a no-deal Brexit kicks in. England will soon see to get rid of NI cos it will cost them too much and they will have enough of their own problems. When a majority in the Republic votes against a NI (as such a referendum has to take place according to the Irish constitution), but a majority in NI votes in favour of that, then there will be some big disappointment and a problem cos NI can't sustain itself. Maybe NI will end up depending on the Republic anyway, either as part of a UI or in some other ways outside of it. Which way it will finally go is hard to predict, but the backbone of the union of the UK is the union between England and Scotland. Once this is gone, it all falls apart.

josip

joe40 wrote: »

There are no good options in all of this, but the best would be a WA with the backstop.

However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.

From a Pragmatic approach would it not be better to agree to a time limited backstop, say 5 years. The common consensus is that the backstop won't be necessary in event of FTA. I know it is conceding ground and I realise a time limited backstop isn't really a backstop, but if the alternative is "no deal" which will mean a border anyway why not concede this.

Maybe that's why I'm not a negotiator, but this does seem to be a high stakes game of chicken.

No deal for Ireland is expected to be difficult, not disastrous.
Disastrous is what's expected for the UK in the event of a no deal.

robinph

joe40 wrote: »

There are no good options in all of this, but the best would be a WA with the backstop.

However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.

From a Pragmatic approach would it not be better to agree to a time limited backstop, say 5 years. The common consensus is that the backstop won't be necessary in event of FTA. I know it is conceding ground and I realise a time limited backstop isn't really a backstop, but if the alternative is "no deal" which will mean a border anyway why not concede this.

Maybe that's why I'm not a negotiator, but this does seem to be a high stakes game of chicken.

5 years isn't anywhere near long enough considering how long it's taken to get to this point. Absolute minimum of 10 years, so that includes at least two governments getting the opportunity to come up with an alternative, and the clock should only start ticking from the moment that the backstop happens to be implemented.

Best though would be to say yes to the time limit, but make it 99 years and then send May back to the UK with the time limit but it's so long that it really makes no difference to anything.

Thomas_IV

joe40 wrote: »

There are no good options in all of this, but the best would be a WA with the backstop.

However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.

From a Pragmatic approach would it not be better to agree to a time limited backstop, say 5 years. The common consensus is that the backstop won't be necessary in event of FTA. I know it is conceding ground and I realise a time limited backstop isn't really a backstop, but if the alternative is "no deal" which will mean a border anyway why not concede this.

Maybe that's why I'm not a negotiator, but this does seem to be a high stakes game of chicken.

I see your point, but a time limited backstop doesn't remove the Problem of the border, unless it is explicit dealt with in a FTA. Given the way this present UK govt has wasted very much time to achieve that most disliked deal, cos they were more following their wishful thinking and delusions, it will take more than five years to accomplish such a FTA.

It was always clear that Brexiters don't care for anything but themselves and it is with them as it is with all other extremists, they are always playing the 'all or nothing' card. It often Ends up in getting nothing when a good compromise (which this deal is, whether one likes it or not) is rejected.

seamus

seamus last week wrote: »

If it goes this way, then I'm just going to give up trying to guess what happens next.

So, I'm frankly stunned by the predictions of a landslide defeat tonight.

I mean, what next? 3 days to go get a "new" deal? How can she achieve anything in 3 days?

A general election? Then what? The same deal with a Labour badge on it? A hard Brexit?

A new referendum or just "cancelling" Brexit will result in blood running in the streets. Jo Cox was murdered during the tension of the first ref. How many people would die if a second ref, a much more divisive/vitriolic one, came to pass?

My optimistic heart wants to believe that someone in Westminster knows whats going on here. They know the political game that's being played against May which will resolve itself when she's ousted.

But my logical brain cannot see any plan, or game, nor anyone who has any semblance of knowing what's going on.

Berserker

joe40 wrote: »

However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.

Not at all. Look at all the experts on this thread who are telling us that there will be a small dip; nothing like the UK and all sunshine and roses then.

Thomas_IV

josip wrote: »

No deal for Ireland is expected to be difficult, not disastrous.
Disastrous is what's expected for the UK in the event of a no deal.

I think that it will be something between difficult and disastrous cos those people who are going to be affected by the loss of their jobs due to the closure of UK companies in Ireland will have it more than just difficult to get a new job.

Thomas_IV

Berserker wrote: »

Not at all. Look at all the experts on this thread who are telling us that there will be a small dip; nothing like the UK and all sunshine and roses then.

This remains to be seen and I am not that optimistic at all.

MrMusician18

robinph wrote: »

5 years isn't anywhere near long enough considering how long it's taken to get to this point. Absolute minimum of 10 years, so that includes at least two governments getting the opportunity to come up with an alternative, and the clock should only start ticking from the moment that the backstop happens to be implemented.

Best though would be to say yes to the time li

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re perfectly entitled to believe what you want. However if you want to convince anyone else of your beliefs, then the onus is upon you to present evidence to support your hypothesis. I have considered the evidence both for and against the idea of intelligence based upon race, and concluded that the idea of intelligence based upon race has about as much credibility as assumptions about people’s intelligence based upon whether or not they are religious.

(that’s a load of nonsense too btw)

mit, but make it 99 years and then send May back to the UK with the time limit but it's so long that it really makes no difference to anything.

Isn't the time limit until 2099 in the WA?

Seth Brundle

seamus wrote: »

So, I'm frankly stunned by the predictions of a landslide defeat tonight.

I mean, what next? 3 days to go get a "new" deal? How can she achieve anything in 3 days?

A general election? Then what? The same deal with a Labour badge on it? A hard Brexit?

A new referendum or just "cancelling" Brexit will result in blood running in the streets. Jo Cox was murdered during the tension of the first ref. How many people would die if a second ref, a much more divisive/vitriolic one, came to pass?

My optimistic heart wants to believe that someone in Westminster knows whats going on here. They know the political game that's being played against May which will resolve itself when she's ousted.

But my logical brain cannot see any plan, or game, nor anyone who has any semblance of knowing what's going on.

I think many of them genuinely believe that the EU will come running to them with various better offers.

Berserker

seamus wrote: »

So, I'm frankly stunned by the predictions of a landslide defeat tonight.

I mean, what next? 3 days to go get a "new" deal? How can she achieve anything in 3 days?

There is no appetite for anything other than a landslide defeat tonight though. Given the timelines it'll be a hard Brexit or an extension.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I see your point, but a time limited backstop doesn't remove the Problem of the border, unless it is explicit dealt with in a FTA.

The UK is not making an issue out of the hard border. Nobody on that side has any interest in having a hard border on the island of Ireland. The DUP don't want one either. If the EU is happy to have no border on the island then there is nothing to worry about on that front.

Thomas_IV

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think many of them genuinely believe that the EU will come running to them with various better offers.

Delusion in the Brexiters mind has no bounds or limits. There won't be any other deal offered than the one they are going to vote on this night and they know that, but they won't get it into their heads.

Thomas_IV

Tell me how wrote: »

Completely disagree. He has been an elected MEP for 20 years.

Echo chambers serve no purpose.

I think that it does serve a purpose cos Farage, BoJo et al have been in there for the past 2 1/2 years.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Completely disagree. He has been an elected MEP for 20 years.

Echo chambers serve no purpose.

So not questioning people that have been shown to have lied/been wrong in the past is the price to pay for hearing from all sides?

The people need the media, just as much as the media needs them. Compare Tony Robinson to Farage. One has been the darling of the media the other is kept at arms length.

Everyone does not simply deserve a platform. Make your point, and be prepared to be challenged, either in debate or by the interviewer. If one if found to be lying or clueless then they shouldn't be brought back. Farage has been both.

What possible reason is there to listen to his side, it is simply made up drivel based on nothing more than his own opinion.

seamus

Berserker wrote: »

The UK is not making an issue out of the hard border. Nobody on that side has any interest in having a hard border on the island of Ireland. The DUP don't want one either. If the EU is happy to have no border on the island then there is nothing to worry about on that front.

Not wanting a border is not the same as having to have one though.

We can't just have a gentlemens' agreement where both states just don't implement a border. There has to be a formal arrangement, or there has to be a border.

A failure to implement a border without a trade agreement will have us all crucified by our trading partners. The EU will throw the UK under the bus to maintain trade with the US and China. Why wouldn't it?

john9876

Maybe wishful thinking because I live in the UK but I think it will end with another referendum and remain winning. That's the direction the mood seems to be turning towards. The longer it drags on the more likely that's what will happen. Obviously some people will be very upset but sanity has to prevail.

A Dub in Glasgo

Berserker wrote: »

The UK is not making an issue out of the hard border. Nobody on that side has any interest in having a hard border on the island of Ireland. The DUP don't want one either. If the EU is happy to have no border on the island then there is nothing to worry about on that front.

Still coming out with that old chestnut

When you look back at one of the major Brexit rallying calls which is 'Take back control of our Borders', how does having an open border with the one and only UK/EU land border take back control of those borders?

Leroy42

Berserker wrote: »

The UK is not making an issue out of the hard border. Nobody on that side has any interest in having a hard border on the island of Ireland. The DUP don't want one either. If the EU is happy to have no border on the island then there is nothing to worry about on that front.

What other country outside of the EU but with a border with an EU country doesn't currently have a border or an agreement?

Thomas_IV

john9876 wrote: »

Maybe wishful thinking because I live in the UK but I think it will end with another referendum and remain winning. That's the direction the mood seems to be turning towards. The longer it drags on the more likely that's what will happen. Obviously some people will be very upset but sanity has to prevail.

I'd gladly support you there, but there's the problem of having a UK govt with diehard Brexiters and the DUP breathing down its neck and Corbyn who is himself also a Brexiter which gives it little chances to get such a motion for a BrexitRef2 tabled in the Commons.

The Labour Party voted the wrong man in to lead the party and that twice.

An Ciarraioch

None of the amendments have much likelihood of passing, I presume?

http://twitter.com/ParlyApp/status/1085163131901485058

Tell me how

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I think that it does serve a purpose cos Farage, BoJo et al have been in there for the past 2 1/2 years.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So not questioning people that have been shown to have lied/been wrong in the past is the price to pay for hearing from all sides?

The people need the media, just as much as the media needs them. Compare Tony Robinson to Farage. One has been the darling of the media the other is kept at arms length.

Everyone does not simply deserve a platform. Make your point, and be prepared to be challenged, either in debate or by the interviewer. If one if found to be lying or clueless then they shouldn't be brought back. Farage has been both.

What possible reason is there to listen to his side, it is simply made up drivel based on nothing more than his own opinion.

Bring them on and challenge them appropriately.
They're going to appear on stations friendly to their position anyway.

Would be a mistake to just let the only footage of them on Twitter and so on to be of them presenting false points and being unchallenged.

GM228

In case anyone missed them, details of the four amendments John Bercow chose here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/15/the-amendments-mps-must-deal-with-before-final-brexit-vote

https://twitter.com/Ryan_Kennealy/status/1085162764824326144?s=19

Imreoir2

Akrasia wrote: »

It's actually ridiculous that they're even allowing amendments to the withdrawal agreement at this late stage.

They are not amending the agreement, they are amending the law that would ratify the agreement on the UK side. By amending it, they are in effect ratifying a deal that is not on the table. They may as well ratify a deal to have the EU buy them all new houses.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Bring them on and challenge them appropriately.
They're going to appear on stations friendly to their position anyway.

Would be a mistake to just let the only footage of them on Twitter and so on to be of them presenting false points and being unchallenged.

But they don't accept being challenged, they cry BIAS is they are asked questions. They want to skew the media to their aim rather than face a fair media (and that includes getting soft interviews as well)

But if they will only accept media interviews if they are not asked certain questions, if they only will do one-on-one, then they are not accepting the reeal purpose of the media, they are simply using it as a mounthpiece.

Of course you cannot stop them from using Twitter etc, but everyone has access to that, doesn't mean we all get to be main players. The media still plays a massive part in legitimising certain people.

Farage was undoubtedly helped by his huge number of appearances on QT etc.

Seth Brundle

GM228 wrote: »

In case anyone missed them, details of the four amendments John Bercow chose here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/15/the-amendments-mps-must-deal-with-before-final-brexit-vote

https://twitter.com/Ryan_Kennealy/status/1085162764824326144?s=19

RTE summarised them also...

John Bercow said the proposals selected are:

- Amendment A: Labour's bid to reject Mrs May's deal and "pursue every option" to prevent the UK leaving the EU with no deal.

- Amendment K: The SNP wants to reject the Brexit deal. It also calls on the UK Government to "respect the will" of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in rejecting the Brexit deal.

- Amendment B: Conservative former minister Edward Leigh's proposal noting the Irish border backstop is temporary and calls for the UK government to give notice on 1 January 2022 that it will terminate the Withdrawal Treaty if it becomes clear that the EU will not agree to remove the backstop.

- Amendment F: Tabled by Tory MP John Baron. It seeks to give the UK the right to terminate the Irish border backstop without the agreement of the EU.

Votes are expected from 7pm.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0115/1023281-brexit/

Delusional to say the least.
I'm curious to see what percentage of MPs vote for them.

Berserker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Still coming out with that old chestnut

Yeah, it's called reality. I'll change it when the UK comes out and says it wants a hard border on the island.

PropJoe10

The Attorney General is wittering on now, and there's members complaining that he's taking too long. Great craic!