Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Calina

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Some interesting stuff being said by Rudd this morning about whats going on in Downing Street. Basicallly that cabinet is not having discussions about policy, does not know who is running the country.

I missed the interview but basically that can be summarised as the people who were voted into parliamentary seats, and were appointed to cabinet are not.

But this has been clear from the moment Dominic Cummings was appointed SPAD.

The more interesting thing is Rudd has a razor thin majority. Incumbancy might have held onto the seat for the Tories but that has to be in doubt now - she was nearly unseated by a Labour/Green cooperation pact.

cryptocurrency

No parliament can bind its successor, just discussed this morning.

Delay or amendments don't matter after the next election result as the slate is wiped clean. Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election then why are we wasting our time dragging it out now.

Remain now in the last frenzied flurry of a punch drunk boxer about to hit the deck.

Igotadose

20silkcut wrote: »

Trade generally doesn’t kill anyone.
Border in the sea and we can all live happily ever after.
Britain can do as it pleases and we can do as we please. And we can freely trade without putting anyone or anything in jeopardy. And we can all be friends again.

Is the Tax alignment aspect of the WA the reason the Tories have switched to no-deal? Is it as simple as that, the grandees and their handlers don't want to have to pay their taxes? There's a bunch in the media about it, but it seems too cut and dried to be the primary reason; that type's always got ways to beat the tax man.

Mortelaro

GM228 wrote: »

What part is my opinion exactly?

This is all set out very specifically in the TEU and TFEU.

Your opinion on what it means or what can or cannot be done and as I said regardless there are loads of cummings twarting options

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There is definitely the question of the EU saying over and over that the WAB cannot be reopened, so its impossible to say for certain that that position would change in the event of a Labour renegotiation. Nevertheless, i think the EU would acknowledge the imperative of having an agreement that can pass through parliament so however it would be done, whether through amendments or add ons, i do believe the bill could be altered to take in elements like CU, environmental regulations etc, while also specifying the need to have it go back to the people, thus guaranteeing the cross party support it needs.

I thought John McDonnell gave a decent performance on Marr this morning. One of the things he was personally strong on was not having no deal as an option in any referendum. I think that's very tricky territory for any government to be dealing with, but if parliament wont countenance it, then i cant see how it could go ahead. Any deal that goes back to the people has simply to be passed by parliament first, otherwise you're just recreating the same recipe for chaos.

I am talking about Labour leading the negotiations in 2017 after the general election. What deal would the EU have given the UK that is fundamentally different than the WA it gave? Remember we are not talking about Labour in coalition with the DUP, we are talking about a Labour party that enjoys a healthy majority in the House of Commons. The EU would then only worry about getting a deal that the negotiators that Labour sent are happy with as you assume they will only follow the instructions of their paymasters.

For the moment I see no different deal, only different language that would be used. The backstop would not be a backstop but just continuation of the customs union and the areas that needs it in NI to ensure no border infrastructure. But it would still be in there to guarantee no border. This would be mitigated by the noises from government that they are not seeking to do their own trade deals so there is very little conflict relating to this. Hence the softer language around it.

I guess it is really simple, there is no deal that is as good as staying in the EU. The deal May got is as good as they were going to get, its just the language that was used that would have changed to describe it. It would have gotten through if whoever that negotiated it had enough of a majority in parliament.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

20silkcut wrote: »

No they are not. They are actively seeking to undermine the EU. A UK free trade deal with the US and concurrent free trade deal with the EU is not possible without checks at the border. Which undermines the GFA. We are blue in the face repeating this. Three years down the road from the referendum.
Put the border in the Irish Sea and problem solved.

Problem solved for Ireland but the EU don't want britain free and it will kill the EU with trade

There will be only 2 deaths,
The pm's political career and the uk's economy

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No parliament can bind its successor, just discussed this morning.

Delay or amendments don't matter after the next election result as the slate is wiped clean. Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election then why are we wasting our time dragging it out now.

Remain now in the last frenzied flurry of a punch drunk boxer about to hit the deck.

You seem very dogmatically wedded to the idea that the conservatives will win the next election, but the opposition have the whip hand now and can put off any election to a time that suits them, for example after they successfully force Johnson to delay Brexit. Polls have shown that Conservative support slumps quite drastically if they fail to prevent Brexit being extended again and Labour tops polls when it is assumed that the election takes place in November after brexit is deayed.

Johnson has lost control and has been shown to be way out of his depth. Perhaps the British will support a proven failure like Johnson whos own party is in full revolt against him, but I wont be betting on it.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No parliament can bind its successor, just discussed this morning.

Delay or amendments don't matter after the next election result as the slate is wiped clean. Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election then why are we wasting our time dragging it out now.

Remain now in the last frenzied flurry of a punch drunk boxer about to hit the deck.

Doris is finished ye need nige mate

gooch2k9

French foreign minister stating they aren't prepared to extend past 31st October "as things stand".

Bloomberg.

Hard to argue with them in fairness, the whole process is going nowhere. Even this week's developments only postpone to January a no deal exit. If the Tories win a majority at the upcoming election, as the polls indicate, it just brings us back to before last week; crash out brexit.

Enzokk

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No parliament can bind its successor, just discussed this morning.

Delay or amendments don't matter after the next election result as the slate is wiped clean. Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election then why are we wasting our time dragging it out now.

Remain now in the last frenzied flurry of a punch drunk boxer about to hit the deck.

Its funny, the argument was made that the UK wanted to leave the EU to get back power to parliament, and yet you prove that this is a lie with your post above. My question is, do you realize that is what you have done?

Capt'n Midnight

GM228 wrote: »

This is actually a very interesting twist if true, whilst it does not mean an automatic kick out for the UK it would create the desired effect of preventing the Commission from operating in accordance with the TFEU.

Non issue as the EU has operated for months with missing commissioners before.

And it's totally moot as the commissioner is independent and isn't a UK rep. So unlikely to stop the EU working as normal.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111197465&postcount=6804

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not new news as Boris said it back in July.
Barnier commented back in May

...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/pm-says-uk-will-not-nominate-an-eu-commissioner-how-might-the-eu-respond/
Article 246.
...
Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union

declanflynn

gooch2k9 wrote: »

French foreign minister stating they aren't prepared to extend past 31st October "as things stand".

Bloomberg.

Hard to argue with them in fairness, the whole process is going nowhere. Even this week's developments only postpone to January a no deal exit. If the Tories win a majority at the upcoming election, as the polls indicate, it just brings us back to before last week; crash out brexit.

When the british pm asks for an extension the EU should refuse to grant it, the final humiliation

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

I am talking about Labour leading the negotiations in 2017 after the general election. What deal would the EU have given the UK that is fundamentally different than the WA it gave? Remember we are not talking about Labour in coalition with the DUP, we are talking about a Labour party that enjoys a healthy majority in the House of Commons. The EU would then only worry about getting a deal that the negotiators that Labour sent are happy with as you assume they will only follow the instructions of their paymasters.

For the moment I see no different deal, only different language that would be used. The backstop would not be a backstop but just continuation of the customs union and the areas that needs it in NI to ensure no border infrastructure. But it would still be in there to guarantee no border. This would be mitigated by the noises from government that they are not seeking to do their own trade deals so there is very little conflict relating to this. Hence the softer language around it.

I guess it is really simple, there is no deal that is as good as staying in the EU. The deal May got is as good as they were going to get, its just the language that was used that would have changed to describe it. It would have gotten through if whoever that negotiated it had enough of a majority in parliament.

Sorry, misread your original post. Though, to be honest, i'm not certain the answer would be all that different. Labours brexit policy has long been the butt of jokes and slurs, but if you consider their 2017 manifesto, i think it gives a fair indication of how talks with the EU might have gone. There would have been more clarity around the issues of CU and SM and other key aspects of the relationship, a lot less i believe would have been left to the next round of talks via the pol declaration. They weren't proposing a peoples vote, but there's still every chance they might have been pushed there. Its all what if territory and who knows, maybe would just have led us to the same chaos now, only by a different route.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Zubeneschamali

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election

If you know the result, you can make lots of non-crypto cash at paddypower.com:

Conservatives Majority 13/8
Conservatives Minority 5/2
Labour Minority 7/2
Labour Majority 9/1
Cons/Brexit Coalition 12/1
Lab/SNP Coalition 16/1

I wonder if Lab/SNP minority supported by SNP counts in that last bet? 16/1 would look good if so.

cryptocurrency

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you know the result, you can make lots of non-crypto cash at paddypower.com:

Conservatives Majority 13/8
Conservatives Minority 5/2
Labour Minority 7/2
Labour Majority 9/1
Cons/Brexit Coalition 12/1
Lab/SNP Coalition 16/1

I wonder if Lab/SNP minority supported by SNP counts in that last bet? 16/1 would look good if so.

looks like Paddypower agrees

cryptocurrency

declanflynn wrote: »

When the british pm asks for an extension the EU should refuse to grant it, the final humiliation

That would play into pro brexiteers hands. They want to bribe Orban to turf them out or not to appoint a commissioner to get kicked out.

That would be far from a humiliation.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you know the result, you can make lots of non-crypto cash at paddypower.com:

Conservatives Majority 13/8
Conservatives Minority 5/2
Labour Minority 7/2
Labour Majority 9/1
Cons/Brexit Coalition 12/1
Lab/SNP Coalition 16/1

I wonder if Lab/SNP minority supported by SNP counts in that last bet? 16/1 would look good if so.

looks like Paddypower agrees

That 13/8 Is a loss leader

GM228

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Non issue as the EU has operated for months with missing commissioners before.

And it's totally moot as the commissioner is independent and isn't a UK rep. So unlikely to stop the EU working as normal.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111197465&postcount=6804

What is outlined for in your post is provided for under the TEU and TFEU where there is unanimous agreement of the European Council, it requires unanimous agreement of each head of state including the UK so long as they remain a member of the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

gooch2k9 wrote: »

French foreign minister stating they aren't prepared to extend past 31st October "as things stand".

Bloomberg.

Hard to argue with them in fairness, the whole process is going nowhere. Even this week's developments only postpone to January a no deal exit. If the Tories win a majority at the upcoming election, as the polls indicate, it just brings us back to before last week; crash out brexit.

Don't worry, the French are only putting the threat of "No Deal" on the table to get a better deal.

They don't really mean it.


They are just following the UK stance. :rolleyes:
Ms Rudd said up to 90 per cent of government time was spent preparing for an "inferior" no-deal option.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

declanflynn wrote: »

When the british pm asks for an extension the EU should refuse to grant it, the final humiliation

That would play into pro brexiteers hands. They want to bribe Orban to turf them out or not to appoint a commissioner to get kicked out.

That would be far from a humiliation.

We would get rid of ye, thats what everyone in the EU wants old chap

MadYaker

Maybe it would be better for everyone if they just left on the 31st regardless. This needs to be over now one way or another. I was listening to Patrick Honohan (our central bank governor) on the radio a few days ago and he seemed to think a no deal brexit would obviously be bad but it would only result in a recession that was a fraction (one eight I think he said) of what we experienced after 2008. Agri food business hit the hardest obviously. Dublin would barely be effected as it's industry is very US focused and is mostly based on services / tech / financial etc.

Basically his opinion was the brits will be fcuked but we'll be alright after a year or two and the farmers are gonna need some help.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

MadYaker wrote: »

Maybe it would be better for everyone if they just left on the 31st regardless. This needs to be over now one way or another. I was listening to Patrick Honohan (our central bank governor) on the radio a few days ago and he seemed to think a no deal brexit would obviously be bad but it would only result in a recession that was a fraction (one eight I think he said) of what we experienced after 2008. Agri food business hit the hardest obviously. Dublin would barely be effected as it's industry is very US focused and is moist based on services / tech / financial etc.

Basically his opinion was the brits will be fcuked but we'll be alright after a year or two and the farmers are gonna need some help.

There you go. Leo can cool the jets then.

There are lots of advantages for Ireland in a no deal brexit, too many to list here, it would be rough for 3 weeks but after that we would power forword

Joe_ Public

Dunno was anybody listening to Sajid Javid on the Marr show earlier. Was quite something, think he basically accused Amber Rudd of being a barefaced liar when she suggested no serious negotiations were taking place, but will let that go for now. He also said the PM will not break the law in relation to the Benn bill but that he will categorically not be asking for an extension on the 19th October and that they'll be leaving the EU on the 31st. One way of interpreting that paradox is that they are supremely confident they will find some sort of loophole that will get them out of the extension request bill. Probably something ancient and arcane that will keep the courts busy. A case of watching this space i imagine.

declanflynn

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dunno was anybody listening to Sajid Javid on the Marr show earlier. Was quite something, think he basically accused Amber Rudd of being a barefaced liar when she suggested no serious negotiations were taking place, but will let that go for now. He also said the PM will not break the law in relation to the Benn bill but that he will categorically not be asking for an extension on the 19th October and that they'll be leaving the EU on the 31st. One way of interpreting that paradox is that they are supremely confident they will find some sort of loophole that will get them out of the extension request bill. Probably something ancient and arcane that will keep the courts busy. A case of watching this space i imagine.

Javid always comes accross as an idiot, the will keep singing the same song, deep down the know the game is up, dup under the bus is the most lightly way out of the cul de sac

murphaph

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Problem solved for Ireland but the EU don't want britain free and it will kill the EU with trade

Give it a rest. It was the Brits that asked to extend the NI only backstop to GB to keep the DUP on side. If it hadn't been for that GB would be well on its way to the sunlit uplands by now.

Joe_ Public

declanflynn wrote: »

Javid always comes accross as an idiot, the will keep singing the same song, deep down the know the game is up, dup under the bus is the most lightly way out of the cul de sac

Javid also claimed the UK have a proposal for renegotiations, but of course he couldnt divulge what it was, god forbid, because that is not how you do negotiating. It is such a zinger, a gamechanger, that it would be "madness" to discuss it in public lest......well, who the heck knows really....

Shelga

Sajid Javid strikes me as someone who does actually want to do good for the country outside of Brexit- unlike, say, Dominic Raab- but he has sold his soul to be Chancellor in this government, and there is no going back.

Cannot trust a word he says on Brexit- therefore cannot trust anything he says on future spending, as no one knows just how bad the impact of a hard Brexit would be.

Professor Moriarty

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You do have a lot of faith in this frenchman.

He was born in England.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Shelga wrote: »

Sajid Javid strikes me as someone who does actually want to do good for the country outside of Brexit- unlike, say, Dominic Raab- but he has sold his soul to be Chancellor in this government, and there is no going back.

Cannot trust a word he says on Brexit- therefore cannot trust anything he says on future spending, as no one knows just how bad the impact of a hard Brexit would be.

No he understands the City and its importance and don't want the EU and their grubby overregulation getting their hands on it

Too late mate €700 billion already moved from london to other financial centres

cryptocurrency

declanflynn wrote: »

Too late mate €700 billion already moved from london to other financial centres

jeysus much more then that left HK back to mainland china in the last few weeks so I suppose they are doomed too.

Rolls eyes.