Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

Forty Seven wrote: »

Rejoice in your victory, another Brit vanquished by sheer force of numbers. How many have given up talking to you lot now?

More a matter of confusion being vanquished by facts but off you go.

murphaph

Forty Seven wrote: »

Clearly stated that in the brackets.

Right. I'm out. Things to do and I see there is no real discussion here. Enjoy your echo chamber. I may return but I don't have time for this bombardation of closed opinion. The Guardian being pro brexit should have you all cringing if you actually endorse that comment.

Rejoice in your victory, another Brit vanquished by sheer force of numbers. How many have given up talking to you lot now?

Did you expect much support for Brexit on an Irish forum?

murphaph

McGiver wrote: »

I've been telling this all the time. The Russians are a significant player in this.

Brexit is so misfortunate, because it's aligned several things at once - Russian elite interests, Russian oligarch interests, US oligarch interests, UK elite interests, UK oligarchs interests, English dissatisfaction and systemic failure of UK political system.

Of course they are. Putin is trying to destabilise both the EU and NATO and he's doing a pretty good job of it. The US and UK populace have been played like fiddles.

Forty Seven

First Up wrote: »

More a matter of confusion being vanquished by facts but off you go.

Nope. More a matter of not having the time for answering 20 odd single issue posts at a sitting.

looksee

Forty Seven wrote: »

Clearly stated that in the brackets.

Right. I'm out. Things to do and I see there is no real discussion here. Enjoy your echo chamber. I may return but I don't have time for this bombardation of closed opinion. The Guardian being pro brexit should have you all cringing if you actually endorse that comment.

Rejoice in your victory, another Brit vanquished by sheer force of numbers. How many have given up talking to you lot now?

Even a controlled, agreed Brexit is going to make life difficult to some extent for Ireland. It would be much better for us if they remained in the EU.

This is an Irish discussion site, why would anyone expect a strong pro-Brexit agenda?

Most of us would love to hear some really cogent reasons why Brexit should happen but there are not any. All the usual arguments about 'protecting our borders' and 'making our own laws' have been argued and no convincing argument has been forthcoming from the Brexit side. There has been a fair bit of flouncing off in a huff when the points get too hard to argue, but nothing to convince anyone outside the uk that it is at all a good idea.

And now there are serious statements being made that all the problems are the fault of the Irish and the EU - er no, lads, YOU wanted to leave, you resolve the resulting problems. We were all quite happy with the situation as it was, you threw the cat among the pigeons.

None of this whole situation is really anything to do with other countries, it is all a result of internal squabbling, incompetent political management and a general air of fantasy about the UK's importance and place in the world.

And I say this as a (admittedly long gone) Brit.

asteroids over berlin

The express reporting a huge us uk trade deal done - what a rag of a paper. Boris saying they will only pay 9 billion if the current proposal is not scrapped - jis pushing the eu to boiling point. Not sure he actually wants a deal at this point

CelticRambler

Forty Seven wrote: »

Right. I'm out. Things to do and I see there is no real discussion here. Enjoy your echo chamber. I may return but I don't have time for this bombardation of closed opinion.

Another Brexiter complains about "no real discussion" while refusing to engage in discussion about points they themselves have posted ... :rolleyes:

Forty Seven

murphaph wrote: »

Did you expect much support for Brexit on an Irish forum?

No. I did however expect a slightly higher standard than.

It was the Russians.
It is a conspiracy of the elite.
The referendum was undemocratic.
That I personally could change the outcome in an evening.
That the Guardian was pro brexit.

I made my case. I would prefer to remain but I'm ready to leave. Apparently that is not possible given my questions on immigration. Yet I assure you I have no alterior motives. It seems this thread is just a bunch of folk circle jerking how bad things will be and the sheer volume of responses is overwhelming for me to rebutt. Therefore there is no point.

Given the list I just wrote above I am happy that both sides are mental and I will carry on in my life as a casual observer of the madness and will wait and see how best to bring my family through the outcome.

lawred2

Forty Seven wrote: »

No. I did however expect a slightly higher standard than.

It was the Russians.
It is a conspiracy of the elite.
The referendum was undemocratic.
That I personally could change the outcome in an evening.
That the Guardian was pro brexit.

I made my case. I would prefer to remain but I'm ready to leave. Apparently that is not possible given my questions on immigration. Yet I assure you I have no alterior motives. It seems this thread is just a bunch of folk circle jerking how bad things will be and the sheer volume of responses is overwhelming for me to rebutt. Therefore there is no point.

Given the list I just wrote above I am happy that both sides are mental and I will carry on in my life as a casual observer of the madness and will wait and see how best to bring my family through the outcome.

There are very fine people on both sides...

Either way I don't think a few page seven Express sound bytes constitutes making a case for anything.

Enzokk

firemansam4 wrote: »

I get several articles posted on my news feed on my phone quite often and they have all been very much pro Brexit from the guardian from what I have seen.

So yes I can very much believe what I just typed, you can make out that I am imagining it or what ever you want, but I can only comment on what I seen.

I have never actually purchased the Guardian nor do I ever want to.

I know the Guardian does have many columnists that they have posting articles, regulars and one-offs. So it may be you did read a column from someone who supports Brexit from the left, or even a Conservative getting a piece published by the Guardian.

That doesn't mean the paper itself is supporting Brexit, their journalists articles has very much been in favour of the EU and remain.

Forty Seven wrote: »

Clearly stated that in the brackets.

Right. I'm out. Things to do and I see there is no real discussion here. Enjoy your echo chamber. I may return but I don't have time for this bombardation of closed opinion. The Guardian being pro brexit should have you all cringing if you actually endorse that comment.

Rejoice in your victory, another Brit vanquished by sheer force of numbers. How many have given up talking to you lot now?

No facts, just slogans about immigration and how the referendum was fair. We know this is not true as one side, possible both cheated. That doesn't make it fair and for someone who supposedly voted remain the apathy to these events leads me to think you are not what you say.

So by all means, lets have a discussion, but some facts to support your stance would help. We know immigration played a role, look at the Farage poster. But the facts are that EU immigration was a net benefit so the voting public voted for a policy that is making the country worse off.

As for our reaction on here, let's see. We will be hurt economically due to a vote that was not fair on policies that has been proven to be lies and had you want us to be accept it?

Forty Seven

looksee wrote: »

Even a controlled, agreed Brexit is going to make life difficult to some extent for Ireland. It would be much better for us if they remained in the EU.

This is an Irish discussion site, why would anyone expect a strong pro-Brexit agenda?

Most of us would love to hear some really cogent reasons why Brexit should happen but there are not any. All the usual arguments about 'protecting our borders' and 'making our own laws' have been argued and no convincing argument has been forthcoming from the Brexit side. There has been a fair bit of flouncing off in a huff when the points get too hard to argue, but nothing to convince anyone outside the uk that it is at all a good idea.

And now there are serious statements being made that all the problems are the fault of the Irish and the EU - er no, lads, YOU wanted to leave, you resolve the resulting problems. We were all quite happy with the situation as it was, you threw the cat among the pigeons.

None of this whole situation is really anything to do with other countries, it is all a result of internal squabbling, incompetent political management and a general air of fantasy about the UK's importance and place in the world.

And I say this as a (admittedly long gone) Brit.

I will respond to this as you have presented it in a reasonable tone and have some fair points. Then I have to go.

Brexit will hurt everyone. There are plenty countries waiting to see what happens here. The truth is that nobody knows. Both sides are scaremongering, one got us into the mess, the other is trying to subvert a referendum result. Both are abhorrent.

I did not come on expecting a pro-brexit stance. I have been following this and many other brexit discussions for years. I never said I thought Brexit was a good idea. I identified myself as a remain voter with Brexit fatigue. I believe we can protect our borders better, I also believe a lot of EU law restricts us and the European Court is becoming more of an issue to our freedom. I still believe it is a lessor evil than cutting ties.

It is not flouncing off, it is being overwhelmed by post after post after post. It is not possible to keep up and the tone of blame and bile has in one evening more entrenched my viewpoint if I am honest. This is not a one sided issue, we may have voted but there is no denying we now have our backs against the wall. Deservedly so but not a good time to poke the bear.

There is no need to convince anyone that this is a good idea. I don't need to explain. This is happening. We are leaving, no ifs, no buts. Where we go from here is what I am more interested in but it seems we will be made to suffer first before we find that out.

The UK is an important power globally, to pretend otherwise is less than short sighted. The constant pulling apart of our politicians is possibly deserved but let us not pretend Ireland or the EU have any better caliber of leadership. Corruption, nepotism and lies are prevelant right throughout both sides and the center of politics. It will be a dry day before we get that sorted.

In short. I'd love to discuss from my viewpoint, it is not possible here because the sheer volume is overwhelming and the tone shown to someone who is a remain voter is uncalled for and the accusations of alterior motives are laughable. It only ends up with a discussion based on emotion. I should not be getting angry when discussing these issues yet I am. Given the enormity of the situation and the emotions so clearly on show from both sides I do not see us coming through this without a conflagration and bloodletting but I hope I am wrong.

I know there will be positive outcomes eventually but it will be a dark day until we reach that place.

lawred2

looksee wrote: »

Even a controlled, agreed Brexit is going to make life difficult to some extent for Ireland. It would be much better for us if they remained in the EU.

This is an Irish discussion site, why would anyone expect a strong pro-Brexit agenda?

Most of us would love to hear some really cogent reasons why Brexit should happen but there are not any. All the usual arguments about 'protecting our borders' and 'making our own laws' have been argued and no convincing argument has been forthcoming from the Brexit side. There has been a fair bit of flouncing off in a huff when the points get too hard to argue, but nothing to convince anyone outside the uk that it is at all a good idea.

And now there are serious statements being made that all the problems are the fault of the Irish and the EU - er no, lads, YOU wanted to leave, you resolve the resulting problems. We were all quite happy with the situation as it was, you threw the cat among the pigeons.

None of this whole situation is really anything to do with other countries, it is all a result of internal squabbling, incompetent political management and a general air of fantasy about the UK's importance and place in the world.

And I say this as a (admittedly long gone) Brit.

The first tangible area where the UK could have demonstrated their desire for 'controlling our borders' is on this very island. And what are they claiming?

'We shall not impose any border'

The sheer levels of duplicity are staggering. But sure what does it matter any more? It's too tribal. And facts don't resonate.

Slogans and feelings resonate.

Enzokk

Johnson must have some complicated plan if he doesn't really want to leave the EU without a deal. The messages he keeps sending out is that he is not bothered by no-deal and is actively pursuing it. The other option is that he needs to be so convincing that he wants it only to have it thwarted at the last minute, to still be able to carry the Brexit vote in a general election to then...leave with a deal?

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1165358713600978944?s=20

Boris Johnson seeks legal advice on five-week parliament closure ahead of Brexit

What worries me about this is that Cummings may have been correct,

An email from senior government advisers to an adviser in No 10 – written within the last 10 days and seen by the Observer – makes clear that the prime minister has recently requested guidance on the legality of such a move, known as prorogation. The initial legal guidance given in the email is that shutting parliament may well be possible, unless action being taken in the courts to block such a move by anti-Brexit campaigners succeeds in the meantime.

...

The prominent Tory remainer and former attorney general Dominic Grieve added: “This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons. It may be possible to circumvent the clear intention of the House of Commons in this way but it shows total bad faith. Excluding the house from a national crisis that threatens the future of our country is entirely wrong.”

So he may be legally able to do this, but it would be seen as bad faith. This from the leader of the Leave vote who had no problems with lies and manipulation, they will all of a sudden play fairly.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

I did not come on expecting a pro-brexit stance. I have been following this and many other brexit discussions for years. I never said I thought Brexit was a good idea. I identified myself as a remain voter with Brexit fatigue. I believe we can protect our borders better, I also believe a lot of EU law restricts us and the European Court is becoming more of an issue to our freedom. I still believe it is a lessor evil than cutting ties.

What laws do you think restricts the UK and in what way? This has never really been answered by either side.

10000maniacs

Johnson reckons there is only £9 Billion owed to the EU in a no deal scenario. I hope the EU use the £39 Billion as the entry fee for negotiations after a no deal exit.

CelticRambler

Forty Seven wrote: »

I believe we can protect our borders better, I also believe a lot of EU law restricts us and the European Court is becoming more of an issue to our freedom.

Again: in what way does EU law restrict Britain from protecting her borders? Your own MPs decided not to apply EU law restrictions to the Romanians when most other EU countries applied the full measure of EU law to limit their movement post accession.

And again: in what way does EU law prevent Britain from managing non-EU immigration? And how does Brexit solve that problem, when the British government's own analysis indicates that Brexit will increase the number of non-EU migrants coming to the UK?

How have things changed in the last three years, or how will they change after a crash-out Brexit, to the extent that a Remain-voter now thinks that the same British politicians who failed to deal with the "immigration problem" in the past will deal with it in the future?

fash

Forty Seven wrote: »

...Can't have it any other way without looking like we are being ruled by Westminster. We are not ruled, we are represented, take away this comfort and there will be blood on the streets.

It's funny that it's "project fear" when remainers say things.
One can not that
1. There will be (even greater amounts of) blood on the streets when the reality of leave is discovered.
2. Leavers (unlike the remainers) tends to be the elderly - any rioting would be more comical than while.

Tell me how

Forty Seven wrote: »

The UK is an important power globally, to pretend otherwise is less than short sighted.

I expect many advocates for Brexit believe this to be the case. Unfortunately, for the UK, I no longer think it is true, purely because of size.
I suspect future dominance of global powers will be waged through trade deals and negotiations rather than in any sort of battlefield as was done in the past. See American China proxy battle through tariffs at the moment.

As a consequence, the biggest economies will dominate conversation and outcome but the size of populations in groups will also be influential because of public perception and local politics.

The UK is significant, but I feel the world has moved from their period where their position as head of Commonwealth influenced the view much of the world had of them in their post colonial timeframe.

They were, and could have continued to be big fish in the significant EU pond (on a global scale) but have decided to try to go their own way.

We don't want to see them suffer, this is no circle jerk of glee at their difficulties. We are painfully aware of what it means for us, but, the world in the 21st century needs collaboration and cohesiveness, not isolation and individualism.

Homo politicus

Hello from Germany,

I know I'm late to this topic, but I thought that some of you might be interested in reading how Ms Merkel's comments on Wednesday are interpreted over here.

In a nutshell, there is broad agreement that, in substance, Merkel didn't deviate an inch from the EU line. So you get headlines such as "Merkel lässt Johnson auflaufen", an image of Merkel deciding not to move so that Johnson will bump into her (approving comment by Franka Welz on the website of Tagesschau, Germany's most-watched TV news programme, on 21/08/19). There are also articles about the fact that parts of the British press have drawn very different conclusions from Merkel's statements, which is seen as (deliberate?) linguistic confusion.

I would say that the way in which Merkel answered the last Brexit-related question in that press conference was very telling. One journalist asked specifically about how to reconcile her apparent willingness to compromise with the fact that the EU didn't want to change the WA while the British government wouldn't be happy with only changing the agreement on the future relationship. In her reply, Merkel only and explicitly referred to the future relationships ("zukünftigen Beziehungen"), saying that she saw opportunities of organising them in a way that would address the problem in hand.

If I were Boris Johnson and wanted to scrap the backstop, I wouldn't feel "powerfully encouraged" by such statements.

First Up

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nope. More a matter of not having the time for answering 20 odd single issue posts at a sitting.

Eh, more a matter of you not being happy that your misconceptions about how immigration works inside and outside the EU are being pointed out.

bobmalooka

@ Forty Seven

Re: immigration

I accept this is was a huge motivating factor for a portion of leave voters.

What I dont understand is that you, in light of seeing that the U.K. govt position to get a deal is to somehow ignore border controls through NI, have now decided that leaving to control immigration is a good thing.

How do you reconcile your newfound support for leave for the benefit of controlling immigration, with the U.K. leave government position of not controlling borders?

Forty Seven

First Up wrote: »

Eh, more a matter of you not being happy that your misconceptions about how immigration works inside and outside the EU are being pointed out.

You can attempt to put words in my mouth all you like. I am not misguided on immigration, I merely pointed out that immigration unhappiness led to the leave vote. I'm a remainer who questions unfettered and uncontrolled immigration but I know the EU is only a small part of that. The UN has much more to answer for as do the UK government themselves. This idea that I am running off because I am wrong but won't admit it is laughable. You can celebrate your hollow victory but the fact is that I just cannot spend my entire day waffling on a forum and 5 responses to my one is not a viable conversation.

Keep telling yourself you have won something. Whatever makes you happy lad.

First Up

bobmalooka wrote: »

@ Forty Seven

Re: immigration

I accept this is was a huge motivating factor for a portion of leave voters.

What I dont understand is that you, in light of seeing that the U.K. govt position to get a deal is to somehow ignore border controls through NI, have now decided that leaving to control immigration is a good thing.

How do you reconcile your newfound support for leave for the benefit of controlling immigration, with the U.K. leave government position of not controlling borders?

No doubt that some voted to leave because they dislike the competition from Polish and Romanian tradesmen but the immigrants that seem to trouble 47 are from outside the EU and therefore not at all affected by Britain leaving.

His claim that having lived long enough in an EU country to acquire citizenship they will then uproot and move to the UK in large numbers is fanciful nonsense.

serfboard

Lucinda Creighton The Marian Finucane show talking absolute sh1t about giving the Brits a 5 year time-limit to the backstop.

The whole raison d’etre for the backstop is because the British government can’t be trusted, FFS.

No doubt any clients she has in England will be delighted to hear this crap.

First Up

Forty Seven wrote: »

You can attempt to put words in my mouth all you like. I am not misguided on immigration, I merely pointed out that immigration unhappiness led to the leave vote. I'm a remainer who questions unfettered and uncontrolled immigration but I know the EU is only a small part of that. The UN has much more to answer for as do the UK government themselves. This idea that I am running off because I am wrong but won't admit it is laughable. You can celebrate your hollow victory but the fact is that I just cannot spend my entire day waffling on a forum and 5 responses to my one is not a viable conversation.

Keep telling yourself you have won something. Whatever makes you happy lad.

Oh right.

What was that about NGO's and Libyans again?

Forty Seven

bobmalooka wrote: »

@ Forty Seven

Re: immigration

I accept this is was a huge motivating factor for a portion of leave voters.

What I dont understand is that you, in light of seeing that the U.K. govt position to get a deal is to somehow ignore border controls through NI, have now decided that leaving to control immigration is a good thing.

How do you reconcile your newfound support for leave for the benefit of controlling immigration, with the U.K. leave government position of not controlling borders?

I don't support leave, I am resigned to it. There is a massive difference. I live in Scotland but am a unionist. I'm likely to become a member of an even smaller nation soon and I will have only my vote again to have my say. That's my situation. I am a fart in the breeze in a sizeable population.

On the NI question, I see only two outcomes. A hard border and deal with the inevitable violence with UK military or a reuinified Ireland who can deal with the violence using the defence forces.

There is no solution, like remain and leave the positions are too entrenched and anyone offering a central viewpoint is crowded out by both sides. Hence the Brexit fatigue.

Igotadose

serfboard wrote: »

Lucinda Creighton The Marian Finucane show talking absolute sh1t about giving the Brits a 5 year time-limit to the backstop.

The whole raison d’etre for the backstop is because the British government can’t be trusted, FFS.

No doubt any clients she has in England will be delighted to hear this crap.

Lucinda still trying to stay relevant despite the repeal of the Eighth? Now she's pro-UK? Or Pro-EU? Or something?

Forty Seven

First Up wrote: »

Oh right.

What was that about NGO's and Libyans again?

NGOs are well documented transporting African economic migrants to the EU. What is your issue with this exactly?

Bit cynical

Homo politicus wrote: »

I would say that the way in which Merkel answered the last Brexit-related question in that press conference was very telling. One journalist asked specifically about how to reconcile her apparent willingness to compromise with the fact that the EU didn't want to change the WA while the British government wouldn't be happy with only changing the agreement on the future relationship. In her reply, Merkel only and explicitly referred to the future relationships ("zukünftigen Beziehungen"), saying that she saw opportunities of organising them in a way that would address the problem in hand.

If I were Boris Johnson and wanted to scrap the backstop, I wouldn't feel "powerfully encouraged" by such statements.

However the future relationship text could be worded in such a way that, although the backstop text remained in the WA, it would be rendered null and void. Something along the lines of "these measures satisfy the requirements set out in the WA of a satisfactory alternative".

Obviously,

1. Johnson would have to come up with a satisfactory alternative that would satisfy the EU (unlikely).

2. The wording would have to be very specific about the backstop being no longer applicable (unlikely).

3. It would have to pass in the UK parliament (unlikely).

All unlikely but nevertheless there may have been some substance to Merkel's remarks.

Tell me how

Forty Seven wrote: »

I don't support leave, I am resigned to it. There is a massive difference. I live in Scotland but am a unionist. I'm likely to become a member of an even smaller nation soon and I will have only my vote again to have my say. That's my situation. I am a fart in the breeze in a sizeable population.

On the NI question, I see only two outcomes. A hard border and deal with the inevitable violence with UK military or a reuinified Ireland who can deal with the violence using the defence forces.

There is no solution, like remain and leave the positions are too entrenched and anyone offering a central viewpoint is crowded out by both sides. Hence the Brexit fatigue.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but the poster was wondering how you reconciled the view that immigration was an issue which contributed to people voting to leave with the position of the UK government suggesting there can be open borders.

Do you see any problem with their position?
Do you see how we might view it as an impossible position and one they are only suggesting in an effort to get the backstop removed?
Do you not think that adopting such a position implies that immigration should not have been an argument used to support a Leave vote in the referendum?