Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I heard on the news a while back that Ann Widdecombe will be a candidate for The Brexit Party. Why is she joining this party instead of remaining on as a conservative? Is she profoundly fed up with parliamentary Brexit vote disaster with the Tories?

She says that the Tories are a disaster but also says Labour are a disaster and she thinks the entire political system is a shambles. People have raised their eyebrows though that she is throwing in her lot with Farage of all people.

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

That assumes (a) candidates will run on a leave/stay platform (b) there is a large enough majority - from a large enough turnout - to signify overwhelming public demand to re-visit the decision (c) that the entrenched Brexiteers in government and parliament would give a hoot and (d) that some route could be found through the labyrinth of ideology, opportunism and party politics to generate either cabinet consensus or a majority in the HoC to agree to it.

Good luck with any or all of that.

Sure, but there will never be one moment that changes the way Westminster thinks. It usually takes time for politicians to change the direction they are headed and it is no different with Brexit, but once they see that the majority of people are for staying in the EU they will follow that path. So it will be about slightly changing the opinion of politicians.

As for the platforms, Labour should this coming week confirm they are for at least a second referendum as per the position reached last year at the Labour conference. The Libdems, Greens and Change are all for a very soft Brexit at worst or no Brexit at best. So all of these parties should be campaigning together as they would share a similar outlook on Brexit at least.

Kermit.de.frog

Brexit may lead to Scottish independence but from a selfish point of view I'd rather they remained part of UK.

I remember David McWilliams making the point that on day one of an independent Scotland they would implement the IDA handbook on FDI which would not be good for us.

As part of the UK they are constrained.

So, while I understand their arguments for independence it would probably be better for us if they remain.

Plus independence would destabilise the north.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Brexit may lead to Scottish independence but from a selfish point of view I'd rather they remained part of UK.

I remember David McWilliams making the point that on day one of an independent Scotland they would implement the IDA handbook on FDI which would not be good for us.

As part of the UK they are constrained.

So, while I understand their arguments for independence it would probably be better for us if they remain.

Plus independence would destabilise the north.

I said it many times in this thread, we can veto their membership and should. They are an economic threat to us.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

As for the platforms, Labour should this coming week confirm they are for at least a second referendum as per the position reached last year at the Labour conference.

It's completely ludicrous if they can't even get this point straight. His party might be for it, but Corbyn obviously isn't. The very mention of a 2nd referendum seems to stick in his throat. The result is that his party will probably dilly-dally on the matter until it's too late to reasonably hold one again, anyway.

It could well be Remain's downfall that support for it is spread across the two main parties plus a handful of smaller ones. Leave support is spread in the same type of way, except it's got committees and charismatic individuals to organise things. Plus I think the ERG and the Brexit party can find themselves much more in alignment than the Lib Dems and the left-wing of the Conservatives could. If the UK does tumble off the cliff, history could judge that the mistake made by Remain was not to coalesce into one effective opposition to the process of Brexit, while Brexit itself was floundering with lie after lie being exposed.

S.M.B.

Sounds like Labour aren't going to back a second referendum next week as they believe not so won't really damage them to any great extent.

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

Sure, but there will never be one moment that changes the way Westminster thinks. It usually takes time for politicians to change the direction they are headed and it is no different with Brexit, but once they see that the majority of people are for staying in the EU they will follow that path. So it will be about slightly changing the opinion of politicians.

The European elections won't provide evidence that the majority are for staying because not enough candidates will run on that platform and even if they did, the results won't be decisive enough to let them claim it.

And even if they were, Brexiteers won't do a U-turn just on that basis. They will cling to the referendum result as the "true" expression of the "will of the people".

The European elections are a side-show. The rest of the EU is suffering the UK's participation to tick a legal/technical box. The like of Farage will act the maggot as usual until they are waved off.

The EU has moved on.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

It's completely ludicrous if they can't even get this point straight. His party might be for it, but Corbyn obviously isn't. The very mention of a 2nd referendum seems to stick in his throat. The result is that his party will probably dilly-dally on the matter until it's too late to reasonably hold one again, anyway.

It could well be Remain's downfall that support for it is spread across the two main parties plus a handful of smaller ones. Leave support is spread in the same type of way, except it's got committees and charismatic individuals to organise things. Plus I think the ERG and the Brexit party can find themselves much more in alignment than the Lib Dems and the left-wing of the Conservatives could. If the UK does tumble off the cliff, history could judge that the mistake made by Remain was not to coalesce into one effective opposition to the process of Brexit, while Brexit itself was floundering with lie after lie being exposed.

I read somewhere someone said it is basically almost all of the unions, MPs and the membership against the leadership and Len McCluskey. Logically we know what should happen.

First Up wrote: »

The European elections won't provide evidence that the majority are for staying because not enough candidates will run on that platform and even if they did, the results won't be decisive enough to let them claim it.

And even if they were, Brexiteers won't do a U-turn just on that basis. They will cling to the referendum result as the "true" expression of the "will of the people".

The European elections are a side-show. The rest of the EU is suffering the UK's participation to tick a legal/technical box. The like of Farage will act the maggot as usual until they are waved off.

The EU has moved on.

I agree that the elections is not a re-run of the referendum, but it could provide an indication if there is a big enough turnout. If there isn't and the Brexit Party has a big majority it doesn't say much. I guess it depends on the turnout to know if we could take it seriously.

BonnieSituation

judeboy101 wrote: »

I said it many times in this thread, we can veto their membership and should. They are an economic threat to us.

You have also said that we are getting thrown under the bus on many occasions. You consistently are proven wrong.

There is no way in hell we'd veto Scottish membership of the EU should that time come.

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

I agree that the elections is not a re-run of the referendum, but it could provide an indication if there is a big enough turnout. If there isn't and the Brexit Party has a big majority it doesn't say much. I guess it depends on the turnout to know if we could take it seriously.

They got a whopping 35% last time.

Just read this very interesting article:Marius S. Ostrowski, 'Gibraltar after Brexit: why Spain, not Ireland will decide the UK’s fate'

I don't see what Spain, or the EU, has to benefit by allowing the British to 'in effect turn Gibraltar into a de facto British toehold within the single market. This could potentially offer a neat solution that allows the main body of the UK to achieve a meaningful Brexit, while allowing British businesses to maintain European access and benefits essentially equivalent to continued EU membership.' What possible cards do the British have that would get them such a foothold?

Following on from the above, the writer would seem to be on the money about the balance of power regarding Gibraltar's future once Britain has left the EU:

As things stand, Spain is due to reap vast strategic benefits from Brexit on the Gibraltar question.... Up to now, since both Britain and Spain were members of the EU, the EU was forced to be a neutral arbiter whenever Spain escalated tensions over Gibraltar, such as by increasing border checks and queues. After Brexit, however, this restriction (and the UK’s leverage) will disappear, and the EU will be obliged to take the Spanish side. It is hard to see this having any other result than emboldening Spain to entrench around its red lines. In this light, the recent furore over Spain’s attempt to redesignate Gibraltar as a “colony” in EU legislation on visa-free travel after Brexit was merely the first shot across Britain’s bow.

Given that Gibraltar's population of 33,000 depends upon 10,000 Spaniards crossing the border each day, as well as a favourable tax relationship with the EU, the veto which the Gibraltar government has since 2006 on the constitutional future is surely academic if it will struggle to exist without making major concessions to Spain?

How do you see Gibraltar impact upon Brexit, and where do you see its future in the next 10 or 15 years?

A Dub in Glasgo

judeboy101 wrote: »

I said it many times in this thread, we can veto their membership and should. They are an economic threat to us.

You have said a lot of things on here that is up there with the fairies

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you see Gibraltar impact upon Brexit, and where do you see its future in the next 10 or 15 years?

Many crown dependencies are tax havens.

So they'll no longer have the UK veto to protect them from EU rules that will affect how companies working in the EU can use them to avoid tax. Don't forget Apple's €13Bn fine.

It's not just Gibraltar. It's all those UK dependencies that don't have a separate EU deal.

An Claidheamh

judeboy101 wrote: »

I said it many times in this thread, we can veto their membership and should. They are an economic threat to us.

The UK is a security threat to us, it's about time Ireland engaged in realpolitik and break them up.

The whole a "United" Kingdom is better for us has been shown to be a lie with their unreliability, instability, jingoism and threats of economic war.

An Claidheamh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Many crown dependencies are tax havens.

So they'll no longer have the UK veto to protect them from EU rules that will affect how companies working in the EU can use them to avoid tax. Don't forget Apple's €13Bn fine.

It's not just Gibraltar. It's all those UK dependencies that don't have a separate EU deal.

London, Caymans and Gibraltar are three British tax havens - yet their media get their knickers in a twist over losing out to Dublin in healthy economic competition - worse are the Irish lackeys who share British Guardian articles about the latter.

Seth Brundle

An Claidheamh wrote: »

The UK is a security threat to us, it's about time Ireland engaged in realpolitik and break them up.

How would you suggest that we "break them up"?

An Claidheamh wrote: »

The whole a "United" Kingdom is better for us has been shown to be a lie with their unreliability, instability, jingoism and threats of economic war.

Despite the claims by some of the nutters in Westminster, we have been better off having the UK as a close trading partner than had there been a broken relationship there. Hopefully they remain a close trading partner for us.

As for any threats of economic war, they would not have been levelled towards Ireland but towards the EU as a whole! Anyone who would make such a threat doesn't understand how the EU works and should not be listened to.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Many crown dependencies are tax havens.

So they'll no longer have the UK veto to protect them from EU rules that will affect how companies working in the EU can use them to avoid tax. Don't forget Apple's €13Bn fine.

It's not just Gibraltar. It's all those UK dependencies that don't have a separate EU deal.

The EU will come to these small semi-states and simply demand they follow EU tax rules - reporting and paying the new 'just around the corner' EU minimum tax.
EU has not had the time to deal with multiple problems with these small entities, but with the UK vote/veto gone and the new tax directive and a minimum tax-rate in the pipeline - Andorra, Monaco, the Crown dependencies and a few other can expect demands - in no uncertain terms - from the EU regarding many things during the coming decade.

If sovereignty turns out to be mostly about avoiding laws, minimising tax or even tax evasion - sovereignty will end up being crushed.

Lars

BonnieSituation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How would you suggest that we "break them up"?


Despite the claims by some of the nutters in Westminster, we have been better off having the UK as a close trading partner than had there been a broken relationship there. Hopefully they remain a close trading partner for us.

As for any threats of economic war, they would not have been levelled towards Ireland but towards the EU as a whole! Anyone who would make such a threat doesn't understand how the EU works and should not be listened to.

I don't think the feasibility of the threats are What's in question here, just the fact that they're even being made with the impunity with which they are.

Kermit.de.frog

Absolute gold from Sammy Wilson this morning

“There is a need to ensure that Northern Ireland maintains the ability to produce its own energy especially in light of the way in which the Irish government has used the threat of cutting off electricity supply during recent Brexit negotiations.“

What the hell is he talking about!?

Tell me how

The topic of BBC bias has been discussed already.

Watching their news show last night at ten, I was a bit dumbfounded at the tone of Katya Adler. She was in Spain for the results of their election yesterday in which the ruling Socialists Party won and are likely to form a coalition.

She started her report stating how there had been big gains for the right wing but it turned out that what had happened was that the former ruling conservative party had suffered big losses which meant that gains by the ultra conservative Vox had been at their cost.

It seemed to me that she seemed somewhat frustrated that the election hadn't result in a comprehensive shift towards conservatism.

I rewound and watched her report again and felt that maybe i had been judging her harshly the first time but also that actually, maybe not.

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Absolute gold from Sammy Wilson this morning.

What the hell is he talking about!?

He's slightly confused.

What he meant to say was that it was unacceptable for Priti Patel to suggest the threat of food shortages in Ireland should be considered as a reason to remove the backstop.

Hurrache

The Daily Express looks like it will be following the same editorial shift as the Daily Mail when it comes to Brexit and immigration.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1122750546698489856

VinLieger

Tell me how wrote: »

The topic of BBC bias has been discussed already.

Watching their news show last night at ten, I was a bit dumbfounded at the tone of Katya Adler. She was in Spain for the results of their election yesterday in which the ruling Socialists Party won and are likely to form a coalition.

She started her report stating how there had been big gains for the right wing but it turned out that what had happened was that the former ruling conservative party had suffered big losses which meant that gains by the ultra conservative Vox had been at their cost.

It seemed to me that she seemed somewhat frustrated that the election hadn't result in a comprehensive shift towards conservatism.

I rewound and watched her report again and felt that maybe i had been judging her harshly the first time but also that actually, maybe not.

Both her and Laura K have completely forgotten how to objectively report the facts of the news without laying their own bias on top of it

LuckyLloyd

Scotland are fully entitled to pursue their own national project, just like we have. They should have our full support when it comes to it.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Scotland are fully entitled to pursue their own national project, just like we have. They should have our full support when it comes to it.

The idea that we should veto an independent Scotland joining the EU is just absurd. What would we gain? The EU have stood shoulder to shoulder with Ireland. Ireland would expend significant political capital and sour relations with its EU counterparts for no gain whatsoever.

It's up there with this silly notion of Angela Merkel throwing the Irish under a bus to sell more Volkswagen Beetles to the British.

Seth Brundle

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Absolute gold from Sammy Wilson this morning

What the hell is he talking about!?

Maybe he is confusing the UK and Irish governments...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-could-end-cross-border-electricity-supply-british-government-warns-1.3661937

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The idea that we should veto an independent Scotland joining the EU is just absurd. What would we gain? The EU have stood shoulder to shoulder with Ireland. Ireland would expend significant political capital and sour relations with its EU counterparts for no gain whatsoever.

It's up there with this silly notion of Angela Merkel throwing the Irish under a bus to sell more Volkswagen Beetles to the British.

Also, Scotland could be a powerful ally for Ireland in the EU. The idea that they would be a 'rival' or 'competitor' is nonsense. Nicola Sturgeon was greeted like a rock star when she addressed the Seanad a year or two ago.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1122835456339607561


An expert rightfully dismissing nonsense from IDS.

Anteayer

There's a *HUGE* problem in the UK with people making these confidently expressed statements about highly technical topics without anything to back them up other than a posh accent.

If the media doesn't start asking follow up questions when someone makes a self-assured statement, the debate doesn't move on.

Fact checking is absolutely essential and fundamental to good journalism and I don't think it's been happening in England for some time.

Leroy42

I have no idea why IDS is continually given such airtime and treated as some supposed expert, or even a knowledgeable MP.

Hasn't he had a number of meetings with Barnier himself? What came out of those? Surely he should be asked why TM has been totally unable to get Barnier to agree to what, I assume, Barnier agreed with IDS about given that he continually tells everyone how easy it all should be.