Brexit Discussion Thread VI

judeboy101

breatheme wrote: »

Yes but he wants to stay in the Customs Union. The CU is what holds up Free Movement of Goods, so whenever a politician says they want to stay in the Customs Union they are saying they want Free Movement of Goods. And the EU's position is that the 4 Freedoms are indivisible.

They have made plenty of "exceptions" of the 4 freedoms for swiss and Greece.

Strazdas

breatheme wrote: »

I'm not saying otherwise. What I am saying is that both positions, Free Movement of Goods (Customs Union) and no Free Movement of People are incompatible. Labour's policy is based on either lies or naïveté.

For sure but he's just coming out with the same 'cake and eat it' stuff as the Tories. He's claiming that if he is elected PM, he will go to Brussels with a shopping list of requests, but it's just the usual Brexiteer nonsense of wanting numerous opt outs from EU rules.

breatheme

judeboy101 wrote: »

They have made plenty of "exceptions" of the 4 freedoms for swiss and Greece.

The Greek one barely counts as it's also a place where native Greek people are faced with the same conditions.

As for Switzerland, their exception doesn't stop or hinder FMOP at all. I'd laugh at the UK if they ended up with a similar deal.

Capt'n Midnight

judeboy101 wrote: »

They have made plenty of "exceptions" of the 4 freedoms for swiss and Greece.

To use the SKY analogy, Switzerland found a loophole so they are still on a New Customer deal. SKY stopped offering that deal to new customers a long time ago.

And the Swiss voted 2:1 against restricting EU treaties.


The UK has already cancelled their SKY subscription. In writing.

It's not even 100% clear if they intend pay the remaining subscriptions.
At the moment they want the Movie Package but the significant other wants the Sports Package.

FrancieBrady

First Up wrote: »

Never sure which is the bigger blight on humanity - those who can't forget or those who can't remember.

I would say those who forgot their fellow countrymen and women after partition have a large percentage of the blame for the blight they have face into if Brexit is successful. Maybe that is the guilt that has Leo and Simon being labelled more republican than SF?

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would say those who forgot their fellow countrymen and women after partition have a large percentage of the blame for the blight they have face into if Brexit is successful. Maybe that is the guilt that has Leo and Simon being labelled more republican than SF?

Big difference between forgot and powerless to help.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Big difference between forgot and powerless to help.

Don't want to divert the thread, but 'powerless'ness doesn't also require you to be silent. And it can never happen again or we will be quickly back to a conflict that will be hard to stop.
As I said, if Brexit goes ahead without northern Ireland receiving special status, DUP/Loyalist triumphalism will be deeply divisive.

CelticRambler

Akrasia wrote: »

The only way there will be an extension of A50 is if there is a 2nd referendum, and there won't be enough time to renegotiate a deal and have it ratified by the end of March, so If Mays deal is rejected it's either crash out or 2nd referendum.

Crash out and second referendum after the fact. For all the talk about a 2nd referendum, there's no guarantee that it would be any better conducted than the first, nor any more conclusive. That's no basis for granting the headless chickens in Westminster more time to run around.

Even here on this forum, with our collective experience of holding/voting in referendums, there's no consensus on what question would be put to the UK electorate. And the fundamental flaw in the UK's make-up - too many English voters in proportion to everyone else - won't have gone away, making it too easy for UKIP and the ERG to manipulate the outcome.

So what advantage would it be for the EU27 to grant the UK an extension? None; if they want to re-negotiate, or have another referendum, or act in any other way like a grown-up democracy, let them revoke A50 unconditionally and do things properly the next time.

Or crash out.

Harry Palmr

The big change re a 2nd vote is the obvious one - it'll be three years and maybe more since the last one and a couple of million OAP's will have died and taken their views with them while the 15-17 year old cohort will have the vote and, boy they'll actually be mobilised this time!

cml387

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The big change re a 2nd vote is the obvious one - it'll be three years and maybe more since the last one and a couple of million OAP's will have died and taken their views with them while the 15-17 year old cohort will have the vote and, boy they'll actually be mobilised this time!

Against that, there is the narrative that Britain has been humiliated time after time in the negotiations (Amber Rudd was beating that drum today on the front page of The Telegraph) and that it's just better to be out and away and hang the consequences.

flutered

Akrasia wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn, the hard Brexiteer. Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu

What a d1ck.

The UK is screwed

read the whole article before replying, a sentence was taken out of contex and used as clickbait, their is a paper on this article which i am unable to link to

Zubeneschamali

cml387 wrote: »

Britain has been humiliated time after time in the negotiations

They sent David Davis - they'd have been humiliated on Winning Streak.

flutered

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn, the hard Brexiteer. Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu

as i stated earlier fake news cllickbait

flutered

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn, the hard Brexiteer. Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu

as i stated earlier fake new

Strazdas wrote: »

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

Christ.

The EU wouldn't give this clown five minutes if that's his position. His strategy is virtually identical to that of May's, meaning there would be nothing to be discussed.

if you read the articl;e it will have corybn stating that brexit is not his decision it is a party decision, i do not support corybl just state the facts no the clickbait
s cllickbait

cml387

Do you understand the term "clickbait"?

It's an article from the Guardian outlining views we all know Jeremy Corbyn holds.

briany

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The big change re a 2nd vote is the obvious one - it'll be three years and maybe more since the last one and a couple of million OAP's will have died and taken their views with them while the 15-17 year old cohort will have the vote and, boy they'll actually be mobilised this time!

True, however the rebuttal to that is that the same statement is true of any vote, but the UK does not rerun on the basis that a certain portion of the electorate has died and another portion have just become eligible. This is basically what Jacob Rees Mogg said, anyway, when the point was put to him.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Even here on this forum, with our collective experience of holding/voting in referendums, there's no consensus on what question would be put to the UK electorate. And the fundamental flaw in the UK's make-up - too many English voters in proportion to everyone else - won't have gone away, making it too easy for UKIP and the ERG to manipulate the outcome.

The biggest mistake David Cameron made was not making the Brexit referendum reliant on a qualified majority. It should have been a simple UK-wide majority + a simple majority in at least 3/4 of the UK's countries. Not even an ardent Brexiteer could argue against that because it would undermine the notion that the UK is supposed to be a union of equals and not, what they know deep down, is a union that is England-led.

Strazdas

flutered wrote: »

as i stated earlier fake news cllickbait

In what way was he misquoted? Many Labour MPs have heavily criticised him on Twitter today and the article has been shared 75,000 times.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't want to divert the thread, but 'powerless'ness doesn't also require you to be silent. And it can never happen again or we will be quickly back to a conflict that will be hard to stop.
As I said, if Brexit goes ahead without northern Ireland receiving special status, DUP/Loyalist triumphalism will be deeply divisive.

You do nothing but divert this thread.. You've also moved the goal posts I thought the nationalist in Northern Ireland where forgotten by the south? The Irish government was never silent. The Irish government went to the UN regarding bloody Sunday for example

cml387

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You do nothing but divert this thread.. You've also moved the goal posts I thought the nationalist in Northern Ireland where forgotten by the south? The Irish government was never silent. The Irish government went to the UN regarding bloody Sunday for example

I don't agree with Francie's posts most of the time,but he absolutely right that we ignored the situation in the North right up to 1968. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

Indeed it was the British media that cottoned on to the deplorable position of nationalists in Northern ireland,specifically an article from The Sunday Times Insight team (when that meant something) in 1966 entitled "john Bull's Political Slum".

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You do nothing but divert this thread.. You've also moved the goal posts I thought the nationalist in Northern Ireland where forgotten by the south? The Irish government was never silent. The Irish government went to the UN regarding bloody Sunday for example

Discussing what Dublin should do in the event of Brexit isn't diverting a thread about Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Some numbers and graphics on the factions in the HoC.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/12/22/a-house-divided-against-itself-brexit-factions-in-westminster/

Brexiters (112 MPs)
Government & Tory Loyalists (157)
“Swing votes”, comprising non-hardline Brexit supporting Labour MPs, and Tory MPs that are undecided on the Prime Minister’s deal (49)
Opposition & Labour Loyalists (164)
Tories who backed the Grieve amendment, making Brexit legislation amendable (24)
Remainers (133)

So you just need 320 MP's to agree to something, but most will be forced to follow party lines.

and this comment :

Ben Mulvey *
And just think if/when the Withdrawal Agreement does get passed, it will trigger another 2 year countdown to negotiate a Trade Deal, where the UK will again lay out red lines of no membership of CU/SM, no ECJ, no 4 freedoms, - basically no anything, but demanding all the benefits of EU membership anyway.

Then we can go through the whole process again. If this is how dysfunctional the UK state has become over something as modest as the Withdrawal Agreement; it's hard to imagine the meltdown ahead when it's forced to face reality when its easiest/best/quickest trade deal in history fantasies hit the buffers once trade negotiations start.

cml387

The only hope now is that with christmas and some time out of the hothouse of Westminster, cool heads will prevail and some way out will be found.

Additionally, if there is as indicators suggest a wipeout of major retail companies in January then we may see a return to reality for some Brexiteers .

I still firmly believe that that the Commons will revoke article 50. No referendum or election needed.

It's not a particularly useful post in a discussion about Brexit, but so few others say it, I thought I would.

Risteard81

Deleted User wrote: »

I still firmly believe that that the Commons will revoke article 50. No referendum or election needed.

That would be hugely anti-democratic like everything the so-called "EU" does. Just like with Nice 2 and Lisbon 2.

The truth is Brexit is the correct decision, and all countries should leave the so-called "EU" and the so-called "EU" should go away and die. Our heroes of '16 would be appalled by it.

fash

Risteard81 wrote: »

That would be hugely anti-democratic like everything the so-called "EU" does. Just like with Nice 2 and Lisbon 2.

The truth is Brexit is the correct decision, and all countries should leave the so-called "EU" and the so-called "EU" should go away and die. Our heroes of '16 would be appalled by it.

Our "heroes of '16" wanted us to escape the control and mistreatment of the UK- Brexit has shown that the EU has given us that (and that leaving the EU would put us back under UK control)- the "heroes of 16" would in fact be appalled at the idea of leaving the EU.

Risteard81

Risteard81 wrote: »

That would be hugely anti-democratic like everything the so-called "EU" does. Just like with Nice 2 and Lisbon 2.

The truth is Brexit is the correct decision, and all countries should leave the so-called "EU" and the so-called "EU" should go away and die. Our heroes of '16 would be appalled by it.

I understand that. If Brexit weren't so clearly damaging, I wouldn't advocate it.

But I think it's going to happen. It was a nonbinding vote and ultimately, parliament is there to lead the nation. Instead of the monarchy and government, this time they will go against the people, because they can, and should.

From the guardian:

The Irish and Dutch governments are so concerned about the possible impact on their companies that they are offering cash grants and vouchers worth between €2,500 and €1.5m to companies with a particularl exposure to the UK, to pay for specialist advice or help them look for new markets.


Any more details on this? Any business people here been contacted? Good to see strong support.

Imreoir2

Risteard81 wrote: »

That would be hugely anti-democratic like everything the so-called "EU" does. Just like with Nice 2 and Lisbon 2.

The truth is Brexit is the correct decision, and all countries should leave the so-called "EU" and the so-called "EU" should go away and die. Our heroes of '16 would be appalled by it.

The so-called "EU" is what the so-called "heroes of 16" ment when they refered to Ireland taking her place among the so-called "nations" of the world, if you ask me.

dr.fuzzenstein

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The so-called "EU" is what the so-called "heroes of 16" ment when they refered to Ireland taking her place among the so-called "nations" of the world, if you ask me.

Too many people have this unfortunate idea that 1916 was meant to lead up to some kind of isolationism.
The Irish as this proud warrior race that is bowed by no one, listens only to it's own council and bring back the Irish kings while you're at it.
Thinking like that have made Kuba and North Korea the countries they are today. :rolleyes:
Yes it was about independence, but independence is a damn side different than isolationism.
You could say it's the difference between being ruled by an outside power and being part of an alliance.

fash

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The so-called "EU" is what the so-called "heroes of 16" ment when they refered to Ireland taking her place among the so-called "nations" of the world, if you ask me.

Worth recalling:
During the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916, some republican leaders, including Patrick Pearse and Joseph Plunkett, contemplated giving the throne of an independent Ireland to Prince Joachim of Prussia.[14][15] While they were not in favour of a monarchy in itself, Pearse and Plunkett thought that if the rising were successful and Germany won the First World War, they would insist on an independent Ireland being a monarchy with a German prince as king, in the same way as Romania and Bulgaria.[16] The fact that Joachim did not speak English was also considered an advantage, as he might be more disposed to learning and promoting the use of the Irish language.[17] In his memoirs, Desmond FitzGerald wrote:

That would have certain advantages for us. It would mean that a movement for de-anglicisation would flow from the head of the state downwards, for what was English would be foreign to the head of the state. He would naturally turn to those who were more Irish and Gaelic, as to his friends, for the non-nationalist element in our country had shown themselves to be so bitterly anti-German ... For the first generation or so it would be an advantage, in view of our natural weakness, to have a ruler who linked us with a dominant European power, and thereafter, when we were better prepared to stand alone, or when it might be undesirable that our ruler should turn by personal choice to one power rather than be guided by what was most natural and beneficial for our country, the ruler of that time would have become completely Irish.[18]

Ernest Blythe recalls that in January 1915 he heard Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh express support for the idea at an Irish Volunteers meeting. No objections were made by anyone and Bulmer Hobson was among the attendees. Blythe himself said he found the idea "immensely attractive".[19]

According to Hugo O'Donnell, 7th Duke of Tetuan, Éamon de Valera raised the idea of an Irish monarchy with his great-grandfather Juan O'Donnell.[20]

Raymond Moulton O'Brien, the self-styled "Prince of Thomond" and the political party 'United Christian Nationalist Party', of which O'Brien was the leader, wanted to reestablish the monarchy with O'Brien as king.[21]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Ireland