Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

looksee wrote: »

And why would that be?

Here is the PSNI 'threatening' :rolleyes:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1207/925737-psni-border/

Senior PSNI officers have warned British MPs that a hard post-Brexit border would be an obvious area of attack for dissident republican terrorists.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons Brexit Committee in Co Armagh, the PSNI's Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris said any infrastructures along the border would give terror groups "a further rallying call to drive their recruitment."

"They have a focus on this. They see it as an opportunity.

How do ye reckon my bet that it won't happen is doing?

While chaotic, and that last day option was beaten by a good margin yesterday, it still feels plausible.

MrFresh

funkey_monkey wrote: »

https://twitter.com/instituteforgov/status/1112836458329640960

Why did SNP abstain on the CU option last night?

They're focusing on no Brexit options like the lib Dems aren't they?

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The only possible outcomes are the two options in the referendum, which would be (a) Remain, or (b) softer brexit than May's.

Can you point me to where the confirmatory vote put forward mentions any details of what question would be asked. The people putting it forward seem very quiet about it. One Tory MP asked yesterday given that people had already voted leave would the confirmatory vote be between an agreed deal and no deal. The MP putting forward the motion refused to agree or disagree to that if memory serves.

Edit - I see from further posts that you are just making your best guess. Fair enough but I don't think it's a certainty.

MPFGLB

funkey_monkey wrote: »

https://twitter.com/instituteforgov/status/1112836458329640960

Why did SNP abstain on the CU option last night?

Interestingly, there seems to be a core number of around 40 Tories who abstained on all votes. Do we know if that number was made up of a consistent core of MPs or if it was various names dropping in and out?

See the DUP voted 'No' to all options ...no change there ..they even voted 'No' to May's deal (3 times) and they said the other day (well one of them did ) that they would prefer to stay in EU than support Mays deal.....They are so constructive :rolleyes: especially after hanging out with the ERG for 2 years.
Ulster is still saying 'No' to everything as per

Water John

I think Letwin is holding off until next Monday and giving Cooper a run tomorrow. If she is successful they will push a Bill through, instructing the PM.

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd honestly be reconsidering my SF vote up north. I don't know the dynamics all that well but I'd want my voice heard.

I don't want SF to go to the Commons. Just talking future.

It's the same party in the republic, are you considering your SF vote here?

ShooterSF

A valid point made is even if say CU gets a small majority and May decides to take it up can we trust them to continue to support it as it gets fleshed out and negotiated. Whats to say 6 months into an extension that some MPs don't dislike the deal that is being negotiated and we're back to square one. If an abstract idea which is going to be subject to compromise with the EU has little support before hand it seems plausible that we get an agreement and again the HOC shoots it down.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's the same party in the republic, are you considering your SF vote here?

I'd never vote for SF. I was talking about their voters up North who could be worried about Brexit.

blanch152

MPFGLB wrote: »

See the DUP voted 'No' to all options ...no change there ..they even voted 'No' to May's deal (3 times) and they said the other day (well one of them did ) that they would prefer to stay in EU than support Mays deal.....They are so constructive :rolleyes: especially after hanging out with the ERG for 2 years.
Ulster is still saying 'No' to everything as per

Parties from the North just don't get it, they are in a world of their own.

Anteayer

ShooterSF wrote: »

A valid point made is even if say CU gets a small majority and May decides to take it up can we trust them to continue to support it as it gets fleshed out and negotiated. Whats to say 6 months into an extension that some MPs don't dislike the deal that is being negotiated and we're back to square one. If an abstract idea which is going to be subject to compromise with the EU has little support before hand it seems plausible that we get an agreement and again the HOC shoots it down.

I suspect what would happen is that no matter what's put on the table it will become a focus for Euro-hatred. All these proposals do is change the focus.

We've gone form raging against the EU in general, to raging against the backstop, then it would be raging against the customs union and demanding they aren't free enough to negotiate their own totally independent trade deals without any EU issues at all.

I think realistically at this stage, nothing is going to satisfy the hardliners other than a complete exit in a chaotic manner.

Even the pro-EU MPs are proposing so called 'soft brexits' that are complete cake-and-eat-it stuff absolutely laced with exceptionalism and one-sided opt-outs tat would be rather difficult for the EU to accept.

The consequences of that will be severe, but as much as I hate what it might do to Northern Ireland, I think these parties, including the DUP need to actually experience their own policies. I don't think this hardcore Euro-bashing can be resolved unless its outcome is actually lived by the population.

It might bring about a united Ireland too. Who knows!

I think Ireland will survive it, it'll be bumpy but we may even do fairly well out of it in the end by being positioned as the only significant English speaking EU member and being a US-EU bridge in may ways.

There comes a point where you just have to accept the reality that they're not really negotiating with anyone other than themselves and this farce is just going to go on and on and on until someone pulls the plug.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Can you point me to where the confirmatory vote put forward mentions any details of what question would be asked. The people putting it forward seem very quiet about it. One Tory MP asked yesterday given that people had already voted leave would the confirmatory vote be between an agreed deal and no deal. The MP putting forward the motion refused to agree or disagree to that if memory serves.

Edit - I see from further posts that you are just making your best guess. Fair enough but I don't think it's a certainty.

Oh, I agree. It's just a fairly speculative stab at what kind of "merger" of anti-hard-Brexit positions might assemble a majority, based on the votes so far, and how it might play out if it did.

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBF, it is on the only legacy she can possibly achieve at this stage. Her time as PM will be remembered as totally ineffective, save for Brexit.

So does she leave with the Brexit question put back onto the converoy belt of take the risk that a No Deal won't be as bad as expected. She will be saved from any negative effects regardless, so it is probably worth the risk and she will at least have achieved something.

I'm not sure if crashing out of the EU without a deal would be much of a legacy, but I take your point. I've said it many times, but her biggest mistake has been pandering to the DUP and ERG for the last two years, instead of trying to work across the House to achieve compromise. And she's still doing it.

blanch152

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm not sure if crashing out of the EU without a deal would be much of a legacy, but I take your point. I've said it many times, but her biggest mistake has been pandering to the DUP and ERG for the last two years, instead of trying to work across the House to achieve compromise. And she's still doing it.

I don't think that Labour were prepared to compromise at any stage. Corbyn wants power, even if it is a ruined rump England that he is in charge of.

PropJoe10

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think that Labour were prepared to compromise at any stage. Corbyn wants power, even if it is a ruined rump England that he is in charge of.

Labour are highly disorganised and hypocritical, but she should've at least reached out to find out what they might support. They do have proposals that could get some support in the House, but she totally ignored everyone and ploughed on regardless with a minority government. Crazy.

Anteayer

If you look at this from the EU perspective, which is our perspective as an EU member, what exactly are the UK bringing to the table?

You've a large % of the political spectrum over there hurling abuse at the EU or demanding that it bend to their will and turn itself inside out with reforms that seem to be nothing to do with a discussion, but just a list of demands.

Then you've other politicians actually threatening to dismantle it or otherwise damage it.

They've consistently undermined the development of the Eurozone and anything to do with regulation that might help it stablise because it threatened the dominance of the City of London wild west of modern capitalism.

I just don't really see what they're offering? "Let us have access to your markets so that we can undermine your members by refusing to play by any of the rules?"

They're showing the EU absolutely no solidarity whatsoever, just a whole load of hostility and outright hatred, the vast majority of which is based on nothing other than irrational nationalism.

Even their attitude towards Ireland has been appalling. They're showing scant regard for the hugely delicate situation in Northern Ireland, we've had MPs threaten to cut off our food supply, been told to "know our place" and that's just a few examples of the kind of snide nonsense being hurled our direction.
It's really not much of an offer.

Amirani

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think that Labour were prepared to compromise at any stage. Corbyn wants power, even if it is a ruined rump England that he is in charge of.

They've shifted to compromise mode of late in fairness to them. The Tories haven't budged.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I agree. It's just a fairly speculative stab at what kind of "merger" of anti-hard-Brexit positions might assemble a majority, based on the votes so far, and how it might play out if it did.

But do the parliament have the authority to word a referendum? Genuinely asking. My view would be TM would say confirmatory vote on the deal = Yes vs No and if no the govt will look at alternatives. Rather than offering remain or no deal to the people. She'd have some right to say it too as the motion put forward was not a "second referendum" or a "people's vote". Then again I'm lost as to why they didn't just table one of those as they aren't going to get many Tory votes anyway and it would have had a stronger right to put remain on a ballot.

Anteayer

To be fair, Angela has been pretty neutral on this and has been backing Ireland's position. I think the German centrist perspective is that concept of the EU is far more important than short term business concerns and that the UK will probably end up buying German products one way or the other anyway. They're not exactly price sensitive and people tend to buy them regardless.

There's been a constant UK notion that the Germans would somehow just knock the EU into the British way of thinking to protect German car exports to the UK. That seems to be a theory that's being repeatedly disproven as the Germans see the value of the EU institutions, particularly given their own history and the sense that the stability of Europe's of primary importance.

BorneTobyWilde

Has to be a compromise, May's deal is rejected time and time again. Why can't she give a little and add a customs union to her deal and pass the thing.

Strazdas

Anteayer wrote: »

If you look at this from the EU perspective, which is our perspective as an EU member, what exactly are the UK bringing to the table?

You've a large % of the political spectrum over there hurling abuse at the EU or demanding that it bend to their will and turn itself inside out with reforms that seem to be nothing to do with a discussion, but just a list of demands.

Then you've other politicians actually threatening to dismantle it or otherwise damage it.

They've consistently undermined the development of the Eurozone and anything to do with regulation that might help it stablise because it threatened the dominance of the City of London wild west of modern capitalism.

I just don't really see what they're offering? "Let us have access to your markets so that we can undermine your members by refusing to play by any of the rules?"

They're showing the EU absolutely no solidarity whatsoever, just a whole load of hostility and outright hatred, the vast majority of which is based on nothing other than irrational nationalism.

Even their attitude towards Ireland has been appalling. They're showing scant regard for the hugely delicate situation in Northern Ireland, we've had MPs threaten to cut off our food supply, been told to "know our place" and that's just a few examples of the kind of snide nonsense being hurled our direction.
It's really not much of an offer.

Yes indeed. They've gone from being a bit of a nuisance to an outright vandal and disruptor - much worse than the Greek government at the time of the bailout.

It's a country that has been hijacked by nationalists and populists.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think that Labour were prepared to compromise at any stage. Corbyn wants power, even if it is a ruined rump England that he is in charge of.

Labour are a unionist party because without their seats in Scotland and Wales they don't have a chance of governing. That will colour their judgement somewhat.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Parties from the North The DUP just don't get it, they are in a world of their own.

Fixed your post.

You really need to tone down your hate for SF. It's getting as bad as me with Kerry during the championship. At least mine is a valid hate.

I don't know how you propose that UUP, SDLP or Alliance vote with no seats.

Any interest in telling us what you think of Sylvia Hermon's voting during the last 2 weeks?

Peregrinus

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Why did SNP abstain on the CU option last night?

Because they're holding out for no Brexit or, failing that, a Brexit which preserves FoM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Interestingly, there seems to be a core number of around 40 Tories who abstained on all votes. Do we know if that number was made up of a consistent core of MPs or if it was various names dropping in and out?

The bulk of them - I think 28 - were subject to Cabinet whipping to abstain on all indicative votes. Another one or two would probably be accounted for by being deputy speakers - the deputy speakers don't vote. And possibly some were paired due to illness or absence for other reasons. But there could be a few who are just a-plague-on-all-your-houses merchants.

The Guardian has a list of how ever MP voted on every motion, but going through it to identify the non-Cabinet Tories who abstained on everything is left as an exercise for the student.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Fixed your post.

You really need to tone down your hate for SF. It's getting as bad as me with Kerry during the championship. At least mine is a valid hate.

I don't know how you propose that UUP, SDLP or Alliance vote with no seats.

Any interest in telling us what you think of Sylvia Hermon's voting during the last 2 weeks?

I'll agree with you on Kerry.

Yes, Sylvia Hermon has shown what a moderate Northern Ireland politician can bring to the table.

Strazdas

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Has to be a compromise, May's deal is rejected time and time again. Why can't she give a little and add a customs union to her deal and pass the thing.

The party. Half the cabinet and party want a soft Brexit.....the other half want the hardest of Brexits / No Deal

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Parties from the North just don't get it, they are in a world of their own.

It is a 'world of their own'. In fact it is unique in the EU as it takes an international agreement between two governments to make sure (or to try and make sure) that it is governed.
It is SO unique that it is rocking the very foundations of the UK.

MikeSoys

..i see now remainders are planning to implement a law to block a no deal...

Anteayer

MikeSoys wrote: »

..i see now remainders are planning to implement a law to block a no deal...

It doesn't really achieve anything though. The house votes against no deal, but the UK can't put anything else on the table, so you'd end up with a drop out on the 12th anyway.

Hurrache

MikeSoys wrote: »

..i see now remainders are planning to implement a law to block a no deal...

Unless they agree to a deal, it's the default.