Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Spanish Eyes

tuxy wrote: »

MPs voted to give May the power to trigger article 50

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Any news on when that vote was taken to allow May to do this?

Edit, I see you have clarified. Thank you.

CelticRambler

listermint wrote: »

Wealthy business people. They want brexit. It's the reason we hear things like tusk being a fascist and nazi references to the EU. They are trying to annoy the EU so much with this that it puts deal beyond conclusion.


And the gauling part.

Poor people voting for it and parroting the lines all the while voting for losing their own jobs. Their own homes . Their own services to privatisation.

Once again, this is an almost perfect parallel of what's going on in the US. During the record-breaking Trump Shutdown, there stories about the disconnect between private-sector workers who barely noticed what was happening and the wage-less public servants selling their furniture to buy food ... but hardly a word about those profiteering from the latter - banks charging interest on loans, landlords taking the opportunity to kick people out of their homes for unpaid rent, cars being repossessed.

And yet even the farmers, who can't sell their soybeans because of Trump's tariff-war, who couldn't get funds to buy seed for this year, and are at risk of being forced to sell their land to corporate landowners, still they think Trump the guy to Make America Great Again. :rolleyes:

cml387

Is there any possibility that TM could pull the meaningful vote again?

I did hear a government source say that it was definitely going ahead on Tuesday,which would make me believe the exact opposite.

Strazdas

cml387 wrote: »

Is there any possibility that TM could pull the meaningful vote again?

I did hear a government source say that it was definitely going ahead on Tuesday,which would make me believe the exact opposite.

I read in the Guardian there are fears among the Tories that the Govt could lose the vote by 200+ votes again on Tuesday.

Hermy

tuxy wrote: »

MPs voted to give May the power to trigger article 50 in February 2017, she then triggered it a little under two month later.

On that same issue, earlier today I watched this video of Ivan Rogers speaking to the Select Committee and at 52:30 he spoke about how the EU effectively forced Theresa May's hand when it came to the triggering Article 50 by insisting on 'no negotiation without notification'.
Now far be it from me to question the excellent Mr. Rogers but up till now I had thought that the hasty triggering of Article 50 was all of her own doing.
Is this not so?

I'd be delighted if any of ye could enlighten me on the matter.

Tell me how

janfebmar wrote: »

Plenty of people voted for Brexit (was it 22 million?), so Tusk was insulting those peoples political decisions when he insulted those Brexit politicians.



After the press conference ended, Varadkar was picked up on a microphone saying "they'll give you terrible trouble, the British, for this." Tusk nodded and laughed. So there you have it, two people sniggering and gloating about the British. Not the EC's finest hour. I hope it come back to haunt them.

Now you are pulling a Mark Francois on it.

Imreoir2

Hermy wrote: »

On that same issue, earlier today I watched this video of Ivan Rogers speaking to the Select Committee and at 52:30 he spoke about how the EU effectively forced Theresa May's hand when it came to the triggering Article 50 by insisting on 'no negotiation without notification'.
Now far be it from me to question the excellent Mr. Rogers but up till now I had thought that the hasty triggering of Article 50 was all of her own doing.
Is this not so?

I'd be delighted if any of ye could enlighten me on the matter.

The EU did indeed insist that the UK must give notification of its intention to withdraw before any discussions could begin. There were also calls from the EU for the UK to trigger article 50 straight away if it intended to go ahead with Brexit.

This was because the EU correctly calculated that the UK triggering A50 gave the EU a stronger hand for the negiotiations, it started a ticking clock that forced the UK to constantly need to make progress.

Before A50 was triggered however, there was nothing the EU could have done to push the UK to trigger, the decision to go ahead and trigger A50 on the British side was about domestic politics not EU insistance.

j8wk2feszrnpao

janfebmar wrote: »

I think most of the insults are coming from the EU side eg the EU person Tusk saying that Brexiteers had a "special place in hell" etc

"Brexiteers will have a 'special place in hell' declares EU chief Donald Tusk"

Are you trying to apply for a job with the Daily Mail with your bag of misquotes, untruths and lies?
You represent ignorant Brexit very well.

Irish Praetorian

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU did indeed insist that the UK must give notification of its intention to withdraw before any discussions could begin. There were also calls from the EU for the UK to trigger article 50 straight away if it intended to go ahead with Brexit.

This was because the EU correctly calculated that the UK triggering A50 gave the EU a stronger hand for the negiotiations, it started a ticking clock that forced the UK to constantly need to make progress.

Before A50 was triggered however, there was nothing the EU could have done to push the UK to trigger, the decision to go ahead and trigger A50 on the British side was about domestic politics not EU insistance.

I dare say it might not have been a poor idea if before triggering Article 50, the UK had decided to take the time to negotiate between 48% and 52% about what kind of Brexit they could all agree on (or would be divided least by).

Charles Babbage

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU did indeed insist that the UK must give notification of its intention to withdraw before any discussions could begin. There were also calls from the EU for the UK to trigger article 50 straight away if it intended to go ahead with Brexit.

This was because the EU correctly calculated that the UK triggering A50 gave the EU a stronger hand for the negiotiations, it started a ticking clock that forced the UK to constantly need to make progress.

Before A50 was triggered however, there was nothing the EU could have done to push the UK to trigger, the decision to go ahead and trigger A50 on the British side was about domestic politics not EU insistance.

The EU did not start negotiations, but it is fairly obvious what they were going to say anyway, you can have something like Norway or something like Canada. The British failed to come up with a preference among themselves before triggering Article 50.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I dare say it might not have been a poor idea if before triggering Article 50, the UK had decided to take the time to negotiate between 48% and 52% about what kind of Brexit they could all agree on (or would be divided least by).

They absolutely should have had a cross party committee on the job anyway.

joe40

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU did indeed insist that the UK must give notification of its intention to withdraw before any discussions could begin. There were also calls from the EU for the UK to trigger article 50 straight away if it intended to go ahead with Brexit.

This was because the EU correctly calculated that the UK triggering A50 gave the EU a stronger hand for the negiotiations, it started a ticking clock that forced the UK to constantly need to make progress.

Before A50 was triggered however, there was nothing the EU could have done to push the UK to trigger, the decision to go ahead and trigger A50 on the British side was about domestic politics not EU insistance.

I dare say it might not have been a poor idea if before triggering Article 50, the UK had decided to take the time to negotiate between 48% and 52% about what kind of Brexit they could all agree on (or would be divided least by).

Well they did. They decided it was going to be a " red, white and blue brexit"

MrMusician18

fash wrote: »

They certainly did not - they did it solely to protect their own banks.
The UK’s attitude to Ireland has changed little from famine times - the idea that they are so altruistic and care deeply about Irish pensioners, social welfare dependents and public servants is the most ludicrous thing I have heard in quite some time.

If I recall correctly, a now perhaps rather ironic condition of the loan was that if Ireland exited the EU during the term of the loan, Ireland would have been considered in default.

Shelga

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0308/1035221-brexit-barnier/

What the hell? That reads to me like the EU capitulating at the last minute, after all that??

But it’s unclear- does he mean that NI would have to remain in the customs union?

tuxy

Shelga wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0308/1035221-brexit-barnier/

What the hell? That reads to me like the EU capitulating at the last minute, after all that??

But it’s unclear- does he mean that NI would have to remain in the customs union?

Yes this was the original offer again with the backstop only applying to NI, it's what the EU wanted before May convinced them to apply the backstop to all of the UK.

Enzokk

Shelga wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0308/1035221-brexit-barnier/

What the hell? That reads to me like the EU capitulating at the last minute, after all that??

But it’s unclear- does he mean that NI would have to remain in the customs union?

tuxy wrote: »

Yes this was the original offer again with the backstop only applying to NI, it's what the EU wanted before May convinced them to apply the backstop to all of the UK.

He is pitting the ERG and the Tories against the DUP. He is telling them they can get what they have been asking for, a mechanism to leave the backstop, but the GFA is still there and you cannot escape it. I don't think it will work though as most of the nutters want to leave without a deal and they are using the backstop as an excuse. It is the excuse they get to follow through on what they want and not get blamed for it.

You can see this when there are amendments being voted on in the House of Commons that would give MPs a chance to shape the discussion and they vote against it. They aren't happy with the current deal but don't want to suggest solutions themselves.

listermint

tuxy wrote: »

Yes this was the original offer again with the backstop only applying to NI, it's what the EU wanted before May convinced them to apply the backstop to all of the UK.

And it's not capitulation either.

Recycling a deal from before can never be capitulation

Panrich

listermint wrote: »

And it's not capitulation either.

Recycling a deal from before can never be capitulation

It’s the RTÉ reporting of this that makes it look like capitulation. I nearly crashed the car on the way home last night when I heard that ‘Barnier was now prepared to offer the UK a unilateral withdrawal from the agreement’.

SimonTemplar

If May looses the vote on Tuesday, any thoughts on whether she will resign?

Leroy42

It is odd though that Barnier would come out like that.

Was is supposed to come across the the much anticipated 11th hour climbdown, which TM could hold aloft in the HoC?

I fail to understand what he was trying to achieve, it's just added more confusion to the whole thing.

SimonTemplar

Panrich wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

And it's not capitulation either.

Recycling a deal from before can never be capitulation

It’s the RTÉ reporting of this that makes it look like capitulation. I nearly crashed the car on the way home last night when I heard that ‘Barnier was now prepared to offer the UK a unilateral withdrawal from the agreement’.

RTE was a bit sensationalist with that story. It got major breaking news prominence on RTE's website but little mention of it on BBC's.

Patser

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is odd though that Barnier would come out like that.

Was is supposed to come across the the much anticipated 11th hour climbdown, which TM could hold aloft in the HoC?

I fail to understand what he was trying to achieve, it's just added more confusion to the whole thing.

Since Theresa May had achieved absolutely zero over the last 3 weeks, yesterday she gave a speech; and a lot of her cronies echoed it; that the EU was being inflexible and bullying poor old Britain. It was shifting the blame, making it sound like she'd done everything she could but the EU were locking the UK in possibly forever.

Barnier's tweet burst that bubble quickly and succinctly, UK can leave whenever but Northern Ireland can't until a satisfactory mechanism/deal for no hard border is done.

So now May has to either cut the North loose a bit, but can achieve the British exit she's craving or tie the whole UK to Northern Ireland's future.

But as even recent posters here are saying, Barnier's tweet comes across as a massive compromise offer to anyone not following Brexit closely. It sounds like a massive offer. So May now has the extra problem of trying to explain to a disinterested British population why exactly she's rejecting it. Suddenly doesn't sound like EU bullying, just May being awkward and refusing to compromise now. Lovely puncturing of May's speech and narrative by Barnier

firemansam4

May has painted herself up against a brick wall with the previous rhetoric she has used.
She has previously stated that she would not accept the NI only arrangement as it splits up the UK as she put it.
Just like when she previously stated that no deal was better than a bad deal, thus now she will not rule out no deal.

A possible solution now maybe is to put this deal to a vote to the people in NI and let them decide.
The argument keeps being used about not going against the will of the people, so why not put this proposal to the people of NI.

woohoo!!!

firemansam4 wrote: »

May has painted herself up against a brick wall with the previous rhetoric she has used.
She has previously stated that she would not accept the NI only arrangement as it splits up the UK as she put it.
Just like when she previously stated that no deal was better than a bad deal, thus now she will not rule out no deal.

A possible solution now maybe is to put this deal to a vote to the people in NI and let them decide.
The argument keeps being used about not going against the will of the people, so why not put this proposal to the people of NI.

In part because Scotland would demand one

First Up

woohoo!!! wrote:

In part because Scotland would demand one

Scotland isn't party to an international agreement about its status. Nor does it have a contiguous EU border or citizens with nationality options.

Unionists bristle at the thought but Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK.

Christy42

Is there a way out of this for the UK?

If they revoke article 50 a lot of people will be infuriated and blame the EU for everything and try again.

If they go with no deal then the country tanks.

If they take the current agreement then they get mix of some angry people and some damage to the economy. They might sell this latest version as a great win for the UK which might help. I mean it is simply removing a UK requirement rather than an EU one but most leavers won't know that if the press takes a different line.

From the start Norway would have been the sensible option but that seems like it will generate the angry people thing again.

GM228

Christy42 wrote: »

Is there a way out of this for the UK?

If they revoke article 50 a lot of people will be infuriated and blame the EU for everything and try again.

If they go with no deal then the country tanks.

If they take the current agreement then they get mix of some angry people and some damage to the economy. They might sell this latest version as a great win for the UK which might help. I mean it is simply removing a UK requirement rather than an EU one but most leavers won't know that if the press takes a different line.

From the start Norway would have been the sensible option but that seems like it will generate the angry people thing again.

No matter what happens I'm sure a lot of people will blame the EU for everything.

firemansam4

woohoo!!! wrote:

In part because Scotland would demand one

They might very well call for one as well, but the situation is very much different.
This is about preserving the GFA and avoiding a hard border on this Island. And I think a people's vote in NI could be the solution to the impass.

GM228

Sam Russell wrote: »

Their constitution relies on precedents - and if there isn't one handy, they will invent one. Works every time.

Precedent is only one part of it, however issues do arise where there is no written constitution as was evident by the 2017 Supreme Court case over weather or not Parliament had to vote on Article 50. As was clear a lack of a codified constitution leaves questions over what the Government can or can not do with or without Parliament approval.

It is interesting to note that long before Brexit the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee undertook a 5 year study on the requirement for a codified written constitution and a public consultation overwhelmingly supported one.

In March 2015 Graham Allen as chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee stated:

A refreshed Parliament will collate your further ideas on a codified constitution and, when our political leaders are ready, they will have a ready-crafted document and set of responses to help them to deliver to the British people - should they wish it - a codified constitution of their choice.

Still waiting for that codified constitution...

First Up

GM228 wrote:

No matter what happens I'm sure a lot of people will blame the EU for everything.

The EU could care less.

Imreoir2

Shelga wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0308/1035221-brexit-barnier/

What the hell? That reads to me like the EU capitulating at the last minute, after all that??

But it’s unclear- does he mean that NI would have to remain in the customs union?

That's the idea, why should the EU care if the Brexiteers can spin this as an EU capitulation, as long as the EU gets what it wanted from the start.