Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

They may not be throwing any curveballs, but really do we need to be running an election coming up to (and over the immediate course of) a no-deal Brexit?

I just feel like getting over the hurdle would be better to happen before any change of government.

I think FF might get a slap they were not expecting if they caused an election now. Michael is just doing a 'look at me' run.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

As I said before, unless something fundamental changes, those queues keep getting longer and longer. Fundamental would be exporters stopping exports until the queue is manageable again or using different routes. There would be capacity for LoLo shipments in other ports and some ferry capacity; although we know that they haven't been able to source additional ships, but the end result could be lower volumes over all.

And it will take the landbridge off the table as an option for many Irish exporters and transport companies.

Stop moaning ffs

Dytalus wrote: »

They may not be throwing any curveballs, but really do we need to be running an election coming up to (and over the immediate course of) a no-deal Brexit?

I just feel like getting over the hurdle would be better to happen before any change of government.

There’s been an notable increase in these statements though. And Now Michael? I’d say they’re lining up. We definitely don’t need it right now but when has that stopped it happening?
Very many saying FG are getting away with murder and hiding behind brexit.

Dytalus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There’s been an notable increase in these statements though. And Now Michael? I’d say they’re lining up. We definitely don’t need it right now but when has that stopped it happening?
Very many saying FG are getting away with murder and hiding behind brexit.

I don't entirely disagree. In any other circumstances FG would be staring down the barrel of an election by now. But needs must, and I'd rather have the government that has overseen most of Brexit see it through to whatever end comes about.

trellheim

There's a strong case for a GE . If an extension is passed it may well be extension after extension. FG in fairness have been in for a while. "politicians and nappies are alike in many ways and need to be changed regularly for the same reason"

lawred2

trellheim wrote: »

There's a strong case for a GE . If an extension is passed it may well be extension after extension. FG in fairness have been in for a while. "politicians and nappies are alike in many ways and need to be changed regularly for the same reason"

so an election for an election's sake

I'm sorry but that is not a strong case for an election...

Looks to me that it's more like that FF are gearing up to demand a pile of throwaway goodies in the next budget...

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

If an extension is passed it may well be extension after extension.

Which would be best for everyone, until the UK finally revoke A50.

Stop moaning ffs

It’s all kicking off behind doors

https://twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/1168853026033061889?s=21

GM228

Enzokk wrote: »

I find it astonishing that the Home Secretary didn't know that the ECHR is pivotal to the Good Friday Agreement. This isn't even debatable, like when we have had discussions that the GFA doesn't state that NI has to be in the EU. There is no spirit when it comes to this argument.



Good Friday agreement,



Good Friday Agreement

So May was so blinded by her dislike of the ECHR she was willing to break an international treaty to get rid of it, or like most politicians she wasn't aware of what she was proposing. Doesn't inspire confidence when your Home Secretary is so uninformed, never mind that she was able to rise to the top job.

Perhaps I'm taking you up wrong in the point being made (apologies if I have), but the GFA does not state they have to be in the EU (nor is it reliant on membership of the EU).

MrMusician18

lawred2 wrote: »

This is pathetic party politics from FF... a leopard will never change its spots.

What exactly does Martin think the Irish Government can do here?

'Come clean'!? What sort of language is that?

Presumably he means that No deal is now the Irish government's central scenario, and that's what they are planning for.

Enzokk

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm taking you up wrong in the point being made (apologies if I have), but the GFA does not state they have to be in the EU (nor is it reliant on membership of the EU).

I know, it doesn't outright state that. That is the debates we have had on here from time to time and it is true that it doesn't. The argument against that is that it was signed at a time that NI and Ireland were both in the EU at the time and thus there wasn't really a need to state that both need to stay in the EU or aligned to the rules to keep the status quo going. I do see the argument of the other side but don't think it holds any water.

But the case for getting rid of the ECHR is clear. You cannot do it without ripping up the GFA, there is no gray area here, and that is my point.

Stop moaning ffs

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Presumably he means that No deal is now the Irish government's central scenario, and that's what they are planning for.

Bear in mind our own government returned from holidays this week too. The few that have broken ranks from FF to criticize FG have been in the last few weeks. I’d say they’ve a game plan afoot.
It would take a good while if they pulled support for an election to actually happen I’d say we’d be safely past the 31st deadline at that point

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

As Home Sec TM was consistently strong on immigration control.

Really? What did she actually do to limit immigration?

I agree she was very vocal about it, and made it out to be a terrible blight on the UK, but I don't remember her bringing forward many practicle proposals to reduce the numbers.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Presumably he means that No deal is now the Irish government's central scenario, and that's what they are planning for.

Sure anyone with two brain cells would expect that to be the government's working position! That's the default path we're on.

Politicians know well the power of words. 'Come clean' is used with the sole purpose of bringing people to some conclusion that the government are engaging in some sort of nefarious underhanded activity.

'Come clean' clearly has negative connotations.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

I know, it doesn't outright state that. That is the debates we have had on here from time to time and it is true that it doesn't. The argument against that is that it was signed at a time that NI and Ireland were both in the EU at the time and thus there wasn't really a need to state that both need to stay in the EU or aligned to the rules to keep the status quo going. I do see the argument of the other side but don't think it holds any water.

But the case for getting rid of the ECHR is clear. You cannot do it without ripping up the GFA, there is no gray area here, and that is my point.

It's a long time ago, so my memory is hazy, but wasn't there an undertaking made by the EU that no changes would be made to the treaties that would affect the GFA?

Sam Russell

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That lib dem constituency in Northern Scotland is sort of astonishing. Wasn’t aware of them having much traction in Scotland. Would have thought the further north in Scotland you went the bigger the SNP support you’d have

SNP vote is strengthened by the large distance Scotland is from London both physically and politically. The far north of Scotland is a long way from Edinburgh both physically and politically, hence their dislike of SNP..

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? What did she actually do to limit immigration?

I agree she was very vocal about it, and made it out to be a terrible blight on the UK, but I don't remember her bringing forward many practicle proposals to reduce the numbers.

You forget the hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. Without May and her policies in the Home Office it would not have happened.

Rjd2

10000maniacs wrote: »

Yes you are right, but Johnson will be run out of Downing Street by the pressures of a no deal Brexit in short order. He will win the election albeit with another hung Parliament and I will give him 6 months after that.

I don't see how he gets the numbers next time. Some say he will double down on Brexit, but May did similar and maxed out the leave vote and she did not have Farage to worry about. They will be wiped out in Scotland also.

Then you look at how vulnerable they are in remain strongholds, Greening resigned earlier it may be principle but she probably knows she is ****ed next time round.

https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1168771137754583040

Look at that thread and then ask yourself can he get the leave vote out more than May did to compensate....I dunno ....it will be really hard.

Corbyn for all his flaws is actually a good campaigner as 2017 proved.

I think we get a Labour/SNP/Lib Dem style alliance and possibly Lib Dems may ask Corbyn to step down. I don't think he would mind tbh, he is old and the Corbynites control a lot of the party anyhow.

Would the SNP want an indy vote? Maybe depending on how skinny the numbers were..

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

You forget the hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. Without May and her policies in the Home Office it would not have happened.

I certainly haven't forgotten either of those, but apart from being mean spirited, did they have any real effect on immigration?

It wasn't a change in policy per se, it was simply targeting those she felt she could get away with it.

But in practical terms it had no material impact on the level of immigration.

Like I said, she spoke about it a lot, but never actually did anything that would do anything about it.

Water John

With FPTP, one really has to analyse each constituency simply keeping the national trend in the back of your head.
Trying to get how many seats each of the parties get from a national poll alone would have a major, margin of error IWT.

BTW wouldn't see Corbyn stepping aside, unless someone with similar views to himself was made PM. IWT his convictions are more important to him, than his ego. Despite the majority of the media being against him, he is a good campaigner in a GE.

Sam Russell

darem93 wrote: »

Yeah Orkney and Shetland vote for the Lib Dems religiously. I think there was a previous MP there who was very popular and they've voted Lib Dem since. It also happens to be one of the most anti-independence constituencies too, which I still don't really understand.

Jo Grimond was MP for Orkney from 1950 to 1983.

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think FF might get a slap they were not expecting if they caused an election now. Michael is just doing a 'look at me' run.

Yeah, there is an element of don't forget about us holding the government to account. He's signed up till Spring so really just getting warmed up for Tuesday fortnight.

boggerman1

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm nearly sure someone, somewhere, at some point earlier in the year, said that the queues would be 80 miles - so see: they are taking steps to mitigate the disruption!

Goes to show that when the idiot grayling staged that mock system last yr they hadn't a clue with only 80 trucks turning up .they deserve everything that is coming to them

Igotadose

Watched 10 minutes yesterday of whatever Labour conference Corbyn was at. Man, that guy can't make a speech. First off, his eyeglasses kept slipping down, not good. Secondly, he mumbles. Surely there's someone more dynamic and less 'creepy ex-Professor' than he to drive their Party? As much blame as the Tories will get for this sh1tshower of Brexit, about as much should go to him. He should simply stand up and say Remain. Probably the main reason Brexit's gone anywhere is Corbyn. No viable opposition.

MrMusician18

lawred2 wrote: »

Sure anyone with two brain cells would expect that to be the government's working position! That's the default path we're on.

Politicians know well the power of words. 'Come clean' is used with the sole purpose of bringing people to some conclusion that the government are engaging in some sort of nefarious underhanded activity.

'Come clean' clearly has negative connotations.

We all know that, the same way we know they're will be border infrastructure if they're is no deal. Unsaid but understood by all.

What Martin wants the government to do (but rightly won't do) is publically acknowledge this reality. FF needs to be saying something to keep itself in the news

swampgas

newport2 wrote: »

Excellent article by Ivan Rogers about the reality of a no-deal brexit here, well worth a read

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-deal-brexit/

I fundamentally disagree with him on this point:

Ivan Rogers wrote:

It would also mark both a UK government failure and an EU failure.

It takes two for a negotiation to fail.

Actually, it takes two for a negotiation to succeed. And even then, only if there is enough common ground between them.

Any one party can wreck a negotiation, no matter how reasonable the other(s) may be.

Maybe the EU could have played it differently (isn't hindsight wonderful), but ultimately the responsibility for the current debacle is almost 100% with the UK.

VinLieger

swampgas wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with him on this point:


Actually, it takes two for a negotiation to succeed. And even then, only if there is enough common ground between them.

Any one party can wreck a negotiation, no matter how reasonable the other(s) may be.

Maybe the EU could have played it differently (isn't hindsight wonderful), but ultimately the resposnsibility for the current debacle is almost 100% with the UK.

Agreed, that sturck me as being very generous to the UK side

Sam Russell

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We all know that, the same way we know they're will be border infrastructure if they're is no deal. Unsaid but understood by all.

To avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in the event of a hard deal, the UK need to announce that SPS checks at Larne (and Belfast) will be 100% and will continue, plus they will enforce the SM rules for agriculture in NI, plus they will not enforce any tariffs between NI and Ireland.

That would allow the milk lorries to continue collecting milk, and pigs, sheep, and cattle to go on their holidays.

The only other requirement is related to VAT which is not specifically a border issue, but is.

Stop moaning ffs

So the different factions against no deal can’t get it together.
Two completely different messages and different directions

https://twitter.com/chukaumunna/status/1168868344667267074?s=21

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1168867247227637762?s=21

CelticRambler

swampgas wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with him on this point:


Actually, it takes two for a negotiation to succeed. And even then, only if there is enough common ground between them.

Any one party can wreck a negotiation, no matter how reasonable the other(s) may be.

Thank you for that! I read the paragraph and knew there was something wrong with the statement, but couldn't put my finger on it. :rolleyes:

But you're absolutely right, and Ivan Rogers is wrong on that point. Donald Trump is doing a great job at showing how one party can wreck years of careful, constructive, reasonable negotiations.

Of course what the Brexiters don't ever mention is that they've got things easy at the moment, in that they're only dealing with a qualified majority of the EU member states, essentially one single party. If/when they tip over the edge, then come back for a deal - mini or maxi - they'll need the agreement of 27 different parties.