Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Frank Bullitt

Igotadose wrote: »

Shutting up the Irexit lunatic is extra good in this video. Why they bring those fringe lunatics onto these shows is puzzling - clickbait I suppose.

No idea how any show can give that joker any screen time.

Hurrache

Gintonious wrote: »

Lovely bit of viewing this.

Why the hell is that eejit Herman let on TV after been laughed out of the Republic on his Irexit platform.

lawred2

Well the EU has signed a free trade deal with the South American heavyweights. Looks like our Farmers can look forward to all that cheap beef we were threatening NI Farmers with...

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Well the EU has signed a free trade deal with the South American heavyweights. Looks like our Farmers can look forward to all that cheap beef we were threatening NI Farmers with...

Open standards and imports were part of that deal?

An Ciarraioch

Last report I saw the annual quota was expected to be 99k per year, and the beef had to be hormone-free - Ireland alone exported 470k last year:

https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Start-a-Business-in-Ireland/Food-Investment-from-Outside-Ireland/Key-Sectors/Meat-and-Livestock/

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Open standards and imports were part of that deal?

I wouldn't expect standards be lowered no

Joe_ Public

54&56 wrote: »

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

Such a strategy would work well for the Tories in that it would:-

a) Ensure a "democratic" Brexit was delivered.
b) Avoid a constitutional crisis which proroguing HoC would spark.
c) Avoid a general election which the Tories would be slaughtered in if it occurred prior to this phase of Brexit being accomplished.

The above would completely pull the rug from under Farage and the Brexit Party and give Boris a couple of years post "Brexit" to deliver some populist domestic policies before the next scheduled General Election in May 2022 by which time Farage and the whole "Remain" argument will be a speck in the rear view mirror and the election will all be about rewarding the guy who got the job done when no one else could and keeping that Marxist Corbyn out of #10.

If he plays his cards right Boris could not only deliver Brexit but he could win a Tory majority in 2022 providing a No Deal (if that was the result of the referendum) didn't destroy the economy which of course is a huge risk.

It's an interesting scenario, Caroline Flint i think it was who proposed something similar on QT last night. Have to say, personally, I would be against it on the grounds that I dont believe No Deal has any more right to be on the ballot paper than Remain has. It would seem to offer a good deal of closure on the issue, but not in any democratic sense i think. I just dont see anything democratic in a no deal outcome on that basis, no matter how loudly the no deal brexiteers harp on about it.


Also, i'm not sure procedurally how it would work. Getting the initial referendum through the house in 2016 took the guts of a year if i recall correctly. It has to be agreed by parliament, including the terms and wording of it, so seems to me you're just stuck in the same twisty maze where we are at present. Not sure i can see any out for any new PM in that.

Leroy42

But if they vote for no deal does that mean no deals at all? So they couldn't even accept citizens rights agreements?

And that no future government could ever strike a deal without a further vote?

L1011

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if they vote for no deal does that mean no deals at all? So they couldn't even accept citizens rights agreements?

And that no future government could ever strike a deal without a further vote?

The UK has no concept of a binding referendum...

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if they vote for no deal does that mean no deals at all? So they couldn't even accept citizens rights agreements?

And that no future government could ever strike a deal without a further vote?

If they vote for a "no deal" exit, that means that they cut all ties with the EU and become a European North Korea.

After that, if they want to be a grown-up country and (re)start trading with the world - especially their closest neighbours - they have to start doing deals, and that'll mean reaching a compromise, accepting terms & conditions, and demonstrating good faith. Those deals will be a hell of a lot hard to negotiate than the WA & FTA.

Ironically, lots of future governments would decide whether or not a vote was needed .... but they'd all be foreign powers.

Christy42

L1011 wrote: »

The UK has no concept of a binding referendum...

So what it would be against democracy to go against it so of the people say no deals whatsoever...

Sand

CelticRambler wrote: »

If they vote for a "no deal" exit, that means that they cut all ties with the EU and become a European North Korea.

After that, if they want to be a grown-up country and (re)start trading with the world - especially their closest neighbours - they have to start doing deals, and that'll mean reaching a compromise, accepting terms & conditions, and demonstrating good faith. Those deals will be a hell of a lot hard to negotiate than the WA & FTA.

Ironically, lots of future governments would decide whether or not a vote was needed .... but they'd all be foreign powers.

I think this is interesting. TBH, I think that the UK must go for no deal given the political mood in the country. The miscalculation amongst remainers in the UK and the wider EU is that the UK would at the 11th hour blink, and do anything to avoid a decline in their GDP potential. The miscalculation on the part of the Brexiteers has been that the EU will at the 11th hour blink, and do anything to avoid a decline in their GDP potential. The reality is that Brexiteers value Brexit above GDP, and the EU values the EU above GDP. There is a stubborn disbelief on both sides that the other could have a value system that exceeds the cult of GDP.

What is interesting is that the deeper a member state of the EU integrates with the EU, a single system, the greater the chance of failure upon a single point. If the choice is between being an enthusiastic and full member of the EU, or being a "European North Korea" is there actually a genuine choice being presented to European electorates? If the choice is between X and being a "European North Korea" how much of the support of EU membership is genuine enthusiasm as opposed to fear of being an international pariah state?

Bill Hicks used to have an act where he would mock opponents who would challenge him to leave the US if he hated it so much. "What, and be a victim of our foreign policy?" Is the same true of the EU?

For the record, I'm not a supporter of Brexit. I think its the wrong answer to a genuine question. I just find the above attitude to be problematic.

BluePlanet

Sand wrote: »

Bill Hicks used to have an act where he would mock opponents who would challenge him to leave the US if he hated it so much. "What, and be a victim of our foreign policy?" Is the same true of the EU?

For the record, I'm not a supporter of Brexit. I think its the wrong answer to a genuine question. I just find the above attitude to be problematic.

Didn't we see the same during the run-up to the Scottish Indy vote?
Same when Quebec was flirting with Independence.
I would expect the same treatment if say, a state or territory were aiming to succeed from the USA.

10000maniacs

farmchoice wrote: »

not for one second through this whole process did i think no deal was even a remote possibility, that was until this week.
but now its like watching the whole referendum debate again, NO deal is being presented as a thing, an end in its self just like ''brexit'' was.
there is no discussion of what happens after ''no deal'' where do we go from there. the day after a no deal exit the first job of the UK government will to be to get a deal. NOBODY is discussing this, its mental.

The problem with that strategy, is it will force the Irish to put up customs checks, putting lives in danger. The Oxford bunch of the likes of Johnson, Rabb, Mogg, Bridgen and Francois are most likely of the opinion that if the Irish want to kill themselves let them kill themselves. The only one who said it out loud was Johnsons father.

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder of how long trade deals can take in the real world.

EU does a deal with South America.

The Mercosur trade deal has been almost 20 years in the making and involves Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
...
The Mercosur trade agreement still has to be fully ratified by the European Commission and by the European Parliament in a process that could take up to two years.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Sand wrote: »

The reality is that Brexiteers value Brexit above GDP, and the EU values the EU above GDP. There is a stubborn disbelief on both sides that the other could have a value system that exceeds the cult of GDP.

The EU isn’t throwing the UK out, the UK is choosing to leave. The EU is trying to minimize the impact to the EU and it’s values due to someone else’s decision.
The unicorn requests from Brexiteers is to get a better deal than membership. What is the EU to do?
The stumbling block is NI, so the EU ask to the UK is how it leaves but still maintain the Good Friday Agreement that they signed up to.

Headshot

https://news.sky.com/story/david-gauke-justice-secretary-survives-no-confidence-vote-by-local-party-11751076

Fair play to David and nice to see the infestation of Farage minions put back in their box

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just a reminder of how long trade deals can take in the real world.

EU does a deal with South America.

I have a feeling that Brexit hurried both this and the Japan deal along.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sand wrote: »

If the choice is between being an enthusiastic and full member of the EU, or being a "European North Korea" is there actually a genuine choice being presented to European electorates? If the choice is between X and being a "European North Korea" how much of the support of EU membership is genuine enthusiasm as opposed to fear of being an international pariah state?

The choice is binary for the UK because they made it that way.
The UK decided to leave, negotiated a WA and then got mired in infighting, incompetence and indecision.
And, though they have by no means any kind of majority, they hard-line Brexiteers seem to have managed to push their idiotic agenda, which is guided by dogma and insanity, to the forefront.
If the UK becomes the NK of Europe, it is because THEY went down that path.
They EU has remained fair and reasonable throughout this whole bloody farce.
The hardliners have managed to persuade the population that all the chaos, indecision and time wasting was the EU's fault, which is like playing a game of "stop hitting yourself" with someone and then blaming someone else for their injuries and they actually believe you!
You need the IQ of a spud to fall for this absolute nonsense.
Not an attack on you, but the Brexiteers are pulling a scam even dumber than the Nigerian 419 and people are falling for it by the millions.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a feeling that Brexit hurried both this and the Japan deal along.

More like Trump and his undermining the Trans Pacific thingy

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's an interesting scenario, Caroline Flint i think it was who proposed something similar on QT last night. Have to say, personally, I would be against it on the grounds that I dont believe No Deal has any more right to be on the ballot paper than Remain has. It would seem to offer a good deal of closure on the issue, but not in any democratic sense i think. I just dont see anything democratic in a no deal outcome on that basis, no matter how loudly the no deal brexiteers harp on about it.


Also, i'm not sure procedurally how it would work. Getting the initial referendum through the house in 2016 took the guts of a year if i recall correctly. It has to be agreed by parliament, including the terms and wording of it, so seems to me you're just stuck in the same twisty maze where we are at present. Not sure i can see any out for any new PM in that.

True enough- the EU wouldn't give any time to the UK to have such a referendum

fash

Sand wrote: »

I think this is interesting. TBH, I think that the UK must go for no deal given the political mood in the country. The miscalculation amongst remainers in the UK and the wider EU is that the UK would at the 11th hour blink, and do anything to avoid a decline in their GDP potential. The miscalculation on the part of the Brexiteers has been that the EU will at the 11th hour blink, and do anything to avoid a decline in their GDP potential. The reality is that Brexiteers value Brexit above GDP, and the EU values the EU above GDP. There is a stubborn disbelief on both sides that the other could have a value system that exceeds the cult of GDP.

The only EU state that really has something on the live is Ireland. Aside from that, for the EU it is just a case of GDP - and of course making sure that you don't the equivalent of selling an iPod Touchs with all the functionality of an iPhone but at 1/5th the price.

What is interesting is that the deeper a member state of the EU integrates with the EU, a single system, the greater the chance of failure upon a single point. If the choice is between being an enthusiastic and full member of the EU, or being a "European North Korea" is there actually a genuine choice being presented to European electorates? If the choice is between X and being a "European North Korea" how much of the support of EU membership is genuine enthusiasm as opposed to fear of being an international pariah state?

Most of this comes down to the UK's history with Ireland. Other countries would have a cleaner break (although continental Schengen states would have to put up borders and possibly drop a currency).

Leroy42

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

The reality is that Brexiteers value Brexit above GDP, and the EU values the EU above GDP. There is a stubborn disbelief on both sides that the other could have a value system that exceeds the cult of GDP.

The EU isn’t throwing the UK out, the UK is choosing to leave. The EU is trying to minimize the impact to the EU and it’s values due to someone else’s decision.
The unicorn requests from Brexiteers is to get a better deal than membership. What is the EU to do?
The stumbling block is NI, so the EU ask to the UK is how it leaves but still maintain the Good Friday Agreement that they signed up to.

The stumbling block is not NI. The stumbling block is that no Brexit is actually able to deliver what the Brexiteers wanted and promised and as such something most be held to blame.

The Irish, and the Irish border, is just that.

But even if, somehow by some weird act of self sabotage, the EU was to simply 'forget ' about both the NI border and the GFA, even then the UK is facing years of uncertainty, lack of FDI, lack of confidence and the continuing disintegration of the prevailing political set up.

Brexit is the symthom of the problems inherent in the UK not the cause. And no Brexit is going to solve it as fundamentally the EU is not the core problem.

54and56

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's an interesting scenario, Caroline Flint i think it was who proposed something similar on QT last night. Have to say, personally, I would be against it on the grounds that I dont believe No Deal has any more right to be on the ballot paper than Remain has. It would seem to offer a good deal of closure on the issue, but not in any democratic sense i think. I just dont see anything democratic in a no deal outcome on that basis, no matter how loudly the no deal brexiteers harp on about it.


Also, i'm not sure procedurally how it would work. Getting the initial referendum through the house in 2016 took the guts of a year if i recall correctly. It has to be agreed by parliament, including the terms and wording of it, so seems to me you're just stuck in the same twisty maze where we are at present. Not sure i can see any out for any new PM in that.

I can conceive of a scenario, post BoJo returning from Brussels with zero changes to the WA, where there are enough Brexit leaning Tory and Labor MPs such that a referendum offering the public a choice between a soft(er) Brexit such as TMs WA or a No Deal Brexit would garner enough support to pass the HoC as it would give all in favour the option of claiming they helped honour the 2016 referendum and deliver Brexit whilst giving "the people" the choice of what flavour Brexit they wanted.

CelticRambler

Sand wrote: »

What is interesting is that the deeper a member state of the EU integrates with the EU, a single system, the greater the chance of failure upon a single point. If the choice is between being an enthusiastic and full member of the EU, or being a "European North Korea" is there actually a genuine choice being presented to European electorates? If the choice is between X and being a "European North Korea" how much of the support of EU membership is genuine enthusiasm as opposed to fear of being an international pariah state?

There's plenty of choice for other European electorates - about 100 other models, in fact, worldwide and at least half a dozen different options within the geographical area commonly referred to as "Europe". But Theresa May decided that she was going to box the UK into a NK-style situation with her inherently unworkable red lines.

The single point of failure in all of this is the inability of disgruntled voters to appreciate and understand that everything they love about modern life is inherently dependent on polynational integration, more-or-less unfettered movement of people around the planet and a lot of mutually beneficial compromise agreements.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

I think its the wrong answer to a genuine question

I am not even sure the genuine question asked is related to the EU

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's plenty of choice for other European electorates - about 100 other models, in fact, worldwide and at least half a dozen different options within the geographical area commonly referred to as "Europe". But Theresa May decided that she was going to box the UK into a NK-style situation with her inherently unworkable red lines.

The single point of failure in all of this is the inability of disgruntled voters to appreciate and understand that everything they love about modern life is inherently dependent on polynational integration, more-or-less unfettered movement of people around the planet and a lot of mutually beneficial compromise agreements.

The Brexit voters appear to be either incredibly stupid or to have been brainwashed by their lying press. They have swallowed the idea they can rip up 50 years worth of treaties and trade deals and somehow come out of this even better off. We're talking about the most deluded public in western Europe.

Stop moaning ffs

It was mentioned on remainiacs that the longer this rumbles on the happier Farage etc will be. Come the end of the year he might even be PM. We think he’d never want that responsibility he’d rather be a sh!tstirrer hurling from the ditch but the twisting endless limbo the uk finds itself in, with no signs of resolution, suits him and those backing him, down to the ground.

Enzokk

54&56 wrote: »

I can conceive of a scenario, post BoJo returning from Brussels with zero changes to the WA, where there are enough Brexit leaning Tory and Labor MPs such that a referendum offering the public a choice between a soft(er) Brexit such as TMs WA or a No Deal Brexit would garner enough support to pass the HoC as it would give all in favour the option of claiming they helped honour the 2016 referendum and deliver Brexit whilst giving "the people" the choice of what flavour Brexit they wanted.

If Brexit was the dumbest mistake the UK has done, a referendum between no-deal and May's deal would be 100 times dumber. You could have a majority spoil their ballots and write in Remain and that would be the most popular, but that would mean no-deal would win the referendum as more people would support it ahead of May's deal. This would be a cynical ploy for MP's to rid themselves of the responsibility of finding a deal that would satisfy a 52-48% result.

It is almost like those advocating for Brexit doesn't realize that if the result is this close it means a soft Brexit, one where they leave the EU but have a close relationship. It is the only deal that will have any chance of getting through parliament with cross party support and will as a result also cause the least damage. Norway voted to not join the EU on the same margin and look at their close relationship.

An Ciarraioch

Another excellent article by Tony Connelly on those Border plans - basically, no technical discussions between Dublin and Brussels at present, and formal, physical infrastructure would take years to erect in any event, but regular conversations are being held as to how Ireland is preparing to meet its Single Market obligations in the worst-case scenario:

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0628/1059105-brexit-deal-border/