Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

eire4

sink wrote: »

I don't see any rational reason to be anti-commonwealth. It's a good opportunity for Ireland to enhance relations with many African and South Asian nations. We don't have strong economic ties with those regions, so there is a lot of room for expansion. There is absolutely no harm in it.

We can enhance relations with many Asian and African countries ourselves if we chose. We don't need the British to hold our hand to do it.

trashcan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

That line is a bit like the playground taunt of coward, to someone who doesnt want to fight.
Of course Leave could lose. So much better to hold onto your win than say , what tge hell, lets compete again. The problem is the Remainers marching and petitiining because they cant accept tge first result. This is what has poisoned tge leave negotiations and implementation of it - people still arguing like its 3 years ago. Both 'the people' and the commons.

The problem with that is that this isn't a game. It's not a football match as someone said earlier, or the Eurovision Song Contest. There are real implications for people's lives and livliehoods at stake here. I think it's fairly evident that three years ago an awful lot of people didn't appreciate fully what they were voting for three years ago. (Many still don't seem to) Having walked to the precipice and peered over now, shouldn't they be asked, "Are you sure you really want to jump ?"

Strazdas

sink wrote: »

I don't see any rational reason to be anti-commonwealth. It's a good opportunity for Ireland to enhance relations with many African and South Asian nations. We don't have strong economic ties with those regions, so there is a lot of room for expansion. There is absolutely no harm in it.

I'd be inclined to agree. Why is it okay for countries like India, Pakistan and Nigeria to be members of the Commonwealth and to be totally relaxed about it?

What's so special about us and why have we gotten it into our heads that the Commonwealth is somehow toxic?

Irish Praetorian

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I could be wrong but I don't think there was any opinion polls that had leave with a lead before the vote?

Try to live in the centre on things, extremests either side of divides are as bad as each other.

Not true, not true in a STARTLING way.

Also for everyone's benefit, the current polling would give Remain a 5-10 point lead over Leave, which hasn't really broken above evens for about a year now.

eire4

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree. Why is it okay for countries like India, Pakistan and Nigeria to be members of the Commonwealth and to be totally relaxed about it?

What's so special about us and why have we gotten it into our heads that the Commonwealth is somehow toxic?

Because they are thousands of Kilometer's away from Britain they do not have any part of their countries still ruled by Britain who during this whole Brexit fiasco have shown once again their true colours when it comes to Ireland. Never mind I would never want to be part of any organization that has a government as incompetent as the British have shown themselves to be during Brexit as it's head.

ancapailldorcha

Unfortunately, while hundreds of thousands were marching against Brexit today Jeremy Corbyn decided to visit Morecambe for a local election campaign:

https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/jeremy-corbyn-to-visit-morecambe-as-labour-unveils-bold-ambitious-blueprint-for-a-brighter-future-1-9667536

Meanwhile, Margaret Georgiadou who started the petition which broke 4 million signatures has received death threats:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47678275

Joe_ Public

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

That line is a bit like the playground taunt of coward, to someone who doesnt want to fight.
Of course Leave could lose. So much better to hold onto your win than say , what tge hell, lets compete again. The problem is the Remainers marching and petitiining because they cant accept tge first result. This is what has poisoned tge leave negotiations and implementation of it - people still arguing like its 3 years ago. Both 'the people' and the commons.

Well, posterity is going to cast a very cold eye over the uk’s negotiating strategy, that’s for sure. Based on the guiding principle of going in strong, keeping no deal alive for maximum leverage, selling a con about the eu blinking at 5 minutes to midnight on deadline day (when they had the conflicting lesson of Cameron’s failed negotiations to draw them out of their delusion. Nobody - friend or foe, staunch leaver or ardent remainer - forced TM into her blasted red lines that put unnecessary road blocks on many of the options a fair consensus could have been found on. The strife over the backstop was pretty much all her own doing. All that has very little to do with the remain side.

FrancieBrady

eire4 wrote: »

Because they are thousands of Kilometer's away from Britain they do not have any part of their countries still ruled by Britain who during this whole Brexit fiasco have shown once again their true colours when it comes to Ireland. Never mind I would never want to be part of any organization that has a government as incompetent as the British have shown themselves to be during Brexit as it's head.

We are a republic as well, why would we join an organisation that has an elite monarch as it's head?

Capt'n Midnight

eire4 wrote: »

We can enhance relations with many Asian and African countries ourselves if we chose. We don't need the British to hold our hand to do it.

Thanks to being non aligned we've been able to sell beef to many countries in the Middle East

Shannon has been used as refuelling point for both the Americans and the Russians. b

briany

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

That line is a bit like the playground taunt of coward, to someone who doesnt want to fight.
Of course Leave could lose. So much better to hold onto your win than say , what tge hell, lets compete again. The problem is the Remainers marching and petitiining because they cant accept tge first result. This is what has poisoned tge leave negotiations and implementation of it - people still arguing like its 3 years ago. Both 'the people' and the commons.

Firstly, Brexit is not the school playground, although the insults hurled back and forth may fool a person into believing it is.



Secondly, Remainers no more reject the result of the ref than Brexit supporters would have, if you flipped the result of the vote. Brexit supporters were not on board with the European project before the referendum, so why would they have been on board with it after? Farage is on record as saying that a close loss in the ref would have made Brexit unfinished business by a long way.



Thirdly, the process of Brexit has evolved as its gone on. It wasn't initially intended that the HoC would be as in control of the process as it has become, for example. It was supposed to be a crack negotiating team dispatched to Brussels who would hash out a good deal for the UK. The reason why the Meaningful Vote came about was because this plan was ruled to be illegal. In fact, Brexit has been subject to many votes since A50's invocation. They've just been taken by the UK parliament rather than their people. Those votes are fine, for some reason, whereas another referendum is taboo....



Fourthly, the problems with such a slim majority have been patently clear. Brexit supporters claim a majority, but yet they're having an awful time pressing that advantage home. It's like they can't seem to understand the problem. There is no 'getting on board with it'. This doesn't happen in politics. If it did, virtually every political project would be a rousing success, or at least meet its objectives, nefarious or not. But people's views don't change. A British Conservative who votes for the Conservatives in a Labour landslide is likely to continue to support their chosen party. In Ireland, an anti-abortion campaigner is unlikely to get on board with abortion. They're as likely to keep the laws on it as tight as their political pressure allows. People's views don't change on an outcome. This, combined with the slim majority has made Brexit what it is.

sink

eire4 wrote: »

We can enhance relations with many Asian and African countries ourselves if we chose. We don't need the British to hold our hand to do it.

Sure but it's easier to do it as part of an organisation that in which all the heads of Government meet in one room every two years to discuss how to mutually benefit through cooperation. I wouldn't be opposed to joining la Francophonie or the Organization of Ibero-American States but as we don't commonly speak French or Spanish/Portuguese I don't think we would qualify.

You need to remove the British shaped chip on your shoulder. Frankly constantly running away from anything remotely British shows what a significant psychological hold they still have over you. I think may people on this island are past that.

sink

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are a republic as well, why would we join an organisation that has an elite monarch as it's head?

There are other republics in the organisation and some members were never even held by the British Empire.

FrancieBrady

sink wrote: »

There are other republics in the organisation and some members were never even held by the British Empire.

They can answer for themselves. I don't think any republic should be subordinating itself in an organisation led by a monarchy.
And who would trust any alliance with the UK after the last number of years not to mention our more distant past.

Sam Russell

sink wrote: »

Sure but it's easier to do it as part of an organisation that in which all the heads of Government meet in one room every two years to discuss how to mutually benefit through cooperation. I wouldn't be opposed to joining la Francophonie or the Organization of Ibero-American States but as we don't commonly speak French or Spanish/Portuguese I don't think we would qualify.

You need to remove the British shaped chip on your shoulder. Frankly constantly running away from anything remotely British shows what a significant psychological hold they still have over you. I think may people on this island are past that.

We are in such an organisation - it's called the EU. Why would we join another one that appears to have no real objectives and no real benefits. We are also members of the UN - is that not enough?

Zubeneschamali

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The problem is the Remainers marching and petitiining because they cant accept tge first result. This is what has poisoned tge leave negotiations and implementation of it

Rank nonsense - May set out red lines dictating the hardest imaginable Brexit at the outset - outside the single market and European courts to control immigration, her #1 priority.

Remainers in the UK had no, zero influence or impact on negotiations since, her deal failed because the ERG wing of her own party have become even more extreme since the referendum and will not accept even her extreme version of Brexit.

Remainers have only now taken to marching because May has led the UK to its greatest international humiliation since.. well, in fact ever

Imreoir2

sink wrote: »

There are other republics in the organisation and some members were never even held by the British Empire.

Why would we join the commonwealth? I does not seem to have much to offer us. Other than being a former British colony, is there any case to be made for Ireland being a member?

I can't see much of a practical argument for us to join, I don't see any reason that we can't develop links with commonwealth nations where it suits us as things stand, infact through the EU we will have far better economic ties with some commonwealth members like Canada than the UK will after Brexit.

Water John

I think every one involved both organising and attending should be thanked for how peaceful the whole day went.

eire4

sink wrote: »

Sure but it's easier to do it as part of an organisation that in which all the heads of Government meet in one room every two years to discuss how to mutually benefit through cooperation. I wouldn't be opposed to joining la Francophonie or the Organization of Ibero-American States but as we don't commonly speak French or Spanish/Portuguese I don't think we would qualify.

You need to remove the British shaped chip on your shoulder. Frankly constantly running away from anything remotely British shows what a significant psychological hold they still have over you. I think may people on this island are past that.

Ahhh you just could not resist could you. The idea that an Irishman may have valid reasons that are at odds with yours as regards the British commonwealth is just too much for you. It has to be something cheap like a chip on the shoulder and even worse I am just so incapable of functioning as a result of this mythical hold they have.

Save the arrogance and the patronizing. I like the big organization we are already in called the EU. We are already in the UN as well. We can meet with and discuss and develop economic and any other closer relations we wish to have with any country in Africa and in Asia any time we want ourselves. Our membership of the EU has over the past number of decades seen us increase the trade we do with countries in many different parts of the world. Making us more and more diversified in terms of our trading partners which is a good thing.
Plus beyond all that the sheer level of incompetence displayed by the British politically makes me want Ireland to further our ties with the EU and the world as being what is in our countries best interests both now and going forward.

sink

eire4 wrote: »

Ahhh you just could not resist could you. The idea that an Irishman may have valid reasons that are at odds with yours as regards the British commonwealth is just too much for you. It has to be something cheap like a chip on the shoulder and even worse I am just so incapable of functioning as a result of this mythical hold they have.

Save the arrogance and the patronizing. I like the big organization we are already in called the EU. We are already in the UN as well. We can meet with and discuss and develop economic and any other closer relations we wish to have with any country in Africa and in Asia any time we want ourselves. Our membership of the EU has over the past number of decades seen us increase the trade we do with countries in many different parts of the world. Making us more and more diversified in terms of our trading partners which is a good thing.
Plus beyond all that the sheer level of incompetence displayed by the British politically makes me want Ireland to further our ties with the EU and the world as being what is in our countries best interests both now and going forward.

I'm not hearing any reasons to be anti-commonwealth other than it was founded by the British and has the British monarch as its symbolic head. If being anti-British are the only reasons for not joining then I think it qualifies as having a chip on ones shoulder.

sink

Sam Russell wrote: »

We are in such an organisation - it's called the EU. Why would we join another one that appears to have no real objectives and no real benefits. We are also members of the UN - is that not enough?

We don't need to leave the EU to join the commonwealth. It's not an either/or option. We can be in both. The benefits of being in both are the fact that the majority of commonwealth members are not in the EU, so we expand our diplomatic footprint.

An Ciarraioch

sink wrote: »

Sure but it's easier to do it as part of an organisation that in which all the heads of Government meet in one room every two years to discuss how to mutually benefit through cooperation. I wouldn't be opposed to joining la Francophonie or the Organization of Ibero-American States but as we don't commonly speak French or Spanish/Portuguese I don't think we would qualify.

You need to remove the British shaped chip on your shoulder. Frankly constantly running away from anything remotely British shows what a significant psychological hold they still have over you. I think may people on this island are past that.

We actually joined La Francophonie last year, largely for trade and networking reasons. Personally, I'd have no problem with joining the Commonwealth as part of the conditions for a united Ireland, but otherwise, don't forget it's the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and they spend almost as much time on developing export markets as on diplomacy. Apologies for taking the thread off on a tangent!

FrancieBrady

sink wrote: »

I'm not hearing any reasons to be anti-commonwealth other than it was founded by the British and has the British monarch as its symbolic head. If being anti-British are the only reasons for not joining then I think it qualifies as having a chip on ones shoulder.

It is a monarch, a monarchical system is something a republican should not want to be supporting.

As to it being a British organisation, what convinces you that given a situation that 'Britain would not come first in this 'commonwealth'? On what rationale would you trust them?

As somebody said, being in the EU gives us all the advantages we need. Free from an over reliance on the UK market we will be able to develop those advantages.

The Rape of Lucretia

briany wrote: »

Firstly, Brexit is not the school playground, although the insults hurled back and forth may fool a person into believing it is.



Secondly, Remainers no more reject the result of the ref than Brexit supporters would have, if you flipped the result of the vote. Brexit supporters were not on board with the European project before the referendum, so why would they have been on board with it after? Farage is on record as saying that a close loss in the ref would have made Brexit unfinished business by a long way.



Thirdly, the process of Brexit has evolved as its gone on. It wasn't initially intended that the HoC would be as in control of the process as it has become, for example. It was supposed to be a crack negotiating team dispatched to Brussels who would hash out a good deal for the UK. The reason why the Meaningful Vote came about was because this plan was ruled to be illegal. In fact, Brexit has been subject to many votes since A50's invocation. They've just been taken by the UK parliament rather than their people. Those votes are fine, for some reason, whereas another referendum is taboo....



Fourthly, the problems with such a slim majority have been patently clear. Brexit supporters claim a majority, but yet they're having an awful time pressing that advantage home. It's like they can't seem to understand the problem. There is no 'getting on board with it'. This doesn't happen in politics. If it did, virtually every political project would be a rousing success, or at least meet its objectives, nefarious or not. But people's views don't change. A British Conservative who votes for the Conservatives in a Labour landslide is likely to continue to support their chosen party. In Ireland, an anti-abortion campaigner is unlikely to get on board with abortion. They're as likely to keep the laws on it as tight as their political pressure allows. People's views don't change on an outcome. This, combined with the slim majority has made Brexit what it is.

Firstly - hey, you started it.

Secondly - thats ifs and buts. A very weak argument, that well, if something else had happened, they would have dont X, and so us doing Y now is the same, so we are entitled to do it.

Thirdly - there was nothing wrong with a meaningful vote. But May lost the election, and the most of them are irresponsibly playing party politics with the decision. May was right to criticise MPs. They should have approved the deal. Most at fault are Labour MPs who would vote for it were it not for the playing of party politics despite the decision being too important to indulge in doing so.

Fourth - the majority was slim. Referendums frequently are. But the implementation of this one has been let down by MPs in Westminster, and the people outside, who are still fighting the referendum, no implementing it.

Professor Moriarty

The Telegraph isn't reporting anything about 1,000,000 people marching or a petition by over 4,000,000. That's odd. Perhaps their fax is broken or their telephone lines are down. Must be something like that.

The Rape of Lucretia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Remainers have only now taken to marching because May has led the UK to its greatest international humiliation since.. well, in fact ever

The Enabling Act of 1933 ("Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich") missed its targets rather spectacularly too.

The Rape of Lucretia

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why a march from Sunderland then?

One egotistical attention seeker struggling to keep himself in the news while the adults deal with the real business.

Zubeneschamali

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please elaborate.

Seriously? OK.


May's deal is only a medium term transitional arrangement , there is no guarantee that the EU will continue to give the UK the same deal afterwards.

False, the EU will honour the deal forever if the UK ratifies it. Perhaps yopu mean the EU will not give the UK such a nice deal later unless they sign now? Also false, the EU are open to even better deals, all the way up to the UK rejoining.

Hard Brexit , make it clear that the concessions given by the EU are only there to facilitate the EU and can be removed at any time.

The EU has not and will not make concessions in the case of hard Brexit. They have announce unilateral measures to limit the damage to EU countries, and stated in the announcement that they can be removed at any time.

Other deals are just NOT on offer

Yes, they are, all the way from May's insane hard Brexit WA through Ukraine, Turkey, Norway to simply remaining a member. It's all on the table.What is not on offer is anything else compatible with May's red lines.

EEA / Norway mean Schengen which is a complete non-starter in the UK.

EEA and Schengen are two entirely separate things, and Non-starter in the UK is not well defined. Leaving the Single Market was regarded as a non-starter by the Leave campaign as recently as 2016.

Any PLUS deal means renegotiation and getting the EU to give concessions to Norway or Canada.

Wrong again - Plus deals need no change to the WA, only the non-binding Political Declaration, and the EUs treaty relations with the UK are not Norway or Canada's business.The WTOs most favoured rule doesn't apply if the UK sign a deal.

robinph

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree that yes these days it would be a hammering hence there won't be one, but it was close! If they had called for one a year or 3 later saying it was too close would people have agreed to a 2nd?

Fwiw i live in the UK and hope this mess gets sorted sensibly (no leave, soft leave if they absolutely decide they are leaving )

Don't forget that you get a vote as well (assuming you're Irish). Make sure you register, and tell anyone else you know who's Irish and living in the UK to do so as well.

The Rape of Lucretia

trashcan wrote: »

The problem with that is that this isn't a game. It's not a football match as someone said earlier, or the Eurovision Song Contest. There are real implications for people's lives and livliehoods at stake here. I think it's fairly evident that three years ago an awful lot of people didn't appreciate fully what they were voting for three years ago. (Many still don't seem to) Having walked to the precipice and peered over now, shouldn't they be asked, "Are you sure you really want to jump ?"

The 'People Vote' to see do we really jump idea is really very disingenuous.
The polling since has not in any case signalled any big swing to reverse. The marches, polls, are not England Bregretting - it is the Remainers trying to reverse the decision. There are not huge numbers of high profile or groundswell of people who are Brexiters who are petitioning for such a referendum. If there were, it would have some credibility. But there arent. People's Voters, presenting themselves as the voice of reason and democracy, when in fact they are trying to ignore the democratic decision made.

Imreoir2

sink wrote: »

We don't need to leave the EU to join the commonwealth. It's not an either/or option. We can be in both. The benefits of being in both are the fact that the majority of commonwealth members are not in the EU, so we expand our diplomatic footprint.

We don't need to be in the commonwealth to expand our diplomatic footprint. Infact, we are currently doing just that while outside the commonwealth. I just don't see the commonwealth as being an attractive organisation to invest time and effort with. Anything we could do in the commonwealth we already do far more effectivly through the EU or could do just as well without being a member of the commonwealth. I don't see the value of being a member and those trying to sell membership don't tend to even bother making the case for the benefits. It just seems to either be a way to wind people up or is an expression of an emotional desire for closer relations with a country that is currently tearing itself apart and damaging us in the process.