Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Folkstonian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is really tiresome. When Corbyn says: “Labour believes that a general election would be the best outcome for the country if this deal is rejected tonight.” he is literally repeating Labour policy, which I just stated.


Slanting this as "Corbyn offers no hope to Remainers" is just more anti-Corbyn propaganda.


Only if the No Confidence vote fails does the policy support a referendum, and Corbyn is not going to pivot to that unless and until the vote actually does fail.

Jeremy Corbyn deserves to be called out as the inept, floundering, hopeless leader that he is.

Labour are a right mess and it cannot be overlooked simply because the conservatives are in an equally pitiful position. You cannot get away with dismissing everything that shines a light on this as ‘Anti-Corbyn propaganda’

The Corbynites of Momentum have done a scarily effective job of commandeering the Labour Party. They control the front bench, the NEC, and the membership. But they’ve also made the party wholly unelectable

in its current guise; swamped by Marxists, anti-semites, with JC being a ‘friend’ of Hamas and Hezbollah and other repugnant groups both in the Middle East and closer to home.. could you expect a majority of the electorate to support them?

And it pains me to say as a remainer, I would have to make a decision in a General Election as to what would be more destructive to my country and it’s standing in the world - a Tory-led Brexit or a Corbyn-led labour government. And I think it would be the latter.

A big shout has to go out to the moderates in the Labour Party who have done absolutely nothing since the last vote of no confidence in Jezza to find a more creative solution to the lack of a sensible, centrist voice. A breakaway party would have found so much support across the country but nobody was daring enough to lead the movement.

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

I think the ROI are working on the expectation that things will deteriorate significantly quicker for the UK in the event of a no deal. The difficulties we will have here 're a border or customs checks will be nothing in comparison with the cross-channel border through which the bulk of their economy is maintained.
This situation will force the British gov't back to Brussels asking for help. I'd imagine the value of the backstop to the ordinary English voter would pale into insignificance under those circumstances.

Yes I agree. The loss of the landbridge though the UK is going to cause us massive problems, but we can at least reroute some trade direct to the EU. It is still not the current system, but better than nothing.

The UK, on the other hand, have no such get out. They will have no deals, no relationships, no regulations, nothing.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

I think you’ll find that currently in the Eu we don’t have any choice but to drink chlorinated water

I think you'll find that you do have a choice, even under EU rules. Have you got proof to the contrary? Where you don't have a choice is eating chickens that have been raised and slaughtered in such poor conditions that they have to be sterilised with chlorine before being shipped out to customers. But if you want to live in a third world country, where even the lettuce is sold covered in sh1te, the US is just a few thousand km over there to the west.

Amprodude

nc6000 wrote: »

Great, how are we going to pay for that?

A hard border is going to cost more.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt has come out and tweeted that any A50 extension would be limited to short of the European Elections (May I believe, not sure of the date).

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1085458645280788482

The other thing to note is the language. "The mess". Clearly the EU is totally fed up with the whole thing. I would read this, and other statements, as very much the EU sending out the signal that they are not going to compromise so that the promised last minute deal of the likes of Davis, is simply not going to happen.

The elections really put a spanner in the works . I mean if they give an extension till 23 May 2019 , do they field candidates? If they don't whats to stop me putting my name forward as a candidate.

If they get a second extension and no election was held then what ? What happens to all the seats that are meant to be redistributed ? I heard we may get the extra seats but the candidate that gets elected last might not become an MEP until the UK leaves.

I'm sure there are more .

EdgeCase

Amprodude wrote: »

A hard border is going to cost more.

Knowing the Tories, you'll be paying a crossing fee to Happy Borders PLC, a division of some multinational they're fond of.

Probably some lovely company that also runs US prisons.

Professor Moriarty

Amprodude wrote: »

A hard border is going to cost more.

No border is the cheapest option.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

They want to move away from a dying Europe and open up the UK to the wider world, a world that is growing.

The world is the same size it was when the British had their Empire. The only difference now - what could plausibly be passed off as "a dying Europe" - is that those former colonies have caught up economically, technically and politically (... ) with their former masters, and are not just asking for a piece of the global economic pie, but baking it and keeping it for themselves. Britain in 2019 is part of that "dying Europe" and has nothing of value to offer the wider world that the wider world can't source elsewhere ... except visas.

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

It seems to me (please rapidly correct me if I’m way off), that if we the Irish were to agree that we would erect a “light border” in the north, this might serve to reduce the backstop issue and the UK could have a soft brexit instead of a complete crash out resulting in our need to put up a full border anyway.

Listening to various EU politicians speaking this morning, they were being very clear (to use one of Tessie's favourite phrases :rolleyes: ) that there is an inherent contradiction between a clean Brexit of any kind and preserving the GFA. It sounded to me like they were sending a signal to everyone in Westminster to seriously reconsider the original special status for NI deal proposed last December, and a border down the Irish Sea. At this stage in the game, you'd have to wonder if that's the best Plan B for Theresa May - she knows her time is up, one way or the other, so throw the DUP under the bus in exchange for a few dozen Labour votes. It surely wouldn't be too hard to sell a clean-hard-NI-free-Brexit-lite to Jeremy Corbyn?

Hurrache

An excellent website on the border, with a great interactive map to each border crossing and associated terrorist incidents that occurred at each one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/keeping-peace
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/the-border

VinLieger

MarkHenderson wrote: »

A hard Brexit is now looking like the most likely outcome but our government fails totally in it's plan to prepare. We need action now.

You just going to keep spewing this lie and ignore all the replies to your posts proving its a lie?


https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-ireland/ireland-readies-mega-no-deal-brexit-legislation-package-idUSKCN1P92Q4


https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/over-3000-apply-for-200-jobs-in-customs-37439657.html


https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-government-no-deal-brexit-plan-4406051-Dec2018/

EdgeCase

If they're insisting on having a Brexit and want a special status for NI, the DUP are the only stumbling block really.

They won't allow any kind of pragmatic arrangements for NI and its their red line that's preventing an exit from the EU.

So really all of this goes back to Mrs May and her government's refusal to accept reality. Going into bed with the DUP has tied them to a single side of the Northern Irish political world.

My view of it is that if the UK wants to Brexit, give NI a poll not on a border (too controversial) but on having special status that effectively would give them a version of the status quo.

If the DUP tried to block it, they're not letting their own people speak.

robinph

Getting into bed with any party from NI in order to try to resolve an issue that they should have already known was mostly going to revolve around issues to do with NI/ Ireland is one of the most monumentally stupid things ever done. It makes the Brexit secretary not realising that the Dover - Calais route was actually quite important or calling a snap election that they manage to lose despite winning seem like really clever things.

Penn

robinph wrote: »

Getting into bed with any party from NI in order to try to resolve an issue that they should have already known was mostly going to revolve around issues to do with NI/ Ireland is one of the most monumentally stupid things ever done. It makes the Brexit secretary not realising that the Dover - Calais route was actually quite important or calling a snap election that they manage to lose despite winning seem like really clever things.

Not forgetting delaying a vote they knew they were going to lose in order to give themselves time to... do nothing...

MrMusician18

EdgeCase wrote: »

If they're insisting on having a Brexit and want a special status for NI, the DUP are the only stumbling block really.

They won't allow any kind of pragmatic arrangements for NI and its their red line that's preventing an exit from the EU.

So really all of this goes back to Mrs May and her government's refusal to accept reality. Going into bed with the DUP has tied them to a single side of the Northern Irish political world.

My view of it is that if the UK wants to Brexit, give NI a poll not on a border (too controversial) but on having special status that effectively would give them a version of the status quo.

If the DUP tried to block it, they're not letting their own people speak.

But they could block it, quite successfully, by backing a no confidence motion. You would need cross party support for such a plebiscite, but as we saw last night, that doesn't exist for Mays deal. The backstop is a fig leaf for the other issues that many have with the compromise.

The other risk is that a poll would be played as a proxy border poll and we know that there is no majority for unification. You might end up where the unionist majority voting on traditional lines, essentially votes for the establishment of the border over ruling those that hold an open border dear. The whole peace process would then collapse.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In what way? Please be specific.


In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.


Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.


And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.


And suddenly no-one believes that because Corbyn bad humbug humbug.

https://www.businessinsider.com/labour-mps-join-peoples-vote-campaign-for-new-brexit-referendum-pressure-jeremy-corbyn-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

However, May is expected to survive the no confidence vote. A spokesperson for Corbyn suggested on Tuesday that he could table multiple no confidence votes, as "it will go on being the case that the best outcome is a general election."

This is almost Trumpian.

Corbyn will not back a 2nd Referendum.

Even though there was overwhelming support for it at the Labour Conference it was a huge fight to get it included.

When May brought her deal to Parliament he dis not even question her on it.
Corbyn wants Brexit and any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.

jem

The UK is in a mess everyone knows this.
A major part of this is that May and Corbyn are leavers while the actual majority of MP's are remainers.
The gas part is that the hard right and the hard left are on the same side - anti EU and always were.

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem by overreaching with the commission trying hard to turn the EU into an actual state/country simular to the USA. There is a huge amount of people against this.

How do the UK get out of this mess is the big question.

First thing I would do is look for an extension.
Repeal the leave legislitation (if they dont and no agreement made before 27/3 they crash out)
Put to parliment a number of questions and vote on each indivudaly:
1. rule in or out hard brexit
2. vote on labour's common market.
3 vote on new referendum.
With this there would be at least clarity of what the MP's want or dont want.
Would have to be a free vote no whips.

for the new referendum there would need to be PR on the vote:
Mays deal
No deal
or stay
with transferable vote

Have they the common sense to do the above I totally doubt it.

BonnieSituation

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They are talking about education and food banks in the HoC now! Jesus wept.

They ended with a discussion on "the prohibition of low-level letter boxes".

They're for the birds.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The constant flimflamming to avoid saying anything definitive so as to try and keep all of the Labour voters on side simply to win a GE instead of averting Brexit which will decimate the economy and especially the working classes.

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

MrMusician18

demfad wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/labour-mps-join-peoples-vote-campaign-for-new-brexit-referendum-pressure-jeremy-corbyn-2019-1?r=US&IR=T



This is almost Trumpian.

Corbyn will not back a 2nd Referendum.

Even though there was overwhelming support for it at the Labour Conference it was a huge fight to get it included.

When May brought her deal to Parliament he dis not even question her on it.
Corbyn wants Brexit and any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.

The only way for Corbyn to back a second referendum is to make him choose between the prizes, back the second vote or split the party.

My guess is that even though he is a eurosceptic, he would rather be PM of a member of the EU rather than a mere leader of a small party outside of it.

Hurrache

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem

Eh, no.

Hurrache

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

So what's the point of a general election anyway, Labour lead by Corbyn won't go with this deal, and he's pro Brexit.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

How is he supposed to avert Brexit when he doesn't want to avert Brexit?

robinph

jem wrote: »

for the new referendum there would need to be PR on the vote:
Mays deal
No deal
or stay
with transferable vote

Have they the common sense to do the above I totally doubt it.

Don't think that transferable votes would make things any clearer in this case. If there were enough people who supported Mays deal to make it come second in the first count then it might work, but would just mean that Mays deal is the one that get through.

What you'd actually have is one bunch of people vote 1 - no deal, 2- mays deal, the other bunch have 1-stay, 2- mays deal and instead of reaching a compromise it just becomes one of the extreme options.

Of course I'd be delighted if the "extreme" option of remain was the winner, but that's only going to piss off more people whichever way it goes.

PeadarCo

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

Labour won't get into power unless they provide an alternative to the tories. Looking from the outside why bother vote Labour when on the biggest issue for years Labour and the tories may as well be the same party.

Amirani

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem by overreaching with the commission trying hard to turn the EU into an actual state/country simular to the USA. There is a huge amount of people against this

The UK (as well as other constituent members) ARE the EU. Any direction taken with the EU was supported along the way by the British Government and the MEPs that were elected by the British people. Each treaty that changed the nature of the relationship between EU countries or changed the devolution of powers was passed by Westminister.

So the EU itself didn't do anything. Successive British Governments had veto power on any treaty. They didn't use it, rather they actually supported and proposed elements of each of the treaties. So any growing union was by the choice of the British.

thecretinhop

Hurrache wrote: »

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem

Eh, no.

ah so social unrest in greece,italy,france,spain,holland,belgium,uk just happened eh?

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not quite - the GFA says that if there is to be a Border poll, then it has to be held both North and South simultaneously:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

I have never found the part in the GFA where it says we have to have a vote simultaneously. It's consistently trotted out.

Yes, in order to reunify we would have to have a vote, however the timing of that vote will likely come a couple of weeks/months after the north vote positively.

It makes no logistical sense for us to do it at the same time. If the north vote no then we've wasted our time not to mention the psychological impact on the State of such a thing.

https://peacemaker.un.org/uk-ireland-good-friday98

Hurrache

thecretinhop wrote: »

ah so social unrest in greece,italy,france,spain,holland,belgium,uk just happened eh?

Aren't we talking Brexit here, voluntarily entered into by the British?

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

How is he supposed to avert Brexit when he doesn't want to avert Brexit?

Well I suppose one needs to ask the question of why it is not legitimate that he supports Brexit? He believes in Brexit, 52% of the voters backed it, so it is not unusual for him to follow that path.

We need, IMO, to separate the difference between being disappointed with Corbyn because he supports Brexit, and thus isn't in line with what many of us on there would like, and the actual performance as the leader of the opposition regardless of that position.

I tend to feel that he is a very poor leader of the opposition. Take todays PMQ's and the no confidence vote for example. He needed to hammer TM on the single, indeed one could argue only, biggest issue of the day namely her complete failure in relation to the deal she brought before the HoC. He should be putting it to the likes of the ERG and the DUP that they cannot, in all honesty with the will of the people, continue to support this governemnt when they and so many of their colleagues have just completely humiliated her and told her, and the country, that her deal, which she claimed is the best she can do, is not only unacceptable, but historically the most unacceptable ever presented to the house.

Instead, he wanders off into lots of different topics, which by themselves may well be liegitimate issues (the current government has basically stopped governing for anything other than Brexit) but all it does is dilute the argument.

Has a leader of the opposition ever before been presented with such a weak and powerless PM? And yet and again Corbyn at best, at best, comes out evens. Tony Blair, for all his faults afterwards, was able to consistently paint the tory government at the time as inept, out of touch, at war with itself. He thus romped home in the next election.

Corbyn is failing miserably to hold TM and the rest of the government to account and any of their failings.

So for me, its not his support of Brexit that is the issue, it is his complete lack of ability to paint the current government in the light they should be or indeed to give any credible alternative to the, frankly, sh1tshow that is happening.

Tacitus Kilgore

Hurrache wrote: »

Aren't we talking Brexit here?

No, we are deflecting it seems.



Remember the global recession from 2008? the EU caused it.

Remember the London riots? - yep, the EU caused them.

Remember the Norman invasion of England? - you guessed it - the EU was behind it.


The EU has been the bogeyman for all their problems for the last 40 years, any disagreement with this you will be told to look at the current unrest in France, and you will be told it's the EUs fault.

Your attention will then be directed to Belgium, where they had no government for a while - again apparently the EUs fault - but you'd better not point out anything about Stormont.



The whole problem with Brexit is that noone is being called out on their bullshit, even Arlene Foster can go on international news and deny that there was ever a hard border in Northern Ireland - and not get called out on it.