Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

Infini wrote: »

To be fair to both Barnier and Guy they both are in the unenviable position of both being right.

I would say though that this extention is the UKs last chance as Frances frustrations are not without merit and theres gonna come a point where their frustrations become too much to bear without a significant shift from the UK.

If the EU had refused an extension on April 10th, then the UK would have to decide from the three options - Revoke, crash, or agree the WA.

It would be risky forcing that position.

By extending, they have removed Crash-out. The longer it goes on, the more likely Revoke becomes. Everyone - I mean everyone - is fed up with it, and many just want it to end.

Sam Russell

Shelga wrote: »

“No deal is better than a bad deal”- can this now go down in the history books as one of the most stupid and untrue utterances by any UK PM ever?

I think 'Peace in our time' will take a lot of beating.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think 'Peace in our time' will take a lot of beating.

I disagree. At the time, the head of a sovereign state had signed an accord pledging no further hostilities.

Theresa May is effectively using the threat of economic catastrophe and ruin to scare MP's to vote for her solution to a crisis which was entirely a creation of her party.

Strazdas

Shelga wrote: »

“No deal is better than a bad deal”- can this now go down in the history books as one of the most stupid and untrue utterances by any UK PM ever?

An interesting point is that "No deal" wasn't on anybody's radar until placed there by Theresa May (at the time of the 2017 general election). An analysis of Google searches shows that the expression wasn't mentioned at all by anyone in the year after the referendum.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. At the time, the head of a sovereign state had signed an accord pledging no further hostilities.

Theresa May is effectively using the threat of economic catastrophe and ruin to scare MP's to vote for her solution to a crisis which was entirely a creation of her party.

The equivalent line to "peace in our time" would be if the EU had been the ones promising the unicorns and extra cake.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think 'Peace in our time' will take a lot of beating.

A lot of historians reckon poor old Chamberlain has been hard done by in the history books. He was an honourable and decent man and didn't realise just what a villain and lunatic he was dealing with. The penny only dropped in March 1939 when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Being honourable and decent and a gentleman should not necessarily be seen as a weakness.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

An interesting point is that "No deal" wasn't on anybody's radar until placed there by Theresa May (at the time of the 2017 general election). An analysis of Google searches shows that the expression wasn't mentioned at all by anyone in the year after the referendum.

Neither was Revoke until the ECJ put it there last November.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

A lot of historians reckon poor old Chamberlain has been hard done by in the history books. He was an honourable and decent man and didn't realise just what a villain and lunatic he was dealing with. The penny only dropped in March 1939 when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Being honourable and decent and a gentleman should not necessarily be seen as a weakness.

I agree, but weakness and stupidity are not equivalent.

Also, Britain was not ready for war, and would not have done well in Sep 1938. They did not do well in 1939 either, and by June 1940 they were preparing to fight on the beaches with pitch forks.

The only thing that saved them was their ability to build Spitfires faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down, and they could shoot down the 109s faster than they could be replaced. It was a close run thing.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

If they take the piss, the EU will never agree another one.

Of course the EU will agree another extension. Make this one 2 years.


They can dither as long as they like, the big cost to the EU comes if they ever actually leave, so letting them delay and extend is money in our pockets.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I agree, but weakness and stupidity are not equivalent.

Also, Britain was not ready for war, and would not have done well in Sep 1938. They did not do well in 1939 either, and by June 1940 they were preparing to fight on the beaches with pitch forks.

The only thing that saved them was their ability to build Spitfires faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down, and they could shoot down the 109s faster than they could be replaced. It was a close run thing.

In any event, many people in Europe in 1938 didn't realise just how dangerous Hitler was. The idea of the whole continent going up in flames and six million Jews being murdered would have seemed unthinkable to most people. Chamberlain and many others thought they were dealing with a straightforward dictator type who could be contained.

Enzokk

Seeing as not much Brexit related news will be coming through for the foreseeable future, I found this article interesting about how the Home Office is still not relenting on its hostile environment. This should send a shiver down the spine of anyone that will need to apply for permission in the UK if this is allowed to continue.

Court castigates Home Office over misuse of immigration law

The appeal court has issued a damning judgment criticising the Home Office’s use of a terrorism-related paragraph of immigration law as “legally flawed” and ruling it must be changed.

The Guardian has repeatedly highlighted the Home Office’s use of the rule – designed in part to tackle terrorism – to refuse applications from hundreds of people for making legal amendments to their tax records.

The department has tried to force at least 300 highly skilled migrants to leave the UK under paragraph 322(5), with a further 87 having left and another 400 potentially affected, between January 2015 and May 2018.

The court of appeal has examined four of these cases in depth. The immediate result of its 60-page judgment is that one of these cases has been quashed while the other three will be allowed to appeal, including one in which the court said there was “at least arguably, a distinct unlawfulness, in that the secretary of state failed to make an explicit finding of dishonesty”.

But the wider impact of the judgment is the court’s finding that the “general approach [by the home secretary, Sajid Javid] in all earnings discrepancy cases [has been] legally flawed” and must change. Criticism of the Home Office’s use of the clause has become part of the wider debate over the “hostile environment” and a target-based culture that also gave rise to the Windrush scandal.

So basically the Home Office, under leadership one of the potential new candidates for PM, was using a clause to assume that if the applicants needed to amend their tax records on their application that they are doing it because they were dishonest and thus were refused automatically and were asked to leave the UK.

Many of those affected had lived in the UK for a decade or more and have British-born children. Some were given 14 days to leave and were no longer eligible for a visa to visit the UK or any other country. Those who appeal face severe restrictions on their right to work, have a bank account, hold a driving licence or access free NHS treatment while they do so.

So I am a little uneasy about who would take over from May if she left. Javid has been mentioned as a potential successor and if anything he is as extreme or even more extreme than May in regards to the treatment of migrants to the UK. We are talking about high skilled workers here as well and you shudder to think what they will do with the unskilled workers if they have their way.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

I am bored of Brexit at this stage but still keep reading this thread because it is very insightful and entertaining. You guys are very well informed and provide excellent discussion points.

But this could drag on for years and years. I reckon Brexit is dead at this point. Will never happen. It is undeliverable and the sooner it is over the sooner we can move on. I am not sure canceling it is a good idea though. I think Britian needs a good dose of cold hard reality.

jochenstacker

Strazdas wrote: »

In any event, many people in Europe in 1938 didn't realise just how dangerous Hitler was. The idea of the whole continent going up in flames and six million Jews being murdered would have seemed unthinkable to most people. Chamberlain and many others thought they were dealing with a straightforward dictator type who could be contained.

I fully agree. A lot of people today lack four dimensional thinking and look at Hitler from a post war perspective.
They never consider that, before the war, he was a democratically elected head of state. They knew he was a firebrand, but it was seen as all talk, no action.
After all, there were right controls against German rearmament.
Nobody knew the depths of his insanity and desperation.

Roger_007

Lucia Witty Quarterfinal wrote: »

I am bored of Brexit at this stage but still keep reading this thread because it is very insightful and entertaining. You guys are very well informed and provide excellent discussion points.

But this could drag on for years and years. I reckon Brexit is dead at this point. Will never happen. It is undeliverable and the sooner it is over the sooner we can move on. I am not sure canceling it is a good idea though. I think Britian needs a good dose of cold hard reality.

Some sort of Brexit will happen. I think that at this stage, after all the bulsh1t that has gone on, I would guess that most of the EU nations don't want the UK to be a full member any more. They are too disruptive.
Also, the Brits can hardly go back to the EU and say that, actually, they won't be leaving after all. That would be the ultimate humiliation in their eyes. So they have got to go now no matter what. It's just a matter of the terms.
I would guess that they will go for a customs union and close alignment to the single market, i.e. something close to the Norway option.
Revoking Article 50 altogether is not an option imo.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

So I am a little uneasy about who would take over from May if she left. Javid has been mentioned as a potential successor and if anything he is as extreme or even more extreme than May in regards to the treatment of migrants to the UK. We are talking about high skilled workers here as well and you shudder to think what they will do with the unskilled workers if they have their way.

The attitude has been - no real barrier to entry but you have to go home before you claim any benefits, so the rich can stay.

The £30K figure is really £20,800 if you use the New Entrant loophole. Something something short term visas for Bulgarian fruit pickers.

But the UK has always has complete control on non-EU workers so it's as much a Brexit issue as the Blue Passports that the UK also has full control over.

Robert McGrath

jochenstacker wrote: »

I fully agree. A lot of people today lack four dimensional thinking and look at Hitler from a post war perspective.
They never consider that, before the war, he was a democratically elected head of state. They knew he was a firebrand, but it was seen as all talk, no action.
After all, there were right controls against German rearmament.
Nobody knew the depths of his insanity and desperation.

To say nothing of the fact that the carnage of WWI would still have been fresh in Chamberlain’s mind. Avoiding another major European conflict and the bloodshed that would cause was a noble aim.

Lemming

Enzokk wrote: »

So basically the Home Office, under leadership one of the potential new candidates for PM, was using a clause to assume that if the applicants needed to amend their tax records on their application that they are doing it because they were dishonest and thus were refused automatically and were asked to leave the UK.

So I am a little uneasy about who would take over from May if she left. Javid has been mentioned as a potential successor and if anything he is as extreme or even more extreme than May in regards to the treatment of migrants to the UK. We are talking about high skilled workers here as well and you shudder to think what they will do with the unskilled workers if they have their way.

In 'fairness', the above situation was already policy and occurring before either Rudd or Javid took office. That it was allowed to continue however; is on them. The architect and implementer of all of this remains Theresa May herself. Javid has shown his colours with the Begum situation in leaving the state exposed to a legal challenge in haste to make himself appear 'tough' on matters security before a potential leadership bid commences; i.e. he's an opportunist populist and as bad as Johnson in that regard albeit perhaps a little more discrete about it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Neither was Revoke until the ECJ put it there last November.

Revoke was always there, the ECJ just formalised it

June 2016 post by me
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=100184439

Spanish Eyes

Not a word from anyone about Brexit lately from all fora I watch. Sigh of relief all round I think.

Obviously few want it now. Be interesting to see what happens.

There is a review in June though I think.

Strazdas

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Not a word from anyone about Brexit lately from all fora I watch. Sigh of relief all round I think.

Obviously few want it now. Be interesting to see what happens.

There is a review in June though I think.

It's interesting how Brexit has been virtually ditched by the British media. Once the UK went past March 29th and then April 12th and was still in the EU, it seems to have deflated the Brexit bubble. The Brexiteers had set great store in leaving on March 29th and would appear to have suffered a major defeat in it not happening.

briany

Roger_007 wrote: »

Some sort of Brexit will happen. I think that at this stage, after all the bulsh1t that has gone on, I would guess that most of the EU nations don't want the UK to be a full member any more. They are too disruptive.
Also, the Brits can hardly go back to the EU and say that, actually, they won't be leaving after all. That would be the ultimate humiliation in their eyes. So they have got to go now no matter what. It's just a matter of the terms.
I would guess that they will go for a customs union and close alignment to the single market, i.e. something close to the Norway option.
Revoking Article 50 altogether is not an option imo.

British MPs are majority against a no deal, and they cannot agree on a deal they do want (at the time of writing, anyway). If that continues then all that is left is to remain.

It's not an humiliation by default for the UK to revoke. If they decide to revoke due to a second referendum, that would not be an humiliation. Even if it was a humiliation, the UK's reticence to take no deal suggests humiliation isn't even the worst option.

Also, depending on your viewpoint, every option open to the UK amounts to a humiliation. The red tops will call a revocation or accepting of the current WA an humiliation. More left wing press would call the economic maelstrom of a no deal an humiliation. It's a question of what flavour the country chooses.

murphaph

I think the EU's (especially Tusk's) policy of "containment" and damage limitation is the correct one, for now. We must see what sort of people the UK electorate sends to Brussels to represent them (I'm almost certain they will do so) and then react accordingly. If the British electorate send a bunch of Brexit Party MEPs we should give them what they want and show them the door as soon as we are moderately ready. If they have a good turnout and elect mostly pro-EU MEPs who work with us then we should clearly see that as a sign or even a cry for help and look at further delay of Brexit if requested to further assist in its death of natural causes.

ilovesmybrick

US politicians and Brexiteers clash on ‘concocted Border issue’

There appears to be literally no one that can get through the ERG's insane perspectives on the border. Are they now going to extend their "enemies of the people" narrative to house democrats? I'm honestly not sure what the sixth month extension can achieve when you still have the ERG spreading their nonsensical, toxic views into the public discourse and nothing being done to rein them in, or no sign of perspectives and views maturing/developing/softening. I actually think that a lot of them know that it's utter bull, but it serves their purposes to continue pushing it and as long as that continues, and with incredibly poor leaders in both the government and opposition, we will be at the same impasse come October.

Leroy42

I agree with murphaph's point about the EU elections is the next staging post in Brexit. If UKIP/Brexit party gain in the elections then the UK will be out come 31 October. If pro-Brexit MEPS are returned then it will signal a shift in public opinion and note the failure of ERG and we will see a softening.

Roger_007

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

US politicians and Brexiteers clash on ‘concocted Border issue’

There appears to be literally no one that can get through the ERG's insane perspectives on the border. Are they now going to extend their "enemies of the people" narrative to house democrats? I'm honestly not sure what the sixth month extension can achieve when you still have the ERG spreading their nonsensical, toxic views into the public discourse and nothing being done to rein them in, or no sign of perspectives and views maturing/developing/softening. I actually think that a lot of them know that it's utter bull, but it serves their purposes to continue pushing it and as long as that continues, and with incredibly poor leaders in both the government and opposition, we will be at the same impasse come October.

I think that JRM did a lot of damage to the image of the ERG cause when he did a u-turn on voting for the WA at the third time of asking. He had previously described the WA as tantamount to making the UK a 'vassal state'.
He then advocated what amounted to political hooliganism by disrupting proceedings if the UK are still in when the next EU 7 year budget has to be decided.
Up to then JRM portrayed himself as highly principled and a cut above the rest of the ERG, with only the purest of motives. He exposed himself as just another opportunistic headbanger like Bone and Francois etc.

farmchoice

i think the UK local elections is the next BIG thing in brexit. if the tories take a hammering then they will have to stop the Euro elections. the only way they will be able to do this is to agreeing to what ever labour want.
then the question is what does labour want, we know they want a customs union but will Corbyn try and wriggle his way of of having a second referendum on the deal. it appears that the labour party at large want a second referendum but corbyn does not.

Leroy42

Excuse my ignorance, but why would the Tories losing MEP's make any real difference. I get the embarrassment bit, but on the whole the UK doesn't pay much attention to the type of MEP's it has and clearly many in the Tory party want the UK out of the EU so no harm losing a few seats that will never amount to anything anyway.

Tell me how

farmchoice wrote: »

i think the UK local elections is the next BIG thing in brexit. if the tories take a hammering then they will have to stop the Euro elections. the only way they will be able to do this is to agreeing to what ever labour want.
then the question is what does labour want, we know they want a customs union but will Corbyn try and wriggle his way of of having a second referendum on the deal. it appears that the labour party at large want a second referendum but corbyn does not.

You could argue that the UK as a whole wants a second referendum but Corbyn, May, the ERG and the DUP do not.

The ironic thing is that these groups are saying the democratic will of the people must be upheld.

farmchoice

Tell me how wrote: »

You could argue that the UK as a whole wants a second referendum but Corbyn, May, the ERG and the DUP do not.

The ironic thing is that these groups are saying the democratic will of the people must be upheld.

the thing is, if corbyn and may come to an agreement on the WA and the PD and labour get some guarantees about protecting their deal in the future how would labor campaign in any future confirmatory referendum. they can hardly campaign against the deal they have just hammered out? logically they would have to campaign to support it. on the face of it this would split the labour party as much as such as agreeing any deal with corbyn will split the tories.
so it appears to be be in both their interests not to agree a deal, except that means holding EU elections so back to square 1 for the tories.

L1011

farmchoice wrote: »

i think the UK local elections is the next BIG thing in brexit. if the tories take a hammering then they will have to stop the Euro elections. the only way they will be able to do this is to agreeing to what ever labour want.
then the question is what does labour want, we know they want a customs union but will Corbyn try and wriggle his way of of having a second referendum on the deal. it appears that the labour party at large want a second referendum but corbyn does not.

The only way they can stop the Euro elections is by leaving before them - 21 days to get an agreement passed in that scenario. So its not happening.