Brexit Discussion Thread VI

farmchoice

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That 1/8 is to leave with a deal OR to see A50 extended so it’s by far the likeliest outcome (as odds suggest). Particularly if Brady amendment is passed which seems likely.

do you mean the cooper amendment?

Terence Rattigan

According to Fintan O Toole in the IT, 1000 Bombardier jobs will be unviable in the event of a hard Brexit, the mind boggles. How will that sit with Unionist/DUP voters??

An Ciarraioch

Corbyn finally making some positive moves:

http://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1090252200230690819

boggerman1

2 right women on lbc now.no deal,no deal.we won't pay the 39billion so sod off EU.they haven't a clue.Brits have to crash out to learn some home truths.

Enzokk

I wonder if we will see both Brady and Grieve pass? Or will it only be the one? What happens when no amendment passes? I think Cooper is in trouble as it will need the Tory rebels to back it. Would there be a deal for Labour to support Grieve if the rebels support Cooper?

Edit: answered above from An Ciarraioch

BonnieSituation

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be fair to Beth Rigby, she's by far one of the better political correspondents in the UK at the moment.

Then she should report better. We give too much leeway to UK correspondents once they're s step up from Adler and LauraK

Akrasia

I'm listening to LBC's coverage of todays HOC proceedings.

The pro-brexit callers have not got a single clue about what is happening. They know some of the words, and they know what they're supposed to think about those words, but they don't know what any of those words actually mean. They get their information from tabloid papers, facebook memes and some bloke down the pub and haven't got the capacity to assess the truth of their information and think for themselves.

It is blindingly obvious that they do not know what the following things mean
'Backstop'
'Withdrawal agreement'
'World Trade Organisation Rules'
'Single Market'
'Customs Union'
'Free Trade Agreement'
'Deal'
'No Deal'
'Democracy'
'Parliamentary sovereignty'
'Cooperation'
'Multilateral'
Etc etc etc.

These brexiteers who feel the need to call into national radio stations to voice their opinion on a political debate are so confident that they know what they're talking about until they are asked to clarify a single point they're trying to make. They fundamentally lack the understanding and depth of knowledge required to hold a coherent position on this topic.

And these are the people who Theresa May is trying to pander to.

Joe_ Public

farmchoice wrote: »

do you mean the cooper amendment?

Sorry, was just trying to get my aching head around the odds. As I see it, a no deal by end of March is 4/1. I’m assuming any other outcome - a deal or an extended negotiation period - is a 1/8 winner. If either cooper or Brady amendment is passed it will favour latter scenario? I think that’s case anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm listening to LBC's coverage of todays HOC proceedings.

The pro-brexit callers have not got a single clue about what is happening. They know some of the words, and they know what they're supposed to think about those words, but they don't know what any of those words actually mean. They get their information from tabloid papers, facebook memes and some bloke down the pub and haven't got the capacity to assess the truth of their information and think for themselves.

It is blindingly obvious that they do not know what the following things mean
'Backstop'
'Withdrawal agreement'
'World Trade Organisation Rules'
'Single Market'
'Customs Union'
'Free Trade Agreement'
'Deal'
'No Deal'
'Democracy'
'Parliamentary sovereignty'
'Cooperation'
'Multilateral'
Etc etc etc.

These brexiteers who feel the need to call into national radio stations to voice their opinion on a political debate are so confident that they know what they're talking about until they are asked to clarify a single point they're trying to make. They fundamentally lack the understanding and depth of knowledge required to hold a coherent position on this topic.

And these are the people who Theresa May is trying to pander to.

I stopped watching Question Time for these reasons. Too depressing.

funkey_monkey

Terence Rattigan wrote: »

According to Fintan O Toole in the IT, 1000 Bombardier jobs will be unviable in the event of a hard Brexit, the mind boggles. How will that sit with Unionist/DUP voters??

Have you got a non paywalled version of that?

Professor Moriarty

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Have you got a non paywalled version of that?

Here is the most relevant piece:

So who is keeping it alive? Europe. Those aircraft wings are being made for the Airbus A220. Airbus has effectively taken over the Bombardier line of aircraft and integrated it with its own. And Airbus is the quintessential European Union single-market operation. It is based in Toulouse, where all of its commercial aircraft are finished. But big parts of those aircraft are made in other EU countries, including the UK, where Airbus directly and indirectly employs 124,000 people, among them those wing-makers in Belfast. It provides good jobs everywhere from Aberdeen to Portsmouth. It does this because it can – the single market and customs union allow the aircraft parts to move freely back and forward to France.
This freedom matters to all industries but it is especially crucial if you are making aircraft. Any child could understand that regulation and standardisation of aircraft parts is kind of important – one mismatch in one part and you fall out of the sky. More than 10,000 different parts for Airbus aircraft originate in the UK. If there is a no-deal Brexit, UK aerospace companies will not be covered under existing regulatory approvals from March 30th. Those Belfast wings become useless – even before all the questions of customs delays kick in.
Last week, Tom Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, who happens to be German, issued an open letter that pointed out how the company and its workers and suppliers in the UK “stand on the edge of a precipice” because of “the Brexiteers’ madness”. He warned that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the company would have to make “potentially very harmful decisions for the UK”.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I stopped watching Question Time for these reasons. Too depressing.

You missed the leaver in the audience in derby a couple of weeks ago declaring that as the eu was in the clutches of recession, now was not the time to be rowing back on red lines. “Maximum leverage,” he bellowed as the audience clapped and cheered around him. It would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.

franglan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That 1/8 is to leave with a deal OR to see A50 extended so it’s by far the likeliest outcome (as odds suggest). Particularly if Brady amendment is passed which seems likely.

That is a correct reading of the odds.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You missed the leaver in the audience in derby a couple of weeks ago declaring that as the eu was in the clutches of recession, now was not the time to be rowing back on red lines. “Maximum leverage,” he bellowed as the audience clapped and cheered around him. It would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The more uninformed the opinion, the more bellicose the speaker and the louder the cheers.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1090275865479520257

BlitzKrieg

Just a fun aside

I had a *friend* from university (I studied in UK and friend is very loose term these days) asking about the idea of Irexit, that much like Humphry's earlier this week stating that Ireland leaving the EU would solve all these issues.

I actually had a bit of fun humouring him and pointing out, even in the absurd scenario that Ireland goes for an Irexit, it wouldnt help the UK at all when you actually thought through the process needed.

For Irexit to even start you'd need a referendum.

So we are looking at a year minimum (and that's being super generous) for a proper referendum question to be drawn up. Unlike the UK we cant and wont stick a stupid "Irexit Yes or No" question, chances are very high a Irexit referendum will be a shopping list of changes to our constitution removing articles and adding new ones etc.

That will take a hell of a lot of time to draw up and be approved. So a year minimum, much more likely you'd be looking at 2-3.

Then another year for the date to be set and to have the campaign and results.

and then finally another 2 years on top of that when article 50 is activated.


Any point in this things can go tits up and things are delayed.

but it was a minimum of 5 years until Ireland would also be out of the EU

And they wouldnt know until 3 years from now if the people even supported Irexit.

How does any of that help the UK currently in Brexit? The EU wouldnt give any agreements based on a result they wont know for 3 years from now.


Friend just nodded and muttered "I though you could just leave with us"

Adamcp898

The latest attempts to make sense of all this. The reason Brady is being backed now is because they know it doesn't have a hope and so it's a means to wind the clock down further towards the "No-deal" Brexit that some MP's want.

Frankly, I thought the time to stop assuming any of this was done rationally passed long ago.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090276842488123392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090276842488123392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804

BlitzKrieg

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The latest attempts to make sense of all this. The reason Brady is being backed now is because they know it doesn't have a hope and so it's a means to wind the clock down further towards the "No-deal" Brexit that some MP's want.

Frankly, I thought the time to stop assuming any of this was done rationally passed long ago.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090276842488123392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090276842488123392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804

I've been assuming the whole crisis over the backstop was an intentional ploy by those who want specifically no deal to clog up the whole process and wind the clock down.

I got the impression most of them if given the choice would have cut northern ireland loose years ago.

MrMusician18

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The latest attempts to make sense of all this. The reason Brady is being backed now is because they know it doesn't have a hope and so it's a means to wind the clock down further towards the "No-deal" Brexit that some MP's want.

Frankly, I thought the time to stop assuming any of this was done rationally passed long ago.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090276842488123392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090276842488123392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804

More gossip from Laura K.

No news, nor insight. Depressing.

Awesomeness

Even the sensible amendments are worded annoyingly. Trying to give parliament the right to extend A50.

You cant do this without agreement. Give parliament the right to ask the EU to extend A50 sure. But its so depressing that even the sensible ones(relatively) don't get it

Hurrache

The DUP are not in the least bit interested in those they claim to represent.
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1090282465388908544

Water John

ERG love the idea of asking the EU for what they know will not be granted. I wouldn't sup with Mogg with a 40 ft pole. Any remainers dealing with him are foolish.

Penn

Water John wrote: »

ERG love the idea of asking the EU for what they know will not be granted.

Any excuse to refer to the EU as being "intransigent" yet again.

Adamcp898

MrMusician18 wrote: »

More gossip from Laura K.

No news, nor insight. Depressing.

Tbf she's retweeting other people's gossip, Was another political commentator's.

I guess the "news" they're trying to communicate is that most MP's are still uneasy about it all at best and that it's not the happy-go-lucky "rallying" atmosphere that was beginning to be portrayed of the Tory party this morning. Not that that should qualify as news exactly.

Christy42

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The latest attempts to make sense of all this. The reason Brady is being backed now is because they know it doesn't have a hope and so it's a means to wind the clock down further towards the "No-deal" Brexit that some MP's want.

Frankly, I thought the time to stop assuming any of this was done rationally passed long ago.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090276842488123392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090276842488123392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804

It is also because it is vague.

Trump (Healthcare will be so easy) and Brexit (Easiest trade deals) made plenty of PR out of being vague. It means everyone can insert their favourite version of events into this spot and assume the speaker is saying what they want.

You saw it come undone when Trump attempted to actually get a healthcare bill through a government supposedly in favour of reform.

Brexit is in the midst of coming unstuck as no one knows what they want.

It is like asking a room if they think a there should be a plan to deal with a problem. Everyone will agree and will continue to agree right until you start coming up with specifics.

You are right though the fact that the EU will take refuse the deal does also make it easier to pass and both are big factors (think Republicans voting to remove Obamacare repeatedly when Obama was in office and falling to pieces on the same subject when Trump was there).

For clarity these came to mind there are probably other examples of these across the spectrum.

10000maniacs

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Two plus years of groundhog day. No point in further negotiations with that.

It is actually 5 years of Groundhog day. Did you see the documentary on BBC last night about the build up to the referendum? Cameron was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines looking for concessions under threat of calling a referendum. Then, even when he called the referendum, he was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines under threat of not supporting remain.

RobMc59

10000maniacs wrote: »

It is actually 5 years of Groundhog day. Did you see the documentary on BBC last night about the build up to the referendum? Cameron was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines looking for concessions under threat of calling a referendum. Then, even when he called the referendum, he was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines under threat of not supporting remain.

The sad thing about it was he actually did get some decent concessions which were rejected by the arrogant tories in Westminster.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

The sad thing about it was he actually did get some decent concessions which were rejected by the arrogant tories in Westminster.

From my reading of the subject, he didn't seek all that much. Passports weren't even mentioned and the emergency brake thing was there already. The UK was never going to enter the Eurozone without its own consent and the "Ever closer union" concession was utterly meaningless considering that EU states have to ratify the treaties.

J Mysterio

I dont think the EU can or should reopen negotiations. Every single person of signifigance on the EU side has categorically ruled out changing the Withdrawal Agreement.

It's the political declaration they want to talk about, and the future relationship. This seems to be lost on many MPs and May should spend a bit more time stressing this. That the backstop is the last resort scenario.

Yet again, you would wonder what May is doing. Her 'leadership' or 'plan' at the moment seems to consist of reccomending Parliament pass an amendment to change the EU offer, though that is obviously off the table. Out of the question. So what is the point of this? Wasting more valuable time to get - presumably - immediately rebuffed by the EU (embarassingly).

At least the Grieve amendment lets Parliament do May's job for her and Coopers rules out the default unmitigated disaster. If these don't pass, may as well just burn the place down now.

Tell me how

One MP who doesn't give 2 figs about today's debates or votes.

Fiona Onasanya

An MP has become the first sitting politician in nearly three decades to be jailed after she lied to police when she was issued with a speeding ticket.

Solicitor Fiona Onasanya had denied being behind the wheel when her car was spotted being driven at 41mph in a 30mph zone, in July 2017.

The Peterborough MP was thrown out of the Labour Party after being convicted of perverting the course of justice.

She has been jailed for three months after a re-trial at the Old Bailey.

In fact, she's probably delighted about Brexit.