Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the EU will keep granting extensions forever, costs very little compared to No Deal disruption, as long as the possibility exists that the UK will someday cop on and agree a deal or bin Brexit. The EU has been known to keep kicking the can down the roads for 25 years when it suits them, like Norway and Switzerland joining, or Sweden adopting the Euro.

Or Turkey's application to join the EU. I agree there's never been a fear that the EU would turn down an extension request.

careless sherpa

nc6000 wrote: »

Except for Sammy Wilson, he takes his motorbike on the ferry to Scotland then makes his way over 600KMs down to London.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dup-s-wilson-happy-to-vote-down-may-s-brexit-deal-1.3757338[/QUOTE

Goes to show the depth of his animosity towards the rest of the country. For some reason the image of Sammy on a motorbike immediately conjured up an image of the village people

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Corbyn has said that he would not rule out a second referendum, I don't think he himself is in favour of one.

Corbyn explicitly said in a speech on the 2nd that in the next election Labour would offer the people the final say on Brexit with realistic options for both sides including an option to remain.

Joe_ Public

“We will do everything we can in the coming weeks to prevent no deal. We want a general election so the people of this country can decide their future and we are very clear that we would in the Labour manifesto include a public vote under a Labour government with the option of remain or whatever alternative parliament has come to.

“If it’s no deal, then we vote to remain. If it’s any other deal, then our party’s democratic processes will decide what position we take.”

Think that's what Zub is referring to, from Corbyns speech in Salford earlier this week. Seems clear enough to me anyway.

Duane Dibbley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think a 2nd referendum is now more than likely. Anything bar a Conservative majority in the upcoming election will lead to a referendum.

Yes, the EU will keep granting extensions forever, costs very little compared to No Deal disruption, as long as the possibility exists that the UK will someday cop on and agree a deal or bin Brexit. The EU has been known to keep kicking the can down the roads for 25 years when it suits them, like Norway and Switzerland joining, or Sweden adopting the Euro.

But what would be in the referendum besides leaving with Clean break ( no deal ) and remain? The could do that with a GE . Labour remain , Cons ( Brexit No Deal)

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

I can see Labour putting in their manifesto that they will enter fabulous new negotiations that will result in a brilliant, unicorny socialist utopia Brexit- the EU need to be very clear ahead of any general election that May’s deal is the only one available. We’re all so fed up of this rubbish.

Actually I think I'm wrong, will the EU reopen the WA if the UK's red lines are removed? I assume if they did, it wouldn't be another 2 year negotiation, no one has the will for that.

Forty Seven

El Weirdo wrote: »

So Forty Seven's main problem with the EU is with a completely different institution?

Got it.

Nope. I merely highlighted the fact that Theresa May's deal ties the UK into something she herself wanted out of after Abu Qatada.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum


This is an issue for many. It is the EU pushing for us to stay in it as part of a deal and a U turn in government policy and the conservative manifesto if we do. It is a valid point.

listermint

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nope. I merely highlighted the fact that Theresa May's deal ties the UK into something she herself wanted out of after Abu Qatada.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum


This is an issue for many. It is the EU pushing for us to stay in it as part of a deal and a U turn in government policy and the conservative manifesto if we do. It is a valid point.

Exactly on the money.

She. Herself.

So why are you upset about Mays red lines.in fact you should me pissed with them. Being a remainer. Her red lines made no sense.

Forty Seven

El Weirdo wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if you think this won't be news for the next decade at least (whatever happens), then you have another think coming.

Of course it will but let me ask you this. Would you rather have the GFA discussed over the last ten years or would you rather they were still trying to agree it?


Sometimes you just have to take the plunge to make things happen, like Ian Paisley eventually did.

MadYaker

Is there any way for Johnson to force an election apart from a two thirds majority vote in the commons?

Zubeneschamali

Shelga wrote: »

Actually I think I'm wrong, will the EU reopen the WA if the UK's red lines are removed? I assume if they did, it wouldn't be another 2 year negotiation, no one has the will for that.

Labour do, and the EU won't mind punting for a couple of years.

But Labour are not going to win a majority, so the terms of the referendum will have to be agreed by the Bollocks to Brexit party, who would probably prefer the question to be May's WA vs. remain, since remain is more likely to win that.

Joe_ Public

MadYaker wrote: »

Is there any way for Johnson to force an election apart from a two thirds majority vote in the commons?

There is some talk of him introducing a one-line bill calling for a GE next monday and that requires only a simple majority. Problem with this, i think, is that by proroguing parliament (assuming its not overturned by the courts) it might not have enough time to be passed and - not 100% on the details - but the opposition can also introduce amendments that could potentially alter the bill in a way the PM might not like. Doesnt sound a great option, but like i said, i'm not 100% up to speed on what exactly it entails.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You do realise that "getting on with it" means you'll spend all of the "20s" going through this nonsense - especially if the UK leaves without a deal.

I'm not so sure of this. The UK would certainly take an economic hit in the event of a no deal brexit and there would be a period of disruption and adaptation but it would stop being news fairly quickly.

Ireland took on significant debt in the aftermath of the financial crisis. We went from being a comparatively low national debt country to a comparatively high debt one relative to GDP. I don't want to get into whose fault it was but the point is that we are still paying for it now. For example problems in the housing market can be traced back to the financial crisis in Ireland but few are interested in this today because it is not news.

The same thing will happen with no deal in the UK if that occurs. There will be a period of news stories reporting chaos at Dover, business closures, redundancies etc. But these will die down. Economic problems will remain due to Brexit but over time will stop being attributed to brexit. Britain being outside the EU trading on WTO terms will be the accepted norm and problems will be blamed on politicians and policies of the day rather than Brexit. This might seem unfair but it is the way it works.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There is some talk of him introducing a one-line bill calling for a GE next monday and that requires only a simple majority. Problem with this, i think, is that by proroguing parliament (assuming its not overturned by the courts) it might not have enough time to be passed and - not 100% on the details - but the opposition can also introduce amendments that could potentially alter the bill in a way the PM might not like. Doesnt sound a great option, but like i said, i'm not 100% up to speed on what exactly it entails.

It's what's called a 'notwithstanding' bill. Basically "Notwithstanding the FTPA, the Government will hold an election on xx/xx/xxxx".
That's how you get around statute law. Make another one.

A Shropshire Lad

Good to see British democracy in action today, as the latest Bill will be debated and then voted on by the unelected House of Lords

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

There will be a period of news stories reporting chaos at Dover, business closures, redundancies etc. But these will die down. Economic problems will remain due to Brexit but over time will stop being attributed to brexit. Britain being outside the EU trading on WTO terms will be the accepted norm and problems will be blamed on politicians and policies of the day rather than Brexit.

Well, no, because in order to fix Dover, business closures, redundancies, food and fuel shortages, capital flight, sterling in the gutter etc the UK will need a trade deal with the EU pronto.

And the price for entering talks will be €33 billion, guarantees on EU citizens rights and a solution for the Irish Border.

The UK red-tops will melt down, and EU talks will be front page news for a decade.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ireland took on significant debt in the aftermath of the financial crisis. ...

The same thing will happen with no deal in the UK if that occurs. There will be a period of news stories reporting chaos at Dover, business closures, redundancies etc. But these will die down.

Yes, but those are just the effects of "no deal" - equivalent to Ireland's bail-out. But once Ireland was bailed out, that was the "end" of it (apart from the lingering consquences that you describe). For the UK, though, they'll go through all of that and then arrive back at this same point: having to agree a deal, and having to decide amongst themselves exactly how closely they want to align themselves with the EU to get that deal done. Cue howls of "we didn't fight for Brexit just to hand everything back to Brussels" - and media sensationalist reporting of same.

Forty Seven

listermint wrote: »

Exactly on the money.

She. Herself.

So why are you upset about Mays red lines.in fact you should me pissed with them. Being a remainer. Her red lines made no sense.

They made perfect sense, to leavers. Who unfortunately won a referendum and are hell bent on following it through regardless of the cost.



Me pointing out that the ECHR and the ECtHR are in fact quite a sticking point in this mess is merely a reflection of the idea posted here by many that the UK is somehow misguided and just hating anything EU. It is seen as capitulation. It's not all about the backstop.

Forty Seven

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Good to see British democracy in action today, as the latest Bill will be debated and then voted on by the unelected House of Lords

The entire civil service is unelected, as are our judges, as is the governor of the bank of England.



They all have much more sway over our country than the house of lords.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because in order to fix Dover, business closures, redundancies, food and fuel shortages, capital flight, sterling in the gutter etc the UK will need a trade deal with the EU pronto.

And the price for entering talks will be €33 billion, guarantees on EU citizens rights and a solution for the Irish Border.

The UK red-tops will melt down, and EU talks will be front page news for a decade.

I'm inclined to disagree with you here but not because I think the UK won't suffer problems but because of the way the news works. If the UK gets 10% poorer or even 20% poorer as a result of Brexit, even this stops being news after a time. When redundancies happen they are news but sadly not news six months later. This is unfair for the people affected and who can remain affected for much longer but nevertheless true.

My guess is about two years after Brexit, Brexit itself and the debate over it will be subject to only very minor discussion in the news media. I'm sure there will be ongoing trade talks between the UK and the EU but these will not be of huge interest either. They will be part of the background. The basic debate about Brexit itself will be over.

A Dub in Glasgo

Forty Seven wrote: »

If you think the NI border is a problem just wait until England realises they have no way to store their nuclear arsenal which will have to be removed immediately according to Nicola Sturgeon

An independent Scotland can lease the facilities until such time that rUK can move them

prawnsambo

Forty Seven wrote: »

They made perfect sense, to leavers. Who unfortunately won a referendum and are hell bent on following it through regardless of the cost.

Me pointing out that the ECHR and the ECtHR are in fact quite a sticking point in this mess is merely a reflection of the idea posted here by many that the UK is somehow misguided and just hating anything EU. It is seen as capitulation. It's not all about the backstop.

And as pointed out above, they're deluded. All of those things will be back, front and centre after the UK leaves without a deal. The only way they don't is if the UK decides that it will never trade with the EU on anything other than WTO MFN rules.

listermint

Forty Seven wrote: »

They made perfect sense, to leavers. Who unfortunately won a referendum and are hell bent on following it through regardless of the cost.



Me pointing out that the ECHR and the ECtHR are in fact quite a sticking point in this mess is merely a reflection of the idea posted here by many that the UK is somehow misguided and just hating anything EU. It is seen as capitulation. It's not all about the backstop.

No they made perfect sense to very specific people in the Tory party. Including may who had history and a bee in her bonnet.

They made sense to no one else. None.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

My guess is about two years after Brexit, Brexit itself and the debate over it will be subject to only very minor discussion in the news media. I'm sure there will be ongoing trade talks between the UK and the EU but these will not be of huge interest either. They will be part of the background. The basic debate about Brexit itself will be over.

You may be right. But those who support remaining won't shut up. Ever.

10000maniacs

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tories would win narrow majority in latest poll,but Labour still very much in contention:

https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1169589557748228096

That is before any campaign. Imagine the likes of Rees Mogg, Bridgen and Francois on the campaign trail. The Daily Mirror will have a field day.
I see Labour increasing their popularity as the campaign gets going.
I don't think Boris with a 99 and his shirt sticking out is somehow going to do it this time.
The Tory house of cards has finally toppled.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm sure there will be ongoing trade talks between the UK and the EU but these will not be of huge interest either. They will be part of the background. The basic debate about Brexit itself will be over.

When you have Brexiters today talking about fighting Germans for their freedom 100 years ago, there's no way they'll sit quietly in the background while the British government of the day "sells them out" to Brussels in 5 or 10 years time.

Professor Moriarty

10000maniacs wrote: »

That is before any campaign. Imagine the likes of Rees Mogg, Bridgen and Francois on the campaign trail. The Daily Mirror will have a field day.
I see Labour increasing their popularity as the campaign gets going.
I don't think Boris with a 99 and his shirt sticking out is somehow going to do it this time.
The Tory house of cards has finally toppled.

It all depends on the Brexit Party. If they step aside, the Tories will be back with a majority.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, but those are just the effects of "no deal" - equivalent to Ireland's bail-out. But once Ireland was bailed out, that was the "end" of it (apart from the lingering consquences that you describe). For the UK, though, they'll go through all of that and then arrive back at this same point: having to agree a deal, and having to decide amongst themselves exactly how closely they want to align themselves with the EU to get that deal done. Cue howls of "we didn't fight for Brexit just to hand everything back to Brussels" - and media sensationalist reporting of same.

However the UK entering into trade discussions with the EU after a no deal exit will be different to those that were happening earlier this year. The crash out that everyone is fearing will have happened and therefore also there will be no deadline with a potential crash out at the end of it. This is what the news was focussed on during the recent negotiations.

There might be a bit of reporting when the talks start but they will fade into the background as the years go on.

prawnsambo

10000maniacs wrote: »

That is before any campaign. Imagine the likes of Rees Mogg, Bridgen and Francois on the campaign trail. The Daily Mirror will have a field day.
I see Labour increasing their popularity as the campaign gets going.
I don't think Boris with a 99 and his shirt sticking out is somehow going to do it this time.
The Tory house of cards has finally toppled.

Labour have been making small gains over the last few polls. Some of them at the expense of the LibDems, but really would need to see the Tories lose a few percentage points as they are still likely to make seat gains on current polling.

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

They made perfect sense, to leavers. Who unfortunately won a referendum and are hell bent on following it through regardless of the cost.



Me pointing out that the ECHR and the ECtHR are in fact quite a sticking point in this mess is merely a reflection of the idea posted here by many that the UK is somehow misguided and just hating anything EU. It is seen as capitulation. It's not all about the backstop.

But the ECHR or ECtHR has nothing to do with the EU so leaving the EU will not mean leaving the ECHR. This is before you add in the complication of the GFA and the ECHR. You are right that the ECHR is a sticking point for a lot of people but I believe it is because they don't understand it and has been told it is bad by the tabloids. You yourself made reference to a case that on the surface seems to support your view of the ECHR, but a little digging shows it is not the ECHR that is the problem but the implementation of it. You cannot blame the EU for that, which you and a lot of people are doing.

Then you have to add the complication that if the UK wants to continue a security partnership with the EU they will still need to agree to keep to the ECHR, if they want be able to deport criminals from the UK to the EU. That is one of the things people seem very keen on doing, so the choices are limited in what he UK can do with the ECHR.

This is the point many have on here and it is a Brexit problem, once you scratch the surface it comes peeling away and any sensible arguments just falls apart. As a Remainer you should be fighting this instead of just giving up. You say you are a unionist in Scotland but fail to see the quickest way for Scotland to go for independence is for a no-deal Brexit. So you have two reasons to fight it, instead you just shrug your shoulders and want to get on with it.

And the clincher is that leaving with or without a deal guarantees nothing. For the next 7-10 years you will still be wrapped up in Brexit. Because the other countries will want to see what the UK's relationship is before they commit to trade deals with the UK. So the UK will be trying to negotiate a trade deal and what EU institutions they want to take part in after the implementation period (if a deal is agreed) and this alone may shape the relationship as BRINO. This will piss off the Brexit supporters and they will continue to rattle the cage.

Or you leave without a deal and from the first day you are trying to fight fires as they break out. I agree it will not be Armageddon on the first day, but the problems will slowly become worse and worse. Then you have to negotiate with the EU and we will tell you to sort out the border, citizens rights and the divorce bill. And we are back at square one again, but you have no trade deal or transitions with any countries and they will not give you any deal until you sort out the relationship with the EU. Do you start to see the problem here?

The only way to stop the chatter about Brexit for the next 10 years is to reverse it. Yes you will have politicians moaning about it, but we know they are a minority and if you ask them the plan they don't have none.

In any case, I don't know if anyone has picked it up, but Gove during his appearance at the Brexit Committee said that the UK will not look to impose tariffs on goods from Ireland to NI. He was then asked how to square the WTO circle and said they have legal advice from the Attorney General that there is a clause from the WTO that will allow this and allow them to collect tariffs from Ireland to the UK. When asked if this is unilateral or will need the WTO to agree I believe his answer was he wasn't sure. You can bet then that this is not a unilateral decision and it sounds so much like GATT 24. Surely he cannot be referring to GATT 24?