Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

EKRIUQ wrote: »

I think they did know exactly what it meant, it was clearly stated on the ballot paper "Leave the European Union".

Yeah, that's exactly my point: Brexit means Brexit, Leave means Leave - "Leave the European Union" was never meant as anything more than a battle cry, because almost every supposed advantage of leaving the EU was either something they already had (e.g. intra-EU migration controls, blue passports, "sovereignty") or something irrelevant to EU membership (e.g. relocation of manufacturing to the Far East, Tory austerity measures, global financial crash).

The carry-on in the Westminster over the last few months has highlighted just how indefinable is the phrase "Leave the European Union" ... except, of course, that the EU has its own strict, legal, technocratic definition of the term, and that's the one the British were suddenly forced to accept when they voted "Leave".

Roger_007

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I dunno, he peers out from under those glasses in such a way that makes me think he's a difficult fecker when he wants to be. People are very quick to diminish someone who hung around as a pariah within his own party for 30 years before seizing control of it against the wishes of its parliamentary party and facing down two vociferous challenges to his leadership. He then placed his long held policy desires onto a manifesto, campaigned against the odds, and garnered 40% of the vote when he was polling as low as 25% ahead of the election.

Whether you love or loathe his policies, it is surely objectively obvious that he's a political cockroach at the very least.

I wonder how many people voted for Labour as a response to TM calling a needless election because of her arrogance in assuming that she would get an increased majority. I think that Labour's vote was, in part, a protest vote against TM rather than a positive vote for Corbyn. Most observers believed that Labour had no hope of winning and therefore it was safe enough to vote for them just to send a message to TM.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

IIRC (so much has happened since!), the EU had stated very clearly, and repeatedly that no negotiations could take place until the UK had invoked article 50. That is, the UK's future relationship outside the EU wasn't going to be discussed with them until they had formally said they were leaving.

With such an ultimatum on the table, of course the UK then moved to immediately invoke A50. One way or another they had to.

But what they forgot was that the EU's refusal to negotiate before A50, didn't mean the UK couldn't talk about it between themselves and decide what they wanted before deciding to leave. In effect what they did is hand in their notice before they started looking for another job.

And thus we ended up at that farcical photo of the EU negotiators in possession of stacks of documents with various data and proposals on them, across the table from the UK team, who were empty-handed.

That was the first, and probably most important, battle of Brexit between the UK and the EU. Before triggering A50, the UK had the advantage. They could trigger it whenever they liked, work behind the scenes to set the agenda etc.

Whilst TM did fail to stand up against the forces clamouring for it to be triggered, the question needs to be asked of those that were calling for it. The like of Johnson, Davis, the ERG all were demanding no delay. It now looks like a monumental error as it handed the initiative completely to the EU (it was always going to be the case but the UK could have prepared better).

The headlines and support around that time was fully in favour of the trigger. It is not as if TM just went out on her own.

Itssoeasy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Joining forces with the DUP was her biggest mistake.

Calling a snap election because of ego was her biggest mistake. Having to rely on the DUP was a consequence of that biggest mistake.

Infini

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Joining forces with the DUP was her biggest mistake.

The biggest mistake was even having a Brexit referendum to begin with and this is purely Camerons fault. He opened a can of worms by doing so then running off.

LuckyLloyd

Roger_007 wrote: »

I wonder how many people voted for Labour as a response to TM calling a needless election because of her arrogance in assuming that she would get an increased majority. I think that Labour's vote was, in part, a protest vote against TM rather than a positive vote for Corbyn. Most observers believed that Labour had no hope of winning and therefore it was safe enough to vote for them just to send a message to TM.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Going back to the campaign itself, it was clear to me that the hard sell to the British public of Corbyn as a dangerous dribbling buffoon backfired when he actually got front and centre on the campaign trail. He performed exceptionally well in the set piece televised pieces in the two weeks before the vote for example.

It has been said on this thread before many times, but the Overton window in British politics has changed. That means Brexit is a thing. It also means #forthemanynotthefew garnered %40 of the vote, up there with Blairism in its pomp. We need to start facing up to that reality, on both Brexit and social politics. People *are* voting differently. It cannot all be dismissed as a protest vote of different hues each time.

MikeSoys

gold spot price has jumped in the last day...all relating to brexit and when gold goes up its relating to uncertainty and the no deal ... Tories working with the trotskyite corbyn.. who would have guessed

Leroy42

EKRIUQ wrote: »

I think they did know exactly what it meant, it was clearly stated on the ballot paper "Leave the European Union".

Norway, Switzerland and others are not in the EU, so going with their type of deals meet the ref.

The problem is that many in the government, including TM, have decided that their version of what leave means is the one and only version and anybody that disagrees is a remoaner and a lover of the EU and thus by extension a hater of the UK.

The more pragmatic approach would have been to enter into talks with no red lines, see what the possibilities were. TBF, Barnier presented the slide right from the start.

TM should have taken that slide and gone around the country with it asking people what precise form of Brexit did they want, from the available options. Instead the UK simply ignored the options and decided that they were so important that the EU would simply tear up the rule books just for them.

I has said many times, in a vacuum this would probably have worked, clearly the EU would like to keep the UK as close as possible. But the EU need to take account of the remaining members and all those countries that currently have deals with them, and then by extension the countries that may decide to trade with the UK rather than directly with the EU.

Amirani

Roger_007 wrote: »

I wonder how many people voted for Labour as a response to TM calling a needless election because of her arrogance in assuming that she would get an increased majority. I think that Labour's vote was, in part, a protest vote against TM rather than a positive vote for Corbyn.

I think that is often the main reason for the outcome of an election. In Ireland for example, if Fianna Fail/Sinn Fein get into Government next time out, it will mostly because of an anti-FG vote. Same as FG coming into Government after Bertie & Cowen.

Dyr

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Labour MP on BBC news now saying that it's the will of 90% of Labour party members that there is a confirmatory vote on any deal... "it is our clear policy" so he couldn't imagine that Corbyn will agree to anything with May that isn't subject to a confirmatory vote.

So, potentially we could lose Corbyn from this as well if he agrees anything without confirmatory vote?

Labour MPs would be very foolish to play silly buggers like that given the Labour vote and memberships feelings on Brexit

MikeSoys

in the event of a no deal uk meat will be banned from being brought into the bloc - eu offiial earlier today

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Calling a snap election because of ego was her biggest mistake. Having to rely on the DUP was a consequence of that biggest mistake.

Not sure that is true. She was on a relatively slim majority (of course it looks practically epic based on what she ended up with!) and facing into some tough years of negotiation where she needed the majority of her party behind her.

SHe knew she was going to never get them all on board so needed as big a majority as possible and the polls suggested that she was massively popular and in contrast Labour and JC were not and were too busy fighting each other than an election.

Remember that JC was massively disliked by his own MP's.

Of course it all ended terribly and she proved to be a complete liability on the campaign but the underlying reasons made perfect sense.

VinLieger

MikeSoys wrote: »

in the event of a no deal uk meat will be banned from being brought into the bloc - eu offiial earlier today

Hardly surprising news, this has been public knowledge since the first time no deal was suggested. Once they are out of the EU as far as the EU is concerned nothing they produce can be verified to be produced in accordance with EU standards.

nice_guy80

MikeSoys wrote: »

in the event of a no deal uk meat will be banned from being brought into the bloc - eu offiial earlier today

how much beef/chicken does the UK export?

farmchoice

nice_guy80 wrote: »

how much beef/chicken does the UK export?

not a lot but it exports most of its lamb, if UK farmers lose the European market they are finished.


i saw an interview with a sheep farmer and his wife, they were young enough, in their 40's. he had voted remain as he saw the danger to his livelihood. his wife bizarrely had voted leave as she just wanted out and hadn't really considered her way of life as under threat, even as they stood there and discussed the calamitous effect a no deal brexit would have on her family she wasn't convinced that she should vote remain in another vote. she was truly as thick as sh1t.

pdev

The longer this debacle continues the greater the chance of a second referendum in my opinion.

Mr.Wemmick

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Who in their right mind would buy UK food post Brexit knowing it could potentially be contaminated and substandard.

Well, to be fair, the last scandal of substandard meat within the EU was in Ireland and Spain was it not? 2013/14, if I remember correctly.

There are honest, high standard farmers and meat producers in every country, UK included, and I do not think we should lose the run of ourselves and think all UK meat will be bad.

setanta1000

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

There are honest, high standard farmers and meat producers in every country, UK included, and I do not think we should lose the run of ourselves and think all UK meat will be bad.

But isn't that the point? We will have no way of knowing if the meat we are getting is from an honest high standard UK farmer or not if there aren't proper rules and checks on those rules.

L1011

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the last scandal of substandard meat within the EU was in Ireland and Spain was it not? 2013/14, if I remember correctly.

There are honest, high standard farmers and meat producers in every country, UK included, and I do not think we should lose the run of ourselves and think all UK meat will be bad.

It was first detected here, due to decent standards. The source was Romania in all cases I believe

The pork dioxin scandal was our own and also detected here first.

edit: the dioxin one was actually caused by an NI supplier.

josip

Leroy42 wrote: »

That was the first, and probably most important, battle of Brexit between the UK and the EU. Before triggering A50, the UK had the advantage. They could trigger it whenever they liked, work behind the scenes to set the agenda etc.

Whilst TM did fail to stand up against the forces clamouring for it to be triggered, the question needs to be asked of those that were calling for it. The like of Johnson, Davis, the ERG all were demanding no delay. It now looks like a monumental error as it handed the initiative completely to the EU (it was always going to be the case but the UK could have prepared better).

The headlines and support around that time was fully in favour of the trigger. It is not as if TM just went out on her own.

Johnson et al were terrified that the rationale for Brexit would not stand up to any kind of due diligence so they were pushing for what they thought at the time was an irrevocable step towards leaving.

They didn't care about handing any initiative to the EU. They were still fighting the remainers at that stage.

Mr.Wemmick

setanta1000 wrote: »

But isn't that the point? We will have no way of knowing if the meat we are getting is from an honest high standard UK farmer or not if there aren't proper rules and checks on those rules.

If they want to trade, they will need to have the same quality measurements. A no-brainer really.. one reason why Brexit is simply nuts.

A 2nd Ref. will turn it on its head.

Dubh Geannain

What are the numbers looking like if Corbyn and May reach an agreement. Obviously we don't know if they'll reach an agreement on anything yet.

For a start I assume the SNP and Lib Dems will vote No because they are opposed to Brexit in any form and can't be seen to facilitate it.
DUP will vote No because the WA is still in play although the backstop may not be needed at all if Common Travel, customs union etc. are penciled back in.
Labour defectors that were voting for May's deal initially. Would they prefer a crash out to the a watered down WA?
ERG would rather a crash out too. Those that May had won over initially in the Tories may swing back to a crash out preference as they want fewer ties not more.

Is it too early to be speculating like this?

An Ciarraioch

It appears May will make all preparations necessary for holding European elections, unless/until a departure before May 22nd becomes likely:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/03/brexit-latest-news-live-may-corbyn-meeting-barclay-says-remorseless-logic-of-commons-numbers-is-pushing-uk-towards-softer-brexit-live-news?page=with:block-5ca49df28f08b611124af019#block-5ca49df28f08b611124af019

jm08

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the last scandal of substandard meat within the EU was in Ireland and Spain was it not? 2013/14, if I remember correctly.

There are honest, high standard farmers and meat producers in every country, UK included, and I do not think we should lose the run of ourselves and think all UK meat will be bad.

The standards are only as good as the checks. The Irish inspectors discovered the issue with the horsemeat which was missed everywhere else in Europe (including UK).

Ireland's reputation was enhanced in the last scandal which proves again that disasters happen, its how you handle them that matters.

Edit: By the way, the (horse)meat was not substandard. It just wasn't what it was described as.

ShooterSF

pdev wrote: »

The longer this debacle continues the greater the chance of a second referendum in my opinion.

May has said she will seek a short extension till the end of May (the month, not her but could be both...) and I have doubts she gets it. If she's being genuine about compromise JC has said he wants a CU and protection of workers rights so maybe she'll promise that if the WA passes. What would be the brexiest thing to happen next given the past few years is a vote on the above where the hard brexit side of the Torys vote against and the hard remain side of labour do the same and the two leaders joint deal loses...

Water John

You cannot assume the SNP will vote against. They moved a lot and supported the WA + CU + SM in the indicative votes. They have been the most responsible and disciplined group of MPs in the HOC.

MadYaker

This move to talk with Corbyn has obviously enraged the right wing of her party. I wonder if Corbyn and May can't agree on anything could we see the ERG and Labour coming together to bring the government and trigger an election?

Professor Moriarty

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

What are the numbers looking like if Corbyn and May reach an agreement. Obviously we don't know if they'll reach an agreement on anything yet.

For a start I assume the SNP and Lib Dems will vote No because they are opposed to Brexit in any form and can't be seen to facilitate it.
DUP will vote No because the WA is still in play although the backstop may not be needed at all if Common Travel, customs union etc. are penciled back in.
Labour defectors that were voting for May's deal initially. Would they prefer a crash out to the a watered down WA?
ERG would rather a crash out too. Those that May had won over initially in the Tories may swing back to a crash out preference as they want fewer ties not more.

Is it too early to be speculating like this?

I think May and Corbyn won't come to an agreement. It will come down to binding indicative votes. No Deal and Remain won't fly. So, it will be the WA, CU or Norway +. The Lib Dems, Tigs and SNP will then have a choice to make and I think they will be king makers. May will try to predict which way the wind will blow and opt for a referendum on the top two if her WA is losing. So my prediction for an outcome is a referendum between the WA and Norway + with Norway + winning. This politics predicting is very easy stuff.

ShooterSF

MadYaker wrote: »

This move to talk with Corbyn has obviously enraged the right wing of her party. I wonder if Corbyn and May can't agree on anything could we see the ERG and Labour coming together to bring the government and trigger an election?

Can see the ERG for this but not labour. Taking the govt down now is a no deal brexit. There'd be no one to go to the EU to seek an extension

Water John

Word is the Govn't may adopt the Cooper Bill!!!