Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

This is an interesting tweet.

https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1169525135285661696?s=20

So the EU would consider an extension request even if the PM doesn't personally ask them for it because it is the law. The EU will treat the bill as law when the UK PM could ignore it, surely there is a German word for that.

BonnieSituation

careless sherpa wrote: »

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

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

Tbf, there was no where in that article does it mention that he WON'T get the ferry from Dublin. And we all know he wouldn't.

But it really does make more logistical sense for him to get the ferry from Larne rather than traipse to Dublin Port in time for a ferry to Holyhead and then bang down to London.

I would do exactly as he does. Though there's nothing on God's earth that would allow me to consider ever living in Larne.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

They won't/don't need a party to make themselves heard. Look at the Gilets Jaunes in France, or the current protesters in Hong Kong.

I'm not saying that there'll be wall-to-wall coverage of "the EU question" but it'll flare up regularly. Even now, the media regularly offers itself Brexit downtime, and only goes into overdrive in the run-up to each new deadline.

In the future, "the EU question" will be brought back to the fore when Scotland secedes from GB, when NI votes for reunification, and every time some "Brussels" reminds England that "those rules no longer apply" - e.g. the extradition of the tabloids' most-hated criminal-of-the-month, or Tracey-from-Essex's honeymoon-in-hell (because she forgot to renew her visa-waiver) ... not to mention "EU scuppers lucrative British trade deal with Solomon Islands" or somesuch hysteria.

Every one of those stories will pick at the scab of unhealed rifts between family members, neighbours, local politicians who voted leave or remain, etc, etc, etc; and that'll kick off a whole new round of Brexit-related acrimony.

There will be acrimony especially if there's a no deal brexit and the economy there suffers as one would expect. But, over time, this acrimony will be less to do with brexit and more to do with government policy of the day. This is true even though an argument can be made that a particular hardship can be traced back to brexit itself.

Another example in Ireland was the water charges protests. The water charges themselves can be traced to an EU directive from which Ireland had obtained a derogation but was nevertheless under pressure to lift. When the financial crisis hit and Ireland was trying to fend off a bailout, Ireland produced a document saying they would lift the derogation thus bringing about charges and this was later written into the memorandum of understanding of the bailout itself. So water charges were directly connected with the financial crisis but when the protests were occurring it was the government of the day that got the flack. Even though it was not long after the financial crisis, the crisis itself was no longer news and therefore water charges were not attributed to it.

So there may be yellow jacket style protests over various issues in the UK but as time goes on they will stop being seen as remainer protests. Of course in the immediate aftermath they will be seen as such.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

This is an interesting tweet.

https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1169525135285661696?s=20

So the EU would consider an extension request even if the PM doesn't personally ask them for it because it is the law. The EU will treat the bill as law when the UK PM could ignore it, surely there is a German word for that.

What's the German for 'common sense'?

InTheShadows

Banned.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Repeated that an election or referendum would need to be promised and that isnt the case as of yet at least.

I think it would be inappropriate for the EU to try to dictate the internal workings of a member state by offering threats/inducements this way.

Zubeneschamali

InTheShadows wrote: »

Excellent speech from the PM today.

PM of which country now?

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it would be inappropriate for the EU to try to dictate the internal workings of a member state by offering threats/inducements this way.

I think it's fair enough that when asked to extend the A50 period that the EU should ask "what for?". And in advance suggest that the reason had better be a good one. Like for instance a referendum or election.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it would be inappropriate for the EU to try to dictate the internal workings of a member state by offering threats/inducements this way.

But they've long been clear on that point: Tusk, Varadkar et al have all stated it clearly - an extension would be considered in the event of some change in the UK's position which seemed to mean either an election or a second referendum. Doesnt read like a threat/inducement to me, just laying out their position in a clear and helpful way.

ElectronVolt

Forty Seven wrote: »

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.

Every civil servant is responsible to a line minister (who is elected albeit indirectly) and in theory does the governments bidding as a neutral functionary.
Judges can be removed from office by the Oireachtas in impeachment procedures.
The Governor of the Central Bank serves at the behest of the Government.

NONE of those people are equivalent to peers. There are still 90 hereditary peers in the house and also the "Lords Spiritual" who are the assembled bishops of the Church of England.

They are not functionaries or administrators. They are legislators. That's a huge difference.

There's no amount of explaining away the fact that House of Lords is a bonkers anachronism that really shouldn't be in what is otherwise a modern democracy.

There are other oddities like the PM was not elected by the House of Commons. Theresa May just recommended him to the Queen on the basis that she felt he could command a majority and that was it. The Leader of the House (JRM) is also an appointee made by the Government and has no mandate from the House, despite the title. You've also got things like the Privy Council which wields significant power without any kind of accountability to electorates.

The Queen herself is the least non-democratic part of the system. Her role is just symbolic. The problem is you've the leftovers of what amounts to a pre-democratic royal court still in place.

Whatever becomes of the UK after Brexit, they really do need to look at serious constitutional reform - notably perhaps having a written constitution. It's as if all of the assumed to exist checks-and-balances have turned out to be about as useful as having a Morris Dance. This mess has shaken out pretty issue that could possibly go wrong and I suspect we'll see a few more emerge before the end of Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But they've long been clear on that point: Tusk, Varadkar et al have all stated it clearly - an extension would be considered in the event of some change in the UK's position which seemed to mean either an election or a second referendum. Doesnt read like a threat/inducement to me, just laying out their position in a clear and helpful way.

"Call an election or you are out with No Deal" doesn't sound quite as neutral.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

"Call an election or you are out with No Deal" doesn't sound quite as neutral.

Nobody said that.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

Nobody said that.

That's exactly what it means though. "Nice constitutional arrangements you've got in your sovereign nation there, member state. Now call an election or else."

steddyeddy

Jacob Rees Mogg compares doctor who warned public about medicine shortages to Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who made up data claiming autism was caused by vaccines. The doctor in question is David Nicholls, author of the governments own Yellowhammer papers which assessed the damage of a no deal on medicines. Mogg is an extremely dangerous ideologue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...box=1567690153

Mancomb Seepgood

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jacob Rees Mogg compares doctor who warned public about medicine shortages to Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who made up data claiming autism was caused by vaccines. The doctor in question is David Nicholls, author of the governments own Yellowhammer papers which assessed the damage of a no deal on medicines. Mogg is an extremely dangerous ideologue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...box=1567690153

Said using parliamentary privilege of course,cowardly as well as shameless.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Call an election or you are out with No Deal" doesn't sound quite as neutral.

Should just be clear here, i wasnt directly quoting him above, although i do think he used close to those words. What he was saying is an election isnt yet guaranteed so he wasn't convinced on the basis of granting the extension as things stand, not that he or anyone else in the EU was directly demanding it. It was just the overall tone of the interview that struck me really, he used some strong language in relation to the negotiations or lack of them. Didnt seem to me to have a lot of patience left for the way things were going.

Strazdas

Watching the BBC News at 6, it's a bit shocking to see just how entrenched Leave voters are. "Leaving the EU" seems to be their sole political priority, ahead of all the normal things you would expect a voter to be concerned about.

ElectronVolt

Strazdas wrote: »

Watching the BBC News at 6, it's a bit shocking to see just how entrenched Leave voters are. "Leaving the EU" seems to be their sole political priority, ahead of all the normal things you would expect a voter to be concerned about.

It's raw nationalism and tribal politics and it's been stirred, whipped and brought to the boil over the last few years and I really can't see any way back from that.

I would still predict any general election to produce a result that would be the complete opposite to what anyone with an ounce of sense or who was a pragmatist might like to see. You will end up with a load of hardline Tories and probably the rise of a significant number of Brexit Party MPs.

There's no unifying, calming, sane figure emerging from all of this to put the genie back into the bottle.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's exactly what it means though. "Nice constitutional arrangements you've got in your sovereign nation there, member state. Now call an election or else."

No it''s not. Again, as I posted above, if you're going to be asking me for something, I have the right to set the preconditions on which I will grant your request.

Strazdas

ElectronVolt wrote: »

It's raw nationalism and tribal politics and it's been stirred, whipped and brought to the boil over the last few years and I really can't see any way back from that.

I would still predict any general election to produce a result that would be the complete opposite to what anyone with an ounce of sense or who was a pragmatist might like to see. You will end up with a load of hardline Tories and probably the rise of a significant number of Brexit Party MPs.

There's no unifying, calming, sane figure emerging from all of this to put the genie back into the bottle.

Indeed, it seems the only thing the UK electorate would be interested in a party's manifesto is their position on leaving the EU. This is insane stuff : go anywhere else throughout Europe and the very last thing anyone would be discussing is the EU and whether it is a good idea or not.

Gaslighting and media brainwashing springs to mind.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

That's exactly what it means though. "Nice constitutional arrangements you've got in your sovereign nation there, member state. Now call an election or else."

Nobody has said anything remotely like that, nor did they say anything that could be reasonably interpreted as implying that.

The EU is absolutely clear that the UK is leaving on October 31 and it is the UK's choice if that is based on the WA it agreed with the UK government or not.

If it is, fine; if not then goodbye and good luck. It is a delusional myth that the EU is plotting ways to overturn Brexit.

Unfortunately for the UK, this myth is preventing realistic discussion and decision making in Westminster. Even more unfortunately for the UK, it is not preventing the UK's customers and suppliers in the EU from planning for November 1st and beyond.

mcmoustache

InTheShadows wrote: »

Excellent speech from the PM today.

Do you have some criteria or yardstick by which you measure the quality of a speech or are you just on a windup?


I've heard decent speeches in my life and that one from today was below average in terms of content, delivery and presentation.


Humour me here. What to you look for in a good speech?

ElectronVolt

The UK can leave tomorrow morning if it wants and do so entirely unilaterally. What it cannot do is leave and keep all the benefits of membership without doing some kind of deal, which would involve the UK and EU coming to some kind of mutually agreed and mutually beneficial arrangement. It also needs to (for its own benefit) close the loose ends, and that includes coming up with a workable solution for the border in Ireland.

It's not being trapped by Ireland or the Irish Government. It's being trapped by its own refusal acknowledge that there are complicated circumstances in Northern Ireland and nobody can just pretend that those problems should just go away and expect that to somehow solve the issue. The fact that Johnson, Rees-Mogg or Foster dogmatically chose to ignore reality does not mean that reality goes away. That isn't how the real world works.

It's as if people cannot get this very simple message through their heads. Nobody's trying to keep the UK in. It's just holding a gun its own feet and threatening to pull the trigger if it doesn't get its way, having had a massive tantrum where it's name called and gone as far as even suggesting the EU should be dismantled.

The EU does not owe the UK a free lunch, nor should it (we) undermine ourselves to facilitate an ex-member. We are being reasonable and friendly. However, we do not need to turn ourselves inside out.

As significant as market disruption might be due to a hard Brexit, imagine if the EU were to say "oh that's fine! You just carry on as normal and sure forget about all those regulations that ensure fair play in our free market, sure just do whatever - set up a lovely little tax and regulatory haven".

That would destroy the economies of Ireland and other members of the EU by just allowing someone to come in and distort the entire single market and it's not going to be remotely acceptable to the other member states.

They're quite willing to come to a deal and a sane arrangement and have been nothing but open minded and hospitable to this whole thing, yet the false victimhood of the UK and lashing out seems to be the narrative.

How do you even begin to negotiate with something like that?! It's illogical, irrational and the negotiators on the UK side engaged in extremely bad faith (and continue to do so) and have basically spent the last number of years utterly messing everyone about. The EU side (or anyone look at this objectively) cannot really even understand what the UK is asking for as the whole thing is such an incoherent mess.

The only solution to this can come from the UK and a return to pragmatism. If it does not happen, unfortunately we are in for a very bumpy ride and the UK is in for a very harsh reality check. There is no way around that.

lawred2

I'd rather be dead in a ditch..

...

Pathetic.

Surely the time has come for a VONC.

jm08

Article in Financial Times (paywall) about attitudes to Brexit in Europe.

How Europe views the Brexit endgame
The EU’s decision makers have lost patience with Britain and want it out — fast

https://www.ft.com/content/110207f2-cea2-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6

In brief:

1. European decision makers have lost patience with Britain and want it out, fast.

2. European will continue to sound friendly and open to negotiations.
3. Would rather have no-deal Brexit than drop backstop. Fears of renewed conflict on Irish border makes it non-negotiable because peace is the EU's core mission.
4. European business is not lobbying against no deal. They don't want to have to compete with a deregulated UK.
5. They don't see huge economic damage - Ireland expects short term damage.
6. Southern Europeans couldn't give two tosses about it.


Brussels expect Britain to reopen talks within a week. Initially will allow Irish border to be porous, but will be checking continental ports (causing delays and shortages in the UK).

Tippex

lawred2 wrote: »

I'd rather be dead in a ditch..

...

Pathetic.

Surely the time has come for a VONC.

yep basically saying that he will ignore the vote etc. he has something planned will be a very interesting few days ahead.

BluePlanet

Tippex wrote: »

yep basically saying that he will ignore the vote etc. he has something planned will be a very interesting few days ahead.

Didn't he also say he would not talk to the EU until they dropped the BackStop?
Didn't happen.

Sam Russell

BluePlanet wrote: »

Didn't he also say he would not talk to the EU until they dropped the BackStop?
Didn't happen.

Well he hasn't really. He sent someone over and they had a cup of tea or coffee and then went home. Came with nothing, and left with nothing. The EU said there was no negotiation with the UK envoy.

So the boomster is just hot air.

An Ciarraioch

Tippex wrote: »

yep basically saying that he will ignore the vote etc. he has something planned will be a very interesting few days ahead.

Will he still go to Dublin on Monday?

Strazdas

jm08 wrote: »

Article in Financial Times (paywall) about attitudes to Brexit in Europe.

How Europe views the Brexit endgame
The EU’s decision makers have lost patience with Britain and want it out — fast

https://www.ft.com/content/110207f2-cea2-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6

In brief:

1. European decision makers have lost patience with Britain and want it out, fast.

2. European will continue to sound friendly and open to negotiations.
3. Would rather have no-deal Brexit than drop backstop. Fears of renewed conflict on Irish border makes it non-negotiable because peace is the EU's core mission.
4. European business is not lobbying against no deal. They don't want to have to compete with a deregulated UK.
5. They don't see huge economic damage - Ireland expects short term damage.
6. Southern Europeans couldn't give two tosses about it.


Brussels expect Britain to reopen talks within a week. Initially will allow Irish border to be porous, but will be checking continental ports (causing delays and shortages in the UK).

I can't see how the UK remains in the EU under any scenario. Its government and the 17 million Leave voters seem determined to burn all their bridges with the union.