Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Shelga

boggerman1 wrote: »

Question time once again and the uneducated mess of the UK on full display except for mairead McGuinness.and once again Isabel oakeshott allowed peddle her pro brexit nonsense.

They are overwhelmingly ignorant. They far prefer to go for outrage and cries of "Remoaning traitor!" rather than admit they were totally and utterly conned. Or, without even going that far, they seem incapable of acknowledging at the very least, how horribly, horribly complicated leaving the EU really is.

As someone who used to live in Birmingham, I just cringe.

FrancieBrady

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

On The View yer man as much as said they'll try to get a candidate in all 18 constituencies.

He was asked to say that specifically (he was saying it a week or so ago) and refused point blank a number of times.

All he would now say is 'we will run candidates across NI'.


I'm afraid as is always the case and as I suspected, they are climbing down.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

The Johnson deal sticks a border down the sea, what is the problem for Ireland with that?

Johnson was threatening to leave with no deal which would mean a border in Ireland, but the UK parliament had already taken that off the available options, and is the one thing that they overwhelmingly have voted against ever happening through this process.

We would have preferred Mays deal that removed both the border in Ireland as well as the border in the Irish sea at least during the transition period. In addition to allowing free trade during the period, it would have put the UK in a weaker position at the end of it.

Yes the Benn act forced a request for an extension. However there was still a possibility that some country (obviously not Ireland) would have objected to it so it did not completely remove the threat of no deal. There were certainly worries that if no deal was made, some country might not agree to extend. France was muttering about not extending prior to the deal being made and there were rumours of certain Eastern European countries also not agreeing for different reasons.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

GE campaigns can be very unpredictable.

One can only hope that the duopoly will be broken or that the result will match the popular vote rather than what the most well placed third of the voters decide.

Nearly a quarter of voters look set to ‘hold their nose’ and vote tactically at the next election, according to new BMG Research polling for the Electoral Reform Society


https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/1030/1087408-uk-election-analysis/

A four-way electoral fight and a strong regional party is, dare we say it, typically European. All across the EU the old two or two-and-a-half party systems have fragmented into a multiplicity of competing forces, with coalitions the norm. Look at Spain, look at Germany. Look at Ireland.
...
But it also means that if the percentages shift, even a little, the big party can lose big too. In a two party fight the "swing" was the thing to watch. But that is much harder to analyse given that the UK is looking more like a four party system - apart from Scotland.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

All of the insider whispers that we've heard so far indicate that Johnson was given a crash course in trade negotiations and came away "well shook"; next thing we know, he has agreed to the very same WA that May was about to sign when the DUP torpedoed it. He has achieved *nothing* that the EU hadn't already prepared - he has only followed in May's footsteps and is currently wearing one of her cast-off dresses.

I'm afraid though he has achieved something. A more brexiteer oriented deal and a less watertight version of the backstop.

A Dub in Glasgo

schmittel wrote: »

It also helps them in Scotland to defend against rising SNP vote. The current Tory seats are up for grabs, and there will be plenty of Scots who would like to vote to stay in EU and UK. Vote for Lib Dems so

The SNP were second in all 13 Tory seats in Scotland, the Lib Dems are in real danger then of facilitating these staying Tory seats by standing

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

But that just shows how idiotic the whole idea is in the first place. There was still the option of removing the backstop though if something could have been figured out.

Well no. I think most people knew that nothing in reality would have been figured out. The EU would always have had the option of rejecting it. It was legally watertight in perpetuity. This was pointed out by the Irish government at the time.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

We would have preferred Mays deal that removed both the border in Ireland as well as the border in the Irish sea at least during the transition period. In addition to allowing free trade during the period, it would have put the UK in a weaker position at the end of it.

It's still the same transition period. Nothing changes until that's expired.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes the Benn act forced a request for an extension. However there was still a possibility that some country (obviously not Ireland) would have objected to it so it did not completely remove the threat of no deal. There were certainly worries that if no deal was made, some country might not agree to extend. France was muttering about not extending prior to the deal being made and there were rumours of certain Eastern European countries also not agreeing for different reasons.

That was all bullcrap. Once a deal was agreed, there was no question of not granting an extension. Nobody believed for a minute that there wouldn't be unanimity on the extension. Rumours were all coming from the usual place. The British media.

Strazdas

listermint wrote: »

Question time audience mad as a bag of spanners. BBC is destroyed as a legitimate organisation.

I've actually turned off them don't watch it anymore. Absolute shadow of its former self.

There is nothing that can discredit Brexit in their eyes or make them think it's a bad idea. We're talking about actual brainwashing, all logic and reason has gone out the window.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well no. I think most people knew that nothing in reality would have been figured out. The EU would always have had the option of rejecting it. It was legally watertight in perpetuity. This was pointed out by the Irish government at the time.

If it was a workable system, the EU couldn't reject it. There was an arbitration clause for that very purpose. You don't seem to be very well informed on this stuff.

liamtech

Not a Fine Gael Voter, but i have to say Mairead McGuinness done very well in that debate - done herself proud

• Explicitly didnt take sides but Implicitly clearly a remainer
• Highlighted the strangeness of BJ not pushing ahead with his WAG
• outlined the EU parliament's distaste for what has gone, and is going on
• Generally highlighted the divisive nature of UK Politics - the new cleavage of Remain/Leave -

Fantastic from her - Genuinely impressed

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Whether the incoming UUP leader Steve Aiken signs up to a pact with the DUP will be of big significance. He's suggested thus far that there will be no pact and that the UUP will stand in every constituency. That would be bad news for the likes of Nigel Dodds in North Belfast and Emma Little-Pengelly in South Belfast.

There's been a backlash against this from some unionists and loyalists as they know it would split the vote. It remains to be seen whether Aiken will stick to his position. I think there's a good chance he will row back on it as we move closer to the election. He'll come under enormous pressure to do so. Time will tell.

Had a feeling he'd change his tune.

https://twitter.com/bbctheview/status/1190038658306453504

hometruths

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP were second in all 13 Tory seats in Scotland, the Lib Dems are in real danger then of facilitating these staying Tory seats by standing

I'd say that's a risk that the Lib Dems are perfectly prepared to take, even it annoys the SNP.

It is reasonable to assume that those Tory gains in 2017 reflected the Remain in UK vote, which for many is the biggest driver of their voting intention.

If you are a Scottish voter and want to Remain in UK and EU who do you vote for? Lib Dem seems to be the obvious choice.

I think it is reasonable for Lib Dems to go after that vote. (Unless Swinson wants to do a backroom deal to protect her own seat!)

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

Question time audience mad as a bag of spanners. BBC is destroyed as a legitimate organisation.

I've actually turned off them don't watch it anymore. Absolute shadow of its former self.

QT is generally awful and mostly skip it, just politicians trying to work out how to outdo each other on the clapometer, but giving it a spin tonight because mareid mcguinness is on and have to say she has been superb. Rock of sanity if they care to listen.

Bbc generally is failing but i do offer thanks for Andrew Neil. He's obviously a not likeable character in ways, but he is the best in the business at his job. Watched him taking jo swinson to task last night and also vicky ford this morning, he rarely lets them away with anything, both sides of the divide.

prawnsambo

liamtech wrote: »

Not a Fine Gael Voter, but i have to say Mairead McGuinness done very well in that debate - done herself proud

• Explicitly didnt take sides but Implicitly clearly a remainer
• Highlighted the strangeness of BJ not pushing ahead with his WAG
• outlined the EU parliament's distaste for what has gone, and is going on
• Generally highlighted the divisive nature of UK Politics - the new cleavage of Remain/Leave -

Fantastic from her - Genuinely impressed

Yeah, she kind of snuck up on me too. You kind of forget about them once they head to Brussels, but then I started seeing her in action on the likes of QT and in the EP and was mightily impressed.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

If it was a workable system, the EU couldn't reject it. There was an arbitration clause for that very purpose. You don't seem to be very well informed on this stuff.

However it is hard even to conceive of something that beats essentially the North staying in a customs union. Certainly the recent Johnson deal's arrangement for the North would have been rejected as an alternative to the backstop as it allows for a border to be created in Ireland under certain circumstances, something not allowed under the previous deal.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it is hard even to conceive of something that beats essentially the North staying in a customs union. Certainly the recent Johnson deal's arrangement for the North would have been rejected as an alternative to the backstop as it allows for a border to be created in Ireland under certain circumstances, something not allowed under the previous deal.

The customs union is damn all use to NI agri-food producers without the SM as well. But you're forgetting that a solution doesn't have to be a technical one, it could be a function of a future relationship agreement. And that could be negotiated by a future government that doesn't have a brexiter manifesto..

54and56

So, are there any pictures floating around the interweb of Mark Gino Francois instantaneously combusting now the deadline he trusted BoJo to deliver Brexit on hasn't happened?

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's still the same transition period. Nothing changes until that's expired.

Well no, under the original May deal, all of the UK was to be under a customs arrangement with the EU during the transition period. This was formally scrapped in the Johnson deal.

That was all bullcrap. Once a deal was agreed, there was no question of not granting an extension. Nobody believed for a minute that there wouldn't be unanimity on the extension. Rumours were all coming from the usual place. The British media.

And leading up to the deal? There was certainly talk on this forum to the effect that the EU should not grant any further extensions and it wasn't just the British media saying that France was getting tired of extensions.

It is true that a lot is the same as May's deal but it is important to remember that things like the CTA and EU citizens rights were already planned to continue even in the event of no deal.

But the border arrangements and trade during the transition period are worse under Johnson's deal than May's from Ireland's perspective.

If there was genuinely no chance of no deal (for example because France or Hungary or some other country objected to an extension) then the EU would not have entertained Johnson. They could simply have insisted on Mays deal and the UK would have been forced to either accept or eventually revoke A50.

Remember that before Johnson took over, negotiations had been closed. No further negotiations. No changes to the backstop etc. That was the position of many people on this forum. Then Johnson gets into No. 10 on a ticket of leaving the EU no matter what. The Benn Act weakened him; there is no doubt about that but not sufficiently to do a deal which was worse from the perspective of the EU country most affected by Brexit other than the UK. I would still submit that the reason for this was that the threat during negotiations of no deal still remained despite the Benn Act.

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

The customs union is damn all use to NI agri-food producers without the SM as well. But you're forgetting that a solution doesn't have to be a technical one, it could be a function of a future relationship agreement. And that could be negotiated by a future government that doesn't have a brexiter manifesto..

The customs union isn't worth a farthing for the service industries that have a £29Bn surplus with the EU.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Johnson's threat of "no deal" was as hollow as his "do or die" promise: Britain could only ever have left with "no deal" if it was willing to go all-out North Korea, and MPs were right to smack him over the head for any such nonsense. The long and the short of it is that Johnson is good at storytelling and acting the fool ... but he is no leader, and definitely no negotiator.

Just another reflection on this. You say Johnson's threat of no deal was hollow. But then why did MPs feel the need to force him to request an extension? It means that they believed he was willing to go through with his promise. If they believed it, then it is not inconceivable therefore that others believed it too - that he was hell-bent on leaving no matter what. So there is a certain contradiction in your post here.

maebee

liamtech wrote: »

Not a Fine Gael Voter, but i have to say Mairead McGuinness done very well in that debate - done herself proud

• Explicitly didnt take sides but Implicitly clearly a remainer
• Highlighted the strangeness of BJ not pushing ahead with his WAG
• outlined the EU parliament's distaste for what has gone, and is going on
• Generally highlighted the divisive nature of UK Politics - the new cleavage of Remain/Leave -

Fantastic from her - Genuinely impressed

I've never voted Fine Gael but have to admit that Mairead McGuinness, Varadkar and Coveney are all playing a blinder in this Brexit ShíTshow.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

The customs union is damn all use to NI agri-food producers without the SM as well. But you're forgetting that a solution doesn't have to be a technical one, it could be a function of a future relationship agreement. And that could be negotiated by a future government that doesn't have a brexiter manifesto..

But the non-technical alternative would still amount to the same thing. A change of name would be the most that would be possible.

I can't see the arrangement under the Johnson deal whereby a border can be brought in based on a referendum in the North being an acceptable alternative had May's deal been ratified and in force.

54and56

maebee wrote: »

I've never voted Fine Gael but have to admit that Mairead McGuinness, Varadkar and Coveney are all playing a blinder in this Brexit ShíTshow.

McGuinness is/was head and shoulders more insightful and all round "political" than everyone else on the panel. She is strategic and sees the big picture, the rest squabble over minor point scoring and repeating numbskull party political soundbites.

votecounts

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Had a feeling he'd change his tune.

https://twitter.com/bbctheview/status/1190038658306453504

Are you surprised, nothing is more important to them than beating a nationalist candidate.

Capt'n Midnight

maebee wrote: »

I've never voted Fine Gael but have to admit that Mairead McGuinness, Varadkar and Coveney are all playing a blinder in this Brexit ShíTshow.

Which reminds me.
What do you call that feeling when you've had Deja Vu before ?

The only things that have changed are the dates and it's Boris instead of May. And we're still aren't near the starting point for a future trade deal with the EU not that we know what Boris or Jeremy really, really want in it.

Your Prime Minister, your MP, Theresa May, called this election about Brexit. Have we heard from her what she plans to do about Brexit? No. This is mad. On Thursday, you are going to be faced with Prime Minister May, or Prime Minister Corbyn, against twenty-seven prime ministers from the European Union. It will be a shítshow.
- Lord Buckethead 11 June 2017

10000maniacs

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP were second in all 13 Tory seats in Scotland, the Lib Dems are in real danger then of facilitating these staying Tory seats by standing

I still think it will be a hung Parliament with Labour and the Tories neck and neck despite Swintons naivety.
Johnson thinks that all Tory voters who voted for May in 2017 will automatically back him in December.
40% of Tory voters voted to remain in 2016 and a lot of them won't recognise the despotic version of the Tory party that Johnson has morphed it into.
Also in the last few months it has been noticable
that some Tories while following the party line seem less commited to Johnsons do or die in a ditch rantings. I remember watching Nicky Morgan losing the will to live trying to defend Johnsons strategy a few weeks before her announcement not to run.

BorneTobyWilde

Trump gave Corbyn a boost. Trump saying not to vote for Labour is a vote for Labour for everyone that hates Trump, which seems to be everyone.

10000maniacs

And also, today is the fourth time I have seen Johnson sitting in a 5 year olds chair in a classroom trying to do something with a pencil with his shirt sleeves rolled up. Then later in a hospital with a doctors coat on doing something idiotic with a big syringe.
Is this actually impressing anybody? Which demographic is it targeted at?

Tell me how

10000maniacs wrote: »

And also, today is the fourth time I have seen Johnson sitting in a 5 year olds chair in a classroom trying to do something with a pencil with his shirt sleeves rolled up. Then later in a hospital with a doctors coat on doing something idiotic with a big syringe.
Is this actually impressing anybody? Which demographic is it targeted at?

The subliminal messaging angle. They are hoping that subconciously when someone thinks of him and the NHS they will be predisposed to thinking he understands it and respects it.