Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

2 years later and they still havent laid out what would be acceptable?


Also thats not what I asked when have the HOC shown they are capable of agreeing and passing a singular idea of what brexit they want?


And finally since you godwinned and tried to compare the EU to hitler you lose all credibility forever

Seth Brundle

@Downcow - you ignored my questions yesterday but maybe today you're willing to elaborate on your claim that the EU is dysfunctional, extravagant and undemocratic?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

Well I like honesty, so i will accept 'shambles' may have been an exaggeration. I should have probably used words like dysfunctional, extravagant, undemocratic, etc. So i apologise for the word shambles as it was a bit harsh.

Now back to my question. You said the UK people want out of EU because on systemic problems in UK society - Are you suggesting it has zero to do with how the EU operates?

In what way is it dysfunctional?
In what way is it extravagant?
In what way is it undemocratic?

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

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

Is this the same poster from last month?

So I said Hard Brexit or remain are the only remaining options.

I've been proved right! If neither side are willing to budge which they aren't.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

LOL i really think you don't understand the full situation and seem to be running of the tired UKIP/ERG/DUP talking point of the EU needs the UK too much to let them go no deal......

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

So a backstop that is limited in time, thereby giving the UK no reason to do anything, and also gives the UK the ability to pull out of it at any time, so even the time limit may not work.

And that would definitely pass? And what if that isn't enough? Do we go back around again and demand the EU make more concessions?

Akrasia

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

By your own reason, it's impossible for the UK to leave because they have set up a system where nobody has the power to negotiate a deal.

So your solution seems to be for the EU to set up an office in Westminister and negotiate with all 650 MPs directly.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

This is getting pretty tiresome, you are continually ignoring the fact the EU agreeing to what you want will mean a hard border - an agreed hard border

You also continue to ignore that the HoC had a vote to kill the backstop in the WA and it chose not to (600 v 24!). The backstop is being used for a myriad of reasons at the moment

ToBeFrank123

kunst nugget wrote: »

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

Its true though.
The Conservatives of which Churchill was one and who Johnson adores, pride themselves on not backing down to anyone, particularly the EU.
So like I said, its unlikely they will back down, which makes a hard Brexit likely and the nightmare of a hard border also likely.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So I said Hard Brexit or remain are the only remaining options.

I've been proved right! If neither side are willing to budge which they aren't.

The UK are leaving the EU and has decided this course of action yet you spent all morning blaming the Irish for it :rolleyes:

CrabRevolution

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the DUP opposed it.
Next...

So the EU should just keep compromising and stooping lower and lower until the UK is happy?

You seem to be 100% on board with the brexiteers opinion that the EUs desires are unnecessary and need changing, but that what the UK wants is set in stone and non negotiable.

Can you explain why it is that the EU and not the UK that has to compromise? Don't say "because the house of commons hasn't agreed to anything" because that's a weakness and a failure on the UKs part when it comes too negotiations, not a strength.

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This is getting pretty tiresome, you are continually ignoring the fact the EU agreeing to what you want will mean a hard border - an agreed hard border

You also continue to ignore that the HoC had a vote to kill the backstop in the WA and it chose not to (600 v 24!). The backstop is being used for a myriad of reasons at the moment

If its getting tiresome, fine. You and I can leave it at that. ok? I'm willing to continue the discussion but if you aren't or if you say things like its tiresome, lets quit while ahead. I'm responding to numerous posters and most are patient, except you.

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

The EU don't trust May to deliver as she has reneged on a deal already. Also, they don't trust a parliament and parties that are fragmenting before their eyes. Nor do they trust a Tory party that is the glove puppet of the ERG. Very simply, Britain is not trusted anymore.

Enzokk

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.

It seems to me that the SNP overplayed their hand by thinking the Brexit referendum result meant that they could ask for a second referendum again. In hindsight they should have waited for the chaos to manifest itself before asking the question on independence again. The main thing to look for in regards to Scottish independence is not the numbers in the House of Commons but in the Scottish Parliament. At the moment there is a pro-independence majority. It will be interesting to see how this evolves at the next election as the Scottish Conservatives have not done anything to delay or even offer a moderate Brexit when Scotland was comfortably a Remain win in the referendum. I think they know they will have to face tough questions from the electorate if Brexit turns out badly for Scotland.


Seeing as it is Friday, it means that we can ponder on if the BBC is biased based on Question Time. Quell the surprise that another UKIP parliamentary candidate was in the audience and he got airtime as well.

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1098852544661635073

And just to bring some levity because all seems like crap,

https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/1098869887127175175

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The UK are leaving the EU and has decided this course of action yet you spent all morning blaming the Irish for it :rolleyes:

I said all sides are to blame including the UK.

We're done here!

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

You didnt answer the question


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

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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

Did you not read the text at all?
Which bit do you believe is not a guarrantee?

ToBeFrank123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU don't trust May to deliver as she has reneged on a deal already. Also, they don't trust a parliament and parties that are fragmenting before their eyes. Nor do they trust a Tory party that is the glove puppet of the ERG. Very simply, Britain is not trusted anymore.

Then Hard Brexit and Border it is.

A lose-lose as Coveney said.

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its true though.
The Conservatives of which Churchill was one and who Johnson adores, pride themselves on not backing down to anyone, particularly the EU.
So like I said, its unlikely they will back down, which makes a hard Brexit likely and the nightmare of a hard border also likely.

...but you appear to blame the EU for the border despite your admitted intransigence by the Tories???

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If its getting tiresome, fine. You and I can leave it at that. ok? I'm willing to continue the discussion but if you aren't or if you say things like its tiresome, lets quit while ahead. I'm responding to numerous posters and most are patient, except you.

You have refused to acknowledge or challenge that what you are asking for will result in a hard border

You also refused to acknowledge that Baron put an amendment to HoC to kill the backstop (something you now want) and it was a 600 to 24 spanking then proclaim to state the HoC does not want the backstop

ToBeFrank123

ok lunchtime is over, I have to go back to work. Talk later or over the weekend.

If a Hard Border does turn up on the island of Ireland, the EU, UK and Irish politicians should hang their heads in collective shame. We are so badly served by political leaders at the moment and a hard border will confirm that once and for all.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

ok lunchtime is over, I have to go back to work. Talk later or over the weekend.

If a Hard Border does turn up on the island of Ireland, the EU, UK and Irish politicians should hang their heads in collective shame. We are so badly served by political leaders at the moment and a hard border will confirm that once and for all.

Yet you were enjoying with your popcorn last month

Call me Al

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its true though.
The Conservatives of which Churchill was one and who Johnson adores, pride themselves on not backing down to anyone, particularly the EU.
So like I said, its unlikely they will back down, which makes a hard Brexit likely and the nightmare of a hard border also likely.

And yet British media are today detailing how dozens of Tory MPS have told TM that they will rebel if no deal is what they are offered. And this is both remain and soft brexit MPs

Enzokk

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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.

You mean Labour will reluctantly use Starmer to form their stance on Brexit. As for moving in the polls, the attack hounds have been out in force to try and discredit the IG for a few days now. It is clear that they see them as a threat to their aim. We have to remember that Labour member overwhelmingly want to stay in the EU and their voters in the main voted to Remain. They are following a minority view of both their members and voters which will hopefully cost them. Then they can get rid of the left wing running the party right now and their apparent cult following for Corbyn.

EdgeCase

For anyone interested, here's a link to the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019

This link will give you the status of where it's at in the 11 stage Oireachtas process:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2019/14/

and the link below is the full text of the bill:

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2019/14/eng/initiated/b1419d.pdf

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its true though.
The Conservatives of which Churchill was one and who Johnson adores, pride themselves on not backing down to anyone, particularly the EU.
So like I said, its unlikely they will back down, which makes a hard Brexit likely and the nightmare of a hard border also likely.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

ok lunchtime is over, I have to go back to work. Talk later or over the weekend.

If a Hard Border does turn up on the island of Ireland, the EU, UK and Irish politicians should hang their heads in collective shame. We are so badly served by political leaders at the moment and a hard border will confirm that once and for all.

It only took six minutes for you do that U-turn. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me that the SNP overplayed their hand by thinking the Brexit referendum result meant that they could ask for a second referendum again. In hindsight they should have waited for the chaos to manifest itself before asking the question on independence again. The main thing to look for in regards to Scottish independence is not the numbers in the House of Commons but in the Scottish Parliament. At the moment there is a pro-independence majority. It will be interesting to see how this evolves at the next election as the Scottish Conservatives have not done anything to delay or even offer a moderate Brexit when Scotland was comfortably a Remain win in the referendum. I think they know they will have to face tough questions from the electorate if Brexit turns out badly for Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament has given the mandate to the First Minister to ask Westminster for a referendum. Sturgeon has not done that yet as it was agreed that it would be requested once the terms of Brexit are known. As you know, the terms of Brexit are still up in the air with 35 days to go

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

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!

Something along these lines was proposed in the FT a while ago as a tongue-in-cheek solution to the Irish border problem. It's a somewhat bitter-sweet commentary on the current state of Westminster/Tory politics that it's actually the most reasonable and realistic "alternative arrangement" to the NI backstop. I'm not going looking for the article, but the logic was that the Scot-Eng border is a much shorter and less convoluted frontier than the NI-RoI line, and not wrapped up in so much emotional baggage, and it would be logical to keep the two remain-voting constituent countries of the UK together.

Enzokk

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Scottish Parliament has given the mandate to the First Minister to ask Westminster for a referendum. Sturgeon has not done that yet as it was agreed that it would be requested once the terms of Brexit are known. As you know, the terms of Brexit are still up in the air with 35 days to go

I could have it wrong but didn't they take the talks of independence more slowly since the 2017 GE? They did lose 21 seats and it seems to me that much of that could be as a result of their insistence on another independence referendum when not much has changed.

lawred2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

The best way to stay in the EU is to vote No..

Ooops

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

This is quite 'frankly' a stupid line of thinking and reasoning.

It is not the job of the EU to do anything but negotiate with those that HMG selects to be their negotiators.

It is up to HMG to 'know what the commons wants'.. not the EU.

This is the lamest of lame attempts to level blame at the EU.

Not doubt you believe your own claptrap. But just because you believe it yourself doesn't render it anything other than worthless