Brexit Discussion Thread VI

branie2

If that lady knew what Cromwell did to Ireland, she'd quickly change her tune

Tell me how

branie2 wrote: »

If that lady knew what Cromwell did to Ireland, she'd quickly change her tune

She probably does.

Question Time tonight was the most acrimonious towards the EU I have seen. Really was worrying.

Also disappointed in Kirsty that when an audience member mentioned about the Leave campaign cheating, Kirsty came in immediately and said that "There were questions about both Leave and Remain sides in the campaign"

Carole Cadwalladar noticed this.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1086043777729482752

wiggle16

branie2 wrote: »

If that lady knew what Cromwell did to Ireland, she'd quickly change her tune

I'd like to think so but I wouldn't be so sure she would.

tuxy

branie2 wrote: »

If that lady knew what Cromwell did to Ireland, she'd quickly change her tune

Or show even more admiration for him, could go either way.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well it is too late now, but I think the EU and the UK could have discussed future trade during the two years of A50. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if the UK reps were also on the EU side in the negotiation,but what would happen is that in order for talks to proceed, the UK would extricate itself from the EU side for the purposes of trade talks (this would include trade talks between the EU and other countries). This has already happened in other areas of the process where you have had the EU27 leaders meeting without the UK.

Absolutely not.

The EU agreed to the backstop in order to move onto the next stage over a year ago and look how that blew up.

Quite frankly it is a nonsense to suggest that there should have been tandem negotiations. The Brits couldn't handle concentrating on one subject that they agreed to never mind the last 2 years plus the uncertainty of trade negotiation on top. You're delusional to think otherwise.

Strazdas

Russman wrote: »

It’s actually frightening to watch. One guy saying that the EU is in recession and now is the time to apply maximum pressure to them - “WTF” doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Of the panel, the Scottish girl is the only one speaking any sense at all, actually the guy at the far left of the screen, can’t remember his name, was fairly clued in too, while Abbott is really showing up how poor Labour are right now.

I think at this stage, let them crash out and learn the hard way.

It's heading this way. The dogmatic loons (many millions of them) simply cannot be reasoned with or even debated with.

josip

speckled_park wrote: »

Loudest cheer on qt was for a no deal brexit. ��

I think it's best to defer to Goldsmith on that one.
"the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind."

I suspect that Brexiteers are better at making noise than the Remainers.
That was probably the Remainers undoing 3 years ago.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've said before that SF should take their seats in Westminster as there will never be a chance like this again to have a major say in proceedings-as it is the DUP proping up TM could be the reason for a hard brexit.

Which flies in the face of their raison d'etre.

And no matter how many times you and others state it, it will not make it so.

Give up 100 years of abstentionism to help the Brits and their place in Ireland? Cmon Rob.

Peregrinus

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

Hi folks, so I'm just after watching Andrew Neill interview JRM. Link to the YT video is below. I've heard him going on all about dropping all tariffs for goods the UK doesn't produce, and it crops up again in this interview. I find this kinda fascinating as a concept. Anyone on here with some expertise in this area that can describe what could happen if such a policy was implemented by the UK??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5CEvdpQmRs

Superficially attractive, and makes a certain kind of common sense. "We don't produce widgets; we need widgets; it's self-harming to tax imported widgets; so let's not."

But it's not that simple. It doesn't really solve a lot of problems, and it creates a few of its own. Couple of points.

- It does little to address the problem of port congestion. Even if (say) 50% of the goods imported are tariff free, you still need customs declarations, inspections, etc for 100%; otherwise how are you to know that 50% are tax-free (and how are you to collect the taxes on the other 50%)? (But maybe port congestion is not the problem it's supposed to address.)

- It's a relatively narrow range of good where the UK imports 100% of its consumption. Take beef; the UK produces (I think) about 40% of the beef it consumes. The rest is imported. Logic suggests that you should eliminate the tariff on beef, so that you can get the 60% that you need at the lowest cost. But if you do that, UK producers are undercut by (much more efficient) Australian and New Zealand producers, so the UK beef industry collapses. So this really only works for goods where you import 100% of your consumption - avocados, say. But that's not a very large chunk of imports.

- It tend to undercut your parallel policy of negotiating trade deals. Suppose I produce apples and you produce oranges. I reduce my tariff on oranges to 0%, so my vitamin C-craving population can get their fix cheaply. I also approach you with a view to negotiating a trade deal. But you can already export your oranges to me free of tariffs; that situation can't possibly be improved on by any trade deal, so the incentive for you to make a deal with me has been reduced; I now have less to offer you to induce you to make a trade deal than I did before. So I'll end up making lousier (from my point of view) or fewer trade deals.

Peregrinus

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'm just reading a BBC article about what the DUP wants out of all this(link). The first line states they voted with the government and upheld their side of the S&C agreement. Surely the vote against the WA broke the terms of this agreement? The agreement itself states they will vote with the government on votes concerning the exit from the EU.

Yes, but they voted with here in the confidence motion the following day. Even if the DUP breach the deal on occasion, as long as they support the government on confidence and supply May cannot afford to shred the deal. So it;s largely unenforceable against the DUP; in practice they can't be held to it, except on confidence and supply.

J Mysterio

70 days till Brexit. parliament only sitting for about 35 of those. Frightening.

https://howmanydaystill.com/its/brexit-6

BonnieSituation

J Mysterio wrote: »

Im not sure WW is kosher here but boy did this make me laugh:

"Cameron, famous for allegedly fucķing a dead pig and then fucķing over a dead empire by forcing a referendum on membership of the EU"

I'm almost certain that defiling a pigs head is not kosher.

But I wouldn't Labour the point such a crude joke at all. Cor-blimey! May-be it's the sort you'd Chukka in the byn.

c.p.w.g.w

I find it amusing that they have literally left it till the last moment's.

Really hope the EU refuse their appeals to extend the date. The British people need to smack of reality and a horrible few years while they get sorted might be good for them. I will feel for the Scots who've been ridden by London of late with the indy-ref and now brexit

Will also knock some manners into anti-EU parties and the other countries looking to leave

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Absolutely not.

The EU agreed to the backstop in order to move onto the next stage over a year ago and look how that blew up.
.

Hmm. I think a more widely accepted narrative is that the backstop came from the EU side.

wiggle16

I was wondering when this colossal muppet was going to swoop in and make an appearance:

https://news.sky.com/story/johnson-now-is-the-time-to-use-brexit-to-unite-the-country-11610285

The UK's answer to Silvio Berlusconi is back, dagger in hand and all.

Folkstonian

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Really unimpressed with Fiona Bruce. Seems to be more interested in playing to the gallery and getting some quips in for cheap laughs. Was hoping for a bit more maturity than this. Maybe the praise she got for her debut performance has gone to her head.

I think you’re in a minority though. Most people, including me, think she’s taken to the role excellently.

Not sure what more you want from her? She controls the panel well, makes sure answers given are to the questions asked, and seems to enjoy it all at the same time.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Hmm. I think a more widely accepted narrative is that the backstop came from the EU side.

Well, it did, but only because the UK was distinctly behind in advancing credible proposals - or, indeed, any proposals at all - regarding how it proposed actually to deliver on its "no hard border" guarantee.

The backstop was crafted by the EU as an attempt at a practical reconciliation of that guarantee with the UK's "red lines". So even though the EU initially devised the backstop, they did so to a shape dictated by the UK. And they only did that much because the UK didn't seem interested in doing it.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it did, but only because the UK was distinctly behind in advancing credible proposals - or, indeed, any proposals at all - regarding how it proposed actually to deliver on its "no hard border" guarantee.

The backstop was crafted by the EU as an attempt at a practical reconciliation of that guarantee with the UK's "red lines". So even though the EU initially devised the backstop, they did so to a shape dictated by the UK. And they only did that much because the UK didn't seem interested in doing it.

Is there any evidence that the UK in negotiations demanded no hard border from the EU? I know it was an aspiration voiced by TM and the UK government in the lead up and during but I'm not sure it was something they were pushing for specifically in the negotiations themselves. It may have been something they hoped to achieve by other means, e.g. through a trade deal that minimised the need for extensive border infrastructure.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Is there any evidence that the UK in negotiations demanded no hard border from the EU? I know it was an aspiration voiced by TM and the UK government in the lead up and during but I'm not sure it was something they were pushing for specifically in the negotiations themselves. It may have been something they hoped to achieve by other means, e.g. through a trade deal that minimised the need for extensive border infrastructure.

They were hoping to achieve it by other means (when they got around, far too late, to thinking about it in that level of detail). But, the point is, they had already guaranteed to deliver it, and if memory serves it was in fact a British source, House of Lords Comittee, which pointed out in December 2016 that it that was to be done it would have to be done in the context of leaving; it couldn't be long-fingered. (This was correct at the time because there was then no proposal for atransition period, and no intention on the part of the UK to seek one, so arrangements for keeping the border open had to be in place from Brexit-day.)

When the UK did geta round to requesting a transition period, that did in theory open up the possiblity of deferring the matter of the border to after withdrawal. But by then the EU - acting in response to the UK red lines - had already adopted and published its negotiating strategy, which identified the border question not only as something to be addressed in the Withdrawal Agreement but as one of the first three items to be addressed before others could be progressed.

You'll recall that, while some UK voices blustered about this at the time, and agreeing the negiation timetable was supposed to be "the battle of the summer", when push came to shove the UK accepted the EU's proposed timetable on the very first morning of the negotiations - they couldn're really oppose the EU negotiating strategy, because they had no negotiating strategy of their own with which to counter it. and in particular they couldn't oppose the idea that the WA should address the Irish border, since an open border was a shared objective, and objecting to addressing it might have called into question their good faith in claiming to want an open border at all.

From that point on there was never any real pushback from the UK against the idea that the border would be addressed in the Withdrawal Agreement; all the argument was about how it should be addressed. When the Jt Dec was signed, voices outside HMG argued that the border issue would have been more appropriately addressed in the future relationship agreement, but it was far too late for HMG to take that line, and SFAIK they never did.

bilston

branie2 wrote: »

If that lady knew what Cromwell did to Ireland, she'd quickly change her tune

I don't know, you'd like to think so, but some members of the Church of Brexit seem that far gone at this stage you'd wonder.

VinLieger

bilston wrote: »

I don't know, you'd like to think so, but some members of the Church of Brexit seem that far gone at this stage you'd wonder.

Gone where? Anyone whose been as you put it worshipping at the church of brexit would likely see no issue with what cromwell did due to how much nationalist, rule brittania and "the sun never sets on the empire" garbage they have been fed in the last 2 decades by the likes of the mail etc, also many of them are so uneducated about their own countries ghastly history they probably have 1 never heard about any of it and 2 would deny anything like it ever happened

FrancieBrady

Just can't remember the chronology.

Would Theresa's deal have been home and dry or done and dusted had the DUP not pulled a strop in December? Would she have had to take that one to parliament?

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just can't remember the chronology.

Would Theresa's deal have been home and dry or done and dusted had the DUP not pulled a strop in December? Would she have had to take that one to parliament?

Can't imagine so. She lost by 230 votes. A vote a month earlier or the DUP's absence from government wouldn't dent that.

Gina Miller's case meant she had to take any deal she got to Parliament.

J Mysterio

Theres a ridiculous article in Irish times from a Spiked writer. I do wish they would stop trying to influence us here with their nonsense. Incidentally, she appears to be another of peasant stock - Ella Whelan.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

Why would the UK leave the EU to join the Single Market? It clearly would be a worse deal than EU membership.

Why are they leaving at all? Every single Brexit scenario is worse than EU membership. They are not leaving for rational economic reasons, so saying a Norway deal is bad for rational economic reasons is irrelevant.

Norway is Brexit (hence satisfies the Will of the People), and it is less damaging than either No Deal or May's Brexit deal, so...

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Possibly but voting on the pure withdrawal treaty without a sweetener of trade made the deal less attractive than it could have been and this worked against Ireland's interests.

The EU side had the UKs measure early on, and got them to agree to the backstop, citizens rights and the divorce bill before moving to trade, because they knew that the UK side would hold these things hostage in a trade negotiation. "No tariffs or we shut the NI border! Free trade or you can whistle for your 40 billion!".

But having agreed the backstop, the UK has spent the time since trying to renege on that commitment so that they can hold trade talks hostage.

Having failed to do that so far, they are trying to hold talks hostage by threatening No Deal instead.

The EU will nod and smile and call their bluff.

Water John

A lot of those who voted against TM's Deal on the Brexiteer side, are using the backstop as their excuse. This is a clear strategy, all because the DUP hold 10 crucial votes. Many Brexiteers wouldn't give two figs about NI.
With so many breaking ranks in the Conservatives, no one came under serious pressure from the whips so, it was a free vote within the Conservative Party.

Corbyn is being disingenous, they lost the no confidence vote, move on. The series of votes early next week may clarify that Parliament favour a soft Brexit, if a 2nd Ref is not available. It is the second option for many Remainers and for them it's feasible He could hold out till then and claim a major victory.

Russman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Norway is Brexit (hence satisfies the Will of the People), and it is less damaging than either No Deal or May's Brexit deal, so...

I think part of the problem is that May has chosen to interpret the referendum result as leaving anything or any body or grouping remotely connected with Europe or having Europe in its title. Whilst bizarrely wanting to keep all the benefits.

I actually think a comment a few posts above, probably a small bit in jest/flippant, saying "they're so far gone" is pretty much on the money.
There just doesn't seem to be any voice of reason dragging them back to reality and it seems that the mainstream Lab & Cons MPs are so reluctant to work with each other as if its a kind of taboo, that they're happier to sit back and watch their world burn.

josip

Fintan O'Toole's piece in the Guardian today is interesting.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/18/europe-brexit-britain-state-politics-fit-for-purpose


It would be more interesting if it was in the Telegraph or the Sun but one must accept that most media outlets, and UK newspapers are no exception, are little more than echo chambers for their existing audiences.

Zubeneschamali

Russman wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that May has chosen to interpret the referendum result as leaving anything or any body or grouping remotely connected with Europe or having Europe in its title. Whilst bizarrely wanting to keep all the benefits.

Yes, but May's deal is dead in the water. What matters between now and April is what most MPs want, not what May wants.