Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I appear to have read more than you about it. You seem to have missed the key fact the House of Commons are opposed to the backstop as it stands. Not my opinion, a fact. You can rant all you like but it doesn't change that fact. Finger pointing also won't change it.

We have two sides dug in and slinging insults at each other. That is not how you negotiate, never was and never will be.

Fair enough. What would pass the HoC?

I put forward the 20 year option (for arguments sake, it isn't really an option). Would they agree to that? How do you know?

The EU have repeated that they don't even know what the UK wants, apart from everything for free which of course isn't available.

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's a case of how long is a piece of string. The UK want guarantees that if the technologies can't be implemented fully, they are not tied into a backstop indefinitely. Reasonable point, as there is no proven technology to stop someone smuggling Brazilian beef to Southern Ireland for example. They want to be able to walk away from a backstop agreement rather than be tied indefinitely to it. You get the feeling the EU are trying to tie them in indefinitely.
The EU have made it clear they want to make it nigh on impossible for anyone to leave the EU.

How is a hard border prevented when the UK chooses to walk away? Unless you can answer that question, then we have our reason that Ireland and the EU are entirely correct to insist on the backstop now.

trellheim

Only four more MPs need to leave the conservatives for (Con+DUP) majority to be gone

Current numbers excluding Shinners and Speaker = (Dup 10+314 Con)=324. All the others add to 317. Down 4 on Con is four up on the other side which in a full crunch vote would be 320 to 321

SF taking their seats would make it 324 to 324 right now but thats a political thing for them so I'm not getting into it.

650 seats in the commons, one vacant and one speaker makes it 648 divide by two = 324.


Edit : ( the upshot of this is that people can't see beyond Corbyn, which means they have to bow to the ERG or lose the majority). Thus the dumpster fire continues to roll toward the abyss

volchitsa

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I appear to have read more than you about it. You seem to have missed the key fact the House of Commons are opposed to the backstop as it stands. Not my opinion, a fact. You can rant all you like but it doesn't change that fact. Finger pointing also won't change it.

We have two sides dug in and slinging insults at each other. That is not how you negotiate, never was and never will be.

The problem you have with your point there is thet Theresa May and her team accepted the backstop. It's not the EU's fault that the British team repeatedly do this thing of finding an agreement with the EU team and then not being able to get their own side to accept what they've just agreed.

Now that really is "how not to negotiate". It's simply impossible for the EU to negotiate with a team who apparently don't know what their own parliament wants or will accept. Well, except for rainbows and unicorns.

10000maniacs

New poll out today.
Con 38
Lab 26
TIG (New Independents) 14

Corbyn needs to get his soul searching hat on and quickly. He is throwing away a golden opportunity that Theresa May handed to him on a plate. The worst Labour leader in living memory.

Leroy42

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem you have with your point there is thet Theresa May and her team accepted the backstop. It's not the EU's fault that the British team repeatedly do this thing of finding an agreement with the EU team and then not being able to get their own side to accept what they've just agreed.

Now that really is "how not to negotiate". It's simply impossible for the EU to negotiate with a team who apparently don't know what their own parliament wants or will accept. Well, except for rainbows and unicorns.

And, TM continues to accept the backstop. She has stated that she accepts the need for one and accepts the deal as it is and is looking for some additional legal language to persuade the HoC that the EU are not looking to steal NI from them.

Is that enough for the HoC? And if not, what is? A complete removal of the backstop, in case the UK are looking to leave the EU but retain free access for nothing? I doubt the EU could even agree to that even if it wanted to.

trellheim

The worst Labour leader in living memory

from Seumas Milne's point of view and many in the grass roots he is the golden boy .


Edit : not in my opinion of course, just context is required here.

BonnieSituation

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's off topic I know but I could not let such spin just sit there.

They lost 21 seats between the 2015 and 2017 elections
The Conservatives gained 13, Labour gained 6, the Lib Dems gained 3

Support for IndeyRef2 quelled at that stage.

I love that stat being used as a stick for the SNP.

When you win all but 3 seats in an election chances are you'll lose a few in the next one.

Can't wait to see the destruction they'll bring to the Scottish branches at the next one.

They're comfortably the largest party in Scotland.

The only way was ever up for the ScotTories. But Ruth is making a bags of it. Ah well.

Professor Moriarty

10000maniacs wrote: »

New poll out today.
Con 38
Lab 26
TIG (New Independents) 14

Corbyn needs to get his soul searching hat on and quickly. He is throwing away a golden opportunity that Theresa May handed to him on a plate. The worst Labour leader in living memory.

Jaw-dropping. Yet there are those who will tell you he's doing a great job.

Tell me how

10000maniacs wrote: »

New poll out today.
Con 38
Lab 26
TIG (New Independents) 14

Corbyn needs to get his soul searching hat on and quickly. He is throwing away a golden opportunity that Theresa May handed to him on a plate. The worst Labour leader in living memory.

It's too late. Any GE is now going to be likely after Brexit (Deal or No Deal) If Labour win that, they will be pulverised by the Tories and the Media over whatever are the issues of the day. Labour may try to use the line that they didn't negotiate for Brexit but it won't stand up against the tide of vitriol which will come their way. The Tories have been getting it in the ear for 3 years and they are still in power, I would not be at all surprised if they actually would much rather not be in power for a period once Brexit has been gotten over the line. They will then be able to blame difficulties on Labour.

Not only is Corbyn so bad, but many of his deputies are weak also.

ToBeFrank123

seamus wrote: »

I don't even know how to respond to this tbh. The Prime Minister, the leader of Parliament had no mandate to agree anything. So why was she negotiating in the first place if she had no mandate to agree to anything?

It unfortunately appears to be the way the UK parliamentary system works. Almost everything has to go through a vote in the HOC. Bombing of Syria in 2013 was a recent example, also ISIS a couple years later which passed. Corbyn was against it, but a number of Labour MPs such as Hillary Benn, backed it.

I think you have misunderstood the whole UK negotiating and Commons process. You are not alone in this. You seem to think May was going to return with an agreement and that was the end of it. That's not how it works. The negotiating, tough though it was, was always going to be the easy bit. Getting a majority in parliament to back it, the hard part. Its turned out that way.

She failed to win a majority or a mandate from parliament for the deal. Hope you understand it now?

Just pointing out the facts, so less of messenger shooting would be nice

RobMc59

All this talk of Scotland leaving the UK and hard borders has got me thinking-what would happen if Scotland left the UK and joined the EU ,would the EU attempt to enforce a hard border-now THAT would be interesting!

ToBeFrank123

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem you have with your point there is thet Theresa May and her team accepted the backstop. It's not the EU's fault that the British team repeatedly do this thing of finding an agreement with the EU team and then not being able to get their own side to accept what they've just agreed.

Now that really is "how not to negotiate". It's simply impossible for the EU to negotiate with a team who apparently don't know what their own parliament wants or will accept. Well, except for rainbows and unicorns.

The EU also seem to have misunderstood how the UK parliamentary system works. They thought if they agreed it with May, that's the end of it. They forgot or didn't care about the Commons. Not surprised really.
A deal with May was/is worthless without a Commons majority.
The EU do know now what the Commons want. The EU don't want to make another concession simply because they want to make it impossible for the UK to leave and as a lesson to others who are thinking the same. Its like the Mafia, once in, its almost impossible to leave.

Tell me how

jm08 wrote: »

Ian Paisley Jnr's interview on RT is worth listening to (particularly from about 7 mins in) where he compares Brexit to the Millenium bug. He goes on to say how the UK has been a very good neighbour of Irelands. He then goes onto claim that the UK allows Ireland to fish in its waters, but Ireland won't let UK/NI fish in Ireland's waters. He then claims that ROI sells milk into NI, but ROI won't buy milk from NI. He then goes onto say that Ireland doesn't have a big enough army to man the bother and that they are an unarmed army as well! Wonders who is going to police the border - saying it won't be NATO as UK is a member of NATO.

If this is what is being said in DUP circles, no wonder some think that the EU is going to backdown on the backstop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtH289IyWdw

Watched that. Incredible.

I went back ten seconds to clarify did I hear him right that the Irish government is trying to fight off the hard right of Sinn Fein... Sinn Fein are hard right?

Igotadose

downcow wrote: »

I understand WA insists on a open border on Ireland and insists any checks take place on Irish sea. And insist a tie-in with alignments between NI and EU. So you are fooling yourself if you don';t think WA threatens to place NI in different position from UK

A better, or a worse place, than no-Deal? Serious question - it appears to me that the deal offered NI is the best of all possible worlds, as far as the NI economy goes.

I agree with him. EU would approach this very differently but for the Irish problem.
I believe the EU will soon lean on ROI - and you can look back to where i have said it would not happen until after the vote on the 14th which has been poistponed so the leaning will also be postponed - but it is coming - i think

Tea-leaf reading. And, saying 'but for the Irish problem' really is kind of disingenuous - the border exists.

Yes - do you remember that other project fear

Now, that's a really silly statement. Having been involved at length in the Y2K preparations back then in the US, a *lot* of 'software renewal' took place to avoid it. And, bad coding 20 years ago has nothing to do with, to quote a favorite line of one of the great British Institutions, Monty Python's flying circus, the 'Blinkered Philistine Pig-ignorance' shown by putting Brexit to a referendum, and everything since.

Iam not relistening to it but are you sure he said 'always'. i believe we have been good neighbours and improving all the time over last few years up until 2 years ago

Well, I guess time-frame matter, eh? Very subjective judgements. I suppose the UK could've been worse neighbors, and can be in the future.

Cryptopagan

RobMc59 wrote: »

All this talk of Scotland leaving the UK and hard borders has got me thinking-what would happen if Scotland left the UK and joined the EU ,would the EU attempt to enforce a hard border-now THAT would be interesting!

The EU facilitates open borders between its members, but it doesn’t impose them between members and third countries; the global political and economic order does that. An independent Scotland would require a hard border between itself and England even outside the EU, in the absence of an agreement with London to keep it open.

VinLieger

RobMc59 wrote: »

All this talk of Scotland leaving the UK and hard borders has got me thinking-what would happen if Scotland left the UK and joined the EU ,would the EU attempt to enforce a hard border-now THAT would be interesting!

It would depend on what terms the UK currently had with the EU at the time Scotland left. If they were still in a state of having no trade deal with the EU yet had signed some garbage US deal then yes a hard border would likely need to be erected to stop the EU markets being contaminated with below standard produce and merchandise.

Panrich

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It unfortunately appears to be the way the UK parliamentary system works. Almost everything has to go through a vote in the HOC. Bombing of Syria in 2013 was a recent example, also ISIS a couple years later which passed. Corbyn was against it, but a number of Labour MPs such as Hillary Benn, backed it.

I think you have misunderstood the whole UK negotiating and Commons process. You are not alone in this. You seem to think May was going to return with an agreement and that was the end of it. That's not how it works. The negotiating, tough though it was, was always going to be the easy bit. Getting a majority in parliament to back it, the hard part. Its turned out that way.

She failed to win a majority or a mandate from parliament for the deal. Hope you understand it now?

Just pointing out the facts, so less of messenger shooting would be nice

Maybe you could also point out where Teresa May got HOC approval for her red lines? I may have missed this vote but I don't recall it ever being agreed by parliament.

If she doesn't have a mandate from Parliament for either her red lines or the WA, then she needs to rip it all up and start again. She can't continue to peddle her own red lines until she has full approval.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The EU do know now what the Commons want.

An odd claim considering the only thing the HOC seems to be able to agree on is "we want something else"


Can you clarify exactly with facts and detail what it is the commons want with evidence such a proposition has or would pass a vote?

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If we end up with a hard border because the House of Commons refused to accept the backstop, then we have a hard border because or the House of Commons. The backstop is merely the arangement by which the border can be kept open if all else fails. If you don't have such an arangement in place, then you get a hard border when all else fails. Unless you have a bright idea as to how a hard border can be avoided in the absence of the backstop?

I agree to a point, but there's been bad faith on all sides. Its the Brits fault is just an empty mantra. Its like something Dev would say and he led us into the last big trade war with the brits. And if tariffs are introduced this time it will be a new trade war with no winners. It may even make the 1930s trade war look small fry given how our economies have grown since.

Akrasia

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's nothing insane about it if you'd followed the various commons votes recently. There was no majority in the commons for the current backstop. A fact not an opinion. Without a Commons majority its irrelevant what was negotiated. Anyone with an understanding of Brexit would know this.
May wants the agreement in its current form but she can't wan a majority. And the clock is ticking.

Theresa May absolutely does have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of parliament. She was given that mandate when she was appointed by the HOC as the Prime minister. This mandate was also re-confirmed when she won a vote of confidence internally in her own party, and a vote of confidence by the House of Commons.

The fact that she has failed to successfully carry out that mandate is her own failing, and the fact that the House of Commons continue to keep her in power while disagreeing with her negotiating position is ludicrous but doesn't change the fact that she is the person mandated to oversee negotiations with the EU.

She could request an extension to Article 50, she could change her red lines, she could resign as Prime minister or call a vote on withdrawing Article 50 or agree to hold a 2nd referendum.

All of these are within her mandate to do.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I agree to a point, but there's been bad faith on all sides. Its the Brits fault is just an empty mantra. Its like something Dev would say and he led us into the last big trade war with the brits. And if tariffs are introduced this time it will be a new trade war with no winners. It may even make the 1930s trade war look small fry given how our economies have grown since.

Point out exactly how the EU have engaged in bad faith please.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

An odd claim considering the only thing the HOC seems to be able to agree on is "we want something else"


Can you clarify exactly with facts and detail what it is the commons want with evidence such a proposition has or would pass a vote?

The Attorney General is supposed to lay out what would be acceptable, not sure if he has or not. I don't speak for the HOC.
It looks like some legal guarantees the backstop will not be permanent and also one side can walk away if required. This should be enough to get it over the line and avoid a hard Brexit and border until something longer term can be figured out.

If you put the gun to the UKs head and say "accept this or else", there's a very good chance they won't.

If they didn't back down against Hitler, it's unlikely they will back down on this.

Cryptopagan

10000maniacs wrote: »

New poll out today.
Con 38
Lab 26
TIG (New Independents) 14

Corbyn needs to get his soul searching hat on and quickly. He is throwing away a golden opportunity that Theresa May handed to him on a plate. The worst Labour leader in living memory.

Labour’s polling figures were worse before the last GE, which was why May called it. I wouldn’t fixate on the poll figures. Realistically, Labour would probably beat May’s Tories over the course of a campaign. If it were held tomorrow, Corbyn and Starmer can articulate a vision for Brexit which the Labour party could get behind, while May has even voted against her own deal.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

I believe the EU will soon lean on ROI - and you can look back to where i have said it would not happen until after the vote on the 14th which has been poistponed so the leaning will also be postponed - but it is coming - i think

You've been saying this for quite some time.
Others were saying it befoe you.
So far there's been no indication that this will be the case so apart from wishful thinking on your end, there's nothing to it!

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the DUP opposed it.
Next...

In the same manner that the DUP oppose any form of progress sought by the majority of its electorate.

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The EU do know now what the Commons want. The EU don't want to make another concession simply because they want to make it impossible for the UK to leave and as a lesson to others who are thinking the same. Its like the Mafia, once in, its almost impossible to leave.

There UK don't really know what they want, given their red lines contradict their position on other matters.
As for the EU's postion on a member leaving, they are correct to ensure that the best inteests of the remaining members remains prioirty. The UK want to leave but want to keep the benefits of membership which can't be allowed happen.
Surely you recognise this basic tenet?

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I agree to a point, but there's been bad faith on all sides.

How have the EU acted in bad faith?
Was it that they explained their position from the outset?
Was it that they were willing to compromise with the UK?

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

I can't but enjoy the British political classes tearing themselves apart, popcorn at the ready.

They can't agree how to leave, so probably best to have a second referendum with option 1 on the ballot paper being a hard Brexit and option 2 staying in the EU.

The Conservatives and Labour will never agree to anything. The EU won't drop the backstop and they don't want a hard border in Ireland. There is too much division in the Conservatives. Delaying Brexit another 6 months or a year won't make a difference, the same old divisions will arise. If Corbyn replaced May, he'd face similar issues to get a deal through parliament.

Hard Brexit or Remain seem to be the only possible options. .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109158342&postcount=4848

Is this the same poster from last month?

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

Point out exactly how the EU have engaged in bad faith please.

Provide legal guarantees the backstop is not permanent and one side can walk away.

And if you ignore the fact the Commons won't support the current proposed backstop agreement, then we are going around in circles and I've little more to say to you because you are not fully understanding the full situation.

kunst nugget

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If they didn't back down against Hitler, it's unlikely they will back down on this.

I can see the back of my skull my eyes have rolled so far...