Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

Listened to a recent Eamon Dunphy, the stand podcast with former MEP Patricia MacKenna. She was very much suggesting Ireland have taken the wrong approach in all of this and should have and maybe even still should be talking to the UK bilaterally. She also defended Johnson in terms of proroguing parliament.

Found it a strange listen. In simple terms, I can understand her point of 'we should have held on to the Irish fisheries which is a huge market' but also. is it not the case, do we not gain more that we lost as being part of Europe?

She's completely wrong. I suspect she's uninformed.

Leroy42

The 'idea' of bilateral talks with the UK sounds perfectly reasonable. However one only has to listen to the statements made about Ireland during the last 3 years or indeed how they have tried to force the EU to bend to their will to understand that it would have never worked.

The failure is nothing to do with lack of talking, it is completely down to the UK being unable to accept the reality of their decision.

An Ciarraioch

She was expelled from/quit the Greens when they changed their stance on Europe, and has taken rather contrarian political viewpoints ever since. On fisheries, Ireland's maritime zone extended just 12 miles offshore in 1973, and the industry was still largely subsistence in nature when we joined, so the problem lay with our own politicians for largely ignoring any potential.

quokula

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She's completely wrong. I suspect she's uninformed.

Her twitter is nothing but a stream of brexiteer talking points so she's probably not the most trustworthy source.

Weirdly she claims to be a Lexiter, but still retweets the hard right pro-Brexit pages including the personal attacks on Greta Thunberg (who has nothing to do with Brexit obviously, but attracts a lot of vitriol from the same people )

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

Her twitter is nothing but a stream of brexiteer talking points so she's probably not the most trustworthy source.

Weirdly she claims to be a Lexiter, but still retweets the hard right pro-Brexit pages including the personal attacks on Greta Thunberg (who has nothing to do with Brexit obviously, but attracts a lot of vitriol from the same people )

Never came across the word 'Lexiter' before. She's moved quite a bit away from her Green roots so.

brickster69

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gouda generally doesn't have holes in it unless the citric acid has done what it oughtn't to have done. .
.

And so if the citric acid has done what it ought'nt have done then Gouda cheese can and does have holes in it, or is it impossible for Gouda cheese to have holes in it ?

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And my point is which is more important, stopping a hard brexit or pandering to Swinson's red lines. It seems from your posts that it's Swinson's agenda that matters more.

See - it goes both ways.

But the fact is that Labour have 246 seats. Add the SNP and it's 281 Vs the Tories 288.

Swinson should defecate or get off the pot. The maths are with Corbyn and she is the hold out.
And if the positions were reversed I would be saying the exact same thing.

If Labour can get the support of 9 more MPs (Plaid Crymu, Green, Ind for Change, Independents have a combined 45 seats) they have the majority and the LibDems could find themselves sidelined.

You're ignoring the rebel Tories. Who could vote either way. And of course the likes of Kate Hoey et al who will vote against Labour if they adopt an anti-brexit stance. So your numbers don't add up. The opposition to the government needs to be united. Maybe the rebel Tories will abstain, or vote with the GNU. But those votes need to be locked in because the likes of Rory Stewart will vote for brexit, just not a hard brexit.

And here's the real problem. I don't trust Corbyn on brexit. So I have some sympathy with others who share the same mistrust.

brickster69

Water John wrote: »

Mods, please move food questions to the appropriate Forum.

Yeah sounds about right. Probably get banned for saying Gouda cheese has holes in it.

Bannasidhe

brickster69 wrote: »

And so if the citric acid has done what it ought'nt have done then Gouda cheese can and does have holes in it, or is it impossible for Gouda cheese to have holes in it ?

About as possible as someone coming up with a reasoned argument for why a No Deal Brexit would be good for the UK.

It's possible but you wouldn't want to rely on it happening.

quokula

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Never came across the word 'Lexiter' before. She's moved quite a bit away from her Green roots so.

There are a few prominent Lexiters in the UK like Galloway or Mike Skinner who believe the EU is a neoliberal capitalist project beyond reform, but they're few and far between and others who used to hold that stance have since realised it's become a Tory project pushed forward by a mixture of disaster capitalists, people looking to decimate regulations and rights, racists and British Imperial exceptionists.

Any theoretical case for a left wing Brexit has long since died with the reality of where it's headed. I'm not sure what people who still hang on to that view think is going to happen when they finally leave.

Kermit.de.frog

Ray Bassett was in Manchester today I see alongside the usual suspects. Worth a watch if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKnsAxyCt4

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

There are a few prominent Lexiters in the UK like Galloway or Mike Skinner who believe the EU is a neoliberal capitalist project beyond reform, but they're few and far between and others who used to hold that stance have since realised it's become a Tory project pushed forward by a mixture of disaster capitalists, people looking to decimate regulations and rights, racists and British Imperial exceptionists.

Any theoretical case for a left wing Brexit has long since died with the reality of where it's headed. I'm not sure what people who still hang on to that view think is going to happen when they finally leave.

Beautifully described.

Bannasidhe

prawnsambo wrote: »

You're ignoring the rebel Tories. Who could vote either way. And of course the likes of Kate Hoey et al who will vote against Labour if they adopt an anti-brexit stance. So your numbers don't add up. The opposition to the government needs to be united. Maybe the rebel Tories will abstain, or vote with the GNU. But those votes need to be locked in because the likes of Rory Stewart will vote for brexit, just not a hard brexit.

And here's the real problem. I don't trust Corbyn on brexit. So I have some sympathy with others who share the same mistrust.

I'm not ignoring anything.

I am saying with SNP support (which is available) Labour are 9 seats short of a majority. Leaving aside the LibDems there are 45 potential 'supporters' - Ken Clarke has, apparently, already said he is one - that leaves 8...

I get that you don't trust Corbyn - but as LP policy is that a Deal (a new deal, a rejigged May deal - I don't know, Nobody knows) or Remain will be put to the electorate to decide. They have further said they will NOT advocate one way or another. Just put the 2 options and let the electorate decide for themselves.

If Labour don't do that then I will join the chorus of condemnation.

If, however, they do put it to a plebiscite then it doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks/feels/desire about Brexit because he will have only 1 vote just like everyone else.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ray Bassett was in London today I see alongside the usual suspects. Worth a watch if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKnsAxyCt4

I'd rather do DIY root canal surgery on myself.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ray Bassett was in London today I see alongside the usual suspects. Worth a watch if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKnsAxyCt4

Manchester in fact, which means that Kate Hoey is attending a Tory Party conference (!)

maebee

Water John wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/29/no-10-denies-claims-boris-johnson-squeezed-thigh-journalist-charlotte-edwardes

Johnson accused of groping women. Ah he really is in Trump's image.
Charlotte Edwards is a respected journalist.

Johnson and Trump, a classic case of twins separated at birth

prawnsambo

So Lizzie's been busy. "Who will rid me of this troublesome beast".

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

All the remainers running around like headless chickens now because they know Boris won't resign and the Benn - Dover bill has more holes in it than a block of gouda.

They know that if the Govt loses that vote, it could, under the FTPA, remain in office for 14 days, propose a vote of confidence, and, if it loses, a GE is automatically triggered. the speaker this week confirmed that an election could not be held before 31/10.

Or they could just bring the Benn act deadline forward, force the government to reveal their hand and pass a new act to close off whatever loophole they have found, if indeed a valid loophole exists. The opposition has the whip hand in this, they can pass whatever law they need whenever they like.

Capt'n Midnight

Tell me how wrote: »

Found it a strange listen. In simple terms, I can understand her point of 'we should have held on to the Irish fisheries which is a huge market' but also. is it not the case, do we not gain more that we lost as being part of Europe?

The bulk of fishing is done by big business.

In Northern Ireland 55% of the quota is held by one boat, the Voyager.

Down here Mr O'Donoghue said that 60 to 70% of Irish fishing is dependent on fish from northern UK waters.

But there's also the London Fisheries Convention which predates UK membership of the EEC or EU. Somehow Poland , which was behind the Iron Curtain at the time got involved

Anyway the UK announced the would leave at Brexit, but they've already handed back rights to the Faroese and there are other fishing treaties in place, some going back centuries.

Tell me how

So many times we post or read things here expressing amazement that central characters could act or say something in a particular manner which you might they would be embarrassed to do either because of the hypocrisy or deceiving nature it showcases.

Here's the leader of the house, the same character who flew to Balmoral to speak (lie) to the queen about the need for prorogation and also spent an afternoon stretched out on the bench in the HoC like he was after enjoying a liquid lunch in Magaluf.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1178329143420715011

He's actually saying that irrespective of everything that has gone on, it is Mr Bercow who has damaged the house in the eyes of the public.
This is no longer about right or wrong, it is about loyalty or dignity. Incredible neck on him.

volchitsa

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything.

I am saying with SNP support (which is available) Labour are 9 seats short of a majority. Leaving aside the LibDems there are 45 potential 'supporters' - Ken Clarke has, apparently, already said he is one - that leaves 8...

I get that you don't trust Corbyn - but as LP policy is that a Deal (a new deal, a rejigged May deal - I don't know, Nobody knows) or Remain will be put to the electorate to decide. They have further said they will NOT advocate one way or another. Just put the 2 options and let the electorate decide for themselves.

If Labour don't do that then I will join the chorus of condemnation.

If, however, they do put it to a plebiscite then it doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks/feels/desire about Brexit because he will have only 1 vote just like everyone else.

I don't think that's where Corbyn's non-stance becomes an issue, it's well before that. In fact it seems he's making the same mistake as the Tories in thinking his Eu counterparts don't read the British papers - it's the idea that as leader of this GNU he can negotiate a new deal with Brussels when they know that he isn't going to get behind it hinself no matter how good it is for the UK.

Why would the Eu offer a better deal this time when they know that it won't make any difference to the support the government gives it anyway? All they have to do is offer a bad deal and since Parliament has voted against No deal then the current deal will pass? Or the UK will stay in and this will all go away? (I don't think that will happen myself but from the EU POV it's as likely as a crash out under a GNU created especially to prevent a crashout.)

Zubeneschamali

brickster69 wrote: »

They know that if the Govt loses that vote, it could, under the FTPA, remain in office for 14 days.

Not true.

The 14 day period is the length of time allowed for Parliament to find someone else to be PM before an election is triggered (unless Parliament decides to change or abolish the FTPA.)

Dyr

Tell me how wrote: »

Listened to a recent Eamon Dunphy, the stand podcast with former MEP Patricia MacKenna. She was very much suggesting Ireland have taken the wrong approach in all of this and should have and maybe even still should be talking to the UK bilaterally. She also defended Johnson in terms of proroguing parliament.

Found it a strange listen. In simple terms, I can understand her point of 'we should have held on to the Irish fisheries which is a huge market' but also. is it not the case, do we not gain more that we lost as being part of Europe?

Listening to Patricia McKenna was where you went wrong, I knew a person who was in the audience for an RTE Questions & Answers show back when McKenna was leader of the Greens, when they went off air McKenna had an absolute conniption and wound up in floods of tears over how the presenter ran the program. Like many of the Greens, she's wired to the moon.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything.

I am saying with SNP support (which is available) Labour are 9 seats short of a majority. Leaving aside the LibDems there are 45 potential 'supporters' - Ken Clarke has, apparently, already said he is one - that leaves 8...

I get that you don't trust Corbyn - but as LP policy is that a Deal (a new deal, a rejigged May deal - I don't know, Nobody knows) or Remain will be put to the electorate to decide. They have further said they will NOT advocate one way or another. Just put the 2 options and let the electorate decide for themselves.

If Labour don't do that then I will join the chorus of condemnation.

If, however, they do put it to a plebiscite then it doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks/feels/desire about Brexit because he will have only 1 vote just like everyone else.

Firstly, you weren't counting the DUP with the Tories. Are you suggesting that they'd vote with Labour and the SNP? Or even abstain? I highly doubt either of those scenarios. So that 288 becomes 298 and the gap to Labour/SNP grows to 18, which is exactly the number of LibDems. And you're including the likes of Kate Hoey in the Labour numbers. The Kate Hoey currently praising the dress sense at the Tory party conference. So it requires more than the LibDems to support a GNU. Or Ken Clarke. It requires more of the Tory rebels than might vote with the government. More than half of them in fact.

And Corbyn might be only one vote in a second referendum, but as leader of the Labour party, you'd expect that he'd command more than just one vote. That he might for example, campaign for the Labour 'jobs first' brexit rather than remain as promised. Or like the last time, just disappear and appear sporadically to endorse party policy in a 30% less than wholehearted manner. And that's assuming that a GNU with Corbyn in number ten, gets to a point where he holds a referendum.

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am stuck in perplexed as to why nobody wants to discuss the policies of the LibDems in any depth or why mention of Swinson morphs into 'but Corbyn'.

Because those are only relevant in the context of a general election, and right now, there is no election taking place in the UK.

What is happening, is an inversion of the roles of government and opposition, where the united opposition is attempting to mitigate the effects of a series of unwise, bad and downright disastrous decisions made by all parties over the last few years.

If HM Queen can put the past behind her and have Martin McGuinness 'round for dinner, then it's unreasonable to criticise any party leader for positions held formerly when faced with an impending socio-econmic catastrophe.

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to object to a solution that would be piloted by one particular divisive individual when there are other less contentious candidates willing and able for the role.

volchitsa wrote: »

Why would the Eu offer a better deal this time when they know that it won't make any difference to the support the government gives it anyway? All they have to do is offer a bad deal and since Parliament has voted against No deal then the current deal will pass? Or the UK will stay in and this will all go away?

That's the same line of thinking that got the UK into the current mess. The EU is not offering "good" or "bad" deals: it has agreed a set of preliminary conditions that are consistent with the EU's own rules and the stated ambitions of the UK. Theresa May defined those ambitions in such a way that meant the only deal that could be offered would be a "bad" deal, and as such it was rejected by the HoC. Time and again, Brussels has stated unambiguously that these conditions can be changed if and as soon as Britain changes its position.

We haven't even started on the "deal" part of the negotiations yet.

Bannasidhe

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think that's where Corbyn's non-stance becomes an issue, it's well before that. )

prawnsambo wrote: »

Firstly, you weren't counting the DUP with the Tories. Are you suggesting that they'd vote with Labour and the SNP?

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because those are only relevant in the context of a general election, and right now, there is no election taking place in the UK.

I am enjoying these discussions but I'm afraid it will be a bit hit and miss as to when/if I can respond as my elderly father is seriously ill and in ICU so... yeah...

Apologies for starting something I may not now be able to continue.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am enjoying these discussions but I'm afraid it will be a bit hit and miss as to when/if I can respond as my elderly father is seriously ill and in ICU so... yeah...

Apologies for starting something I may not now be able to continue.

No worries. Hope he recovers.

GM228

prawnsambo wrote: »

So Lizzie's been busy. "Who will rid me of this troublesome beast".

Will be interesting to see if she does this, a Monarch has not removed a Government since 1834.

lawred2

GM228 wrote: »

Will be interesting to see if she does this, a Monarch has not removed a Government since 1834.

Won't happen

josip

GM228 wrote: »

Will be interesting to see if she does this, a Monarch has not removed a Government since 1834.

Agree that it won't happen, but I'm certain that this 'leak' was with one's full knowledge and approval.
Which is in itself the most powerful aspect of it; it is an unprecedented leak in the modern age.