Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I think the Tories should ask for an extension and blame it on the pandemic. At the very least, it would allow them to prepare more fully for crashing out. But I'm not British so I'd like them to go now. In the context of the EU, they're just a festering boil now.

Are you forgetting a little member state called Ireland and what that would do to us?

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

We have a problem here. The current Tory government got less support in the December election than EU membership got in the 2016 referendum. You cannot, with credibility, claim that the people have rejected EU membership but rounding endorsed the Johnson Brexit; based on how people actually voted, the Johnson Brexit is even less popular than EU membership.

Which is why I think there's a fundamentally anti-democratic dishonesty pervading this entire exercise. Politicians put one question to people, and they claim that the people have answered a different question. They do this so they can enforce a policy which the people haven't, in fact, endorsed, while disclaiming responsiblity and accountability for doing so by pretending that they have. Partisans for the policy in question may be prepared to overlook the duplicity involved; they may not realise quite how duplicitous it has been until the next time, when a policy they don't favour is implemented in this way. And overall the effect is corrosive.

To be clear, I don't object to politicians implementing policies which haven't secured endorsement from the people; that's how representative democracy works. But I think a healthy representative democracy requires politicians who accept their role in the system, are honest about it and are willing to be resonsible and accountable for it. And I don't think there has been much of that in evidence in the Brexit project. Which is why I think it has, no the whole, degraded the UK's democracy and the quality of its governance.

Basically , their democracy did not agree with you so its all wrong ! ! !

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

I am high lighting the hypocrisy particularly of the Irish people voting for FFG :eek::eek: Casting aspirations about other people not knowing what they were voting for:eek::eek:

You think Tusk, Verhofstadt and Juncker are Irish?

ILoveYourVibes

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you forgetting a little member state called Ireland and what that would do to us?

Its going to happen anyway.

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

I am high lighting the hypocrisy particularly of the Irish people voting for FFG :eek::eek: Casting aspirations about other people not knowing what they were voting for:eek::eek:

But by your own standards that is undemocractic. How dare you voice any difference of opinion or criticism of the democratic choice.

You see, it becomes very muddied doesn't it when you decide to stand on a soapbox.

I still don't really understand what your overallpoint it. You think the EU is undemocratic it appears, I disagree, but it isn't important in terms of Brexit since the UK has left.

The only question is what deal will the UK leave with.

First Up

theological wrote: »

There's no good reason why the UK cannot be successful post-Brexit.

If they can hang on to much of the 45% of their exports that go to the EU and replace many of the 70 Association Agreements, Stabilisation Agreements, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements, Economic Partnership Agreements, Partnership and Cooperation Agreements they enjoyed as an EU member, then no good reason at all.

I'm so glad this thread is back. It's been my favourite for ages.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you forgetting a little member state called Ireland and what that would do to us?

Amazingly, no. I don't think we have any influence and I think Britain is run by populist nationalists. For those reasons, I think we are going to take a hit whenever they leave because they're pushing for a hard Brexit. The problem for Ireland is that Britain has become, as I said previously, a festering boil for the EU. It's not in our interest that Britain continues to damage the EU with their bullsh1t. Better that they piss off today and let the EU regroup.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

Basically , their democracy did not agree with you so its all wrong ! ! !

Facts, blinding, facts. It's you their democracy doesn't agree with, blinding. Democratically speaking, Johnson's Brexit is less popular than EU membership. I know this must disappoint you but, if you are the democrat you claim to be, you have to come to terms with it.

blinding

Blueshoe wrote: »

Ireland is a net contributor to the Eu these days. Expect payments to rise even further once the UK leave. The hole needs to be filled

And that is why the Eu must be worshipped like a Deity. Pay up, pay up !

You do not want the Wrath of the Eu Down Upon You. Pay up, Pay Up !

lawred2

blinding wrote: »

And that is why the Eu must be worshipped like a Deity. Pay up, pay up !

You do not want the Wrath of the Eu Down Upon You. Pay up, Pay Up !

I was in the middle of formulating a response and then I got bored with myself... what's the point

eagle eye

You can complain all you want about Brexit and I wasn't Inn favour of it but trying to suggest it was undemocratic or not the will of the British people is garbage. Telling us how politicians lied and frightened people into it reminds me of the Lisbon treaty here where the Irish people rejected it but a second referendum was planned quite quickly and we were frightened into voting for it.

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Facts, blinding, facts. It's you their democracy doesn't agree with, blinding. Democratically speaking, Johnson's Brexit is less popular than EU membership. I know this must disappoint you but, if you are the democrat you claim to be, you have to come to terms with it.

The Brexit party did not stand in 192 seats.

There are some anomalies in the British system ( i admit ) but at least you very often get One Party Government and not the Horse Trading Coalitions the likes of Pat Rabbite is so fond of i.e. A nice carve up for the politicians and the Electorate are told any auld bollix during the Election campaign because it makes no difference when the coalition shilly shally-ing starts.

These coalitions are a godsend to politicians who want to do as they please and not what the Electorate wants’

“ sure i would have done that except they won’t let me and the other mob say sure I would have done that except they wouldn’t let me “ = Total bollix to paraphrase Pat Rabbite :eek::eek:

lawred2

eagle eye wrote: »

You can complain all you want about Brexit and I wasn't Inn favour of it but trying to suggest it was undemocratic or not the will of the British people is garbage. Telling us how politicians lied and frightened people into it reminds me of the Lisbon treaty here where the Irish people rejected it but a second referendum was planned quite quickly and we were frightened into voting for it.

unfollow thread again

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

The Norway option is an option. It just happens to be a terrible option. I've explained why in previous posts on this thread.

Brexit must mean a regaining of control from the EU. This is why I'd prefer a WTO exit over the Norway option any day of the week.

Now, do I want a WTO exit? No, but if the EU are not willing to give an acceptable middle way to the UK between it and the Norway option I'd say that the UK should take the WTO option and regain control over handing over control to the EU again.

But Theo, that is mainly bluster. Do a little bit of imagining here.


Suppose that in 12 months time the UK is delightedly out of the EU. It has all the fish now it could ever want and more than it can eat. Brazil comes along and wants to be able to buy that fish, but in return, it wants to be able to send its beef to the US. Do you think that the UK can or even should, impose standards on Brazil that they must satisfy related to the beef that they will send to the UK? Or would they just let them send over whatever without any controls?



Say for example that Brazil does not have any import controls of its own and that it imports a lot of younger cattle from Argentina where it can get them very cheap because they have problems with BSE etc. there. Could you ever see a scenario where the UK might insist that they need to stop bringing in animals from countries that are infected. Brazil says "what's the problem, we can make good money getting cheap animals from Argentina. We don't want to do that". UK says "well if you want a deal, those are the conditions".




Now lets look at the other way. US wants to do a deal with UK. But the US says "we'll only sign if you kick Huawei off your 5G network plans". UK says "but we like Huawei". US says "well if you want a deal, those are the conditions".


So what do you think will happen? Do you think that there will never be any compromise? What is the model in your head? Where the UK sits down for any deal with any country and dictates the conditions that it wants and the others countries just say "oh well, we didn't want those conditions but seeing as you are the UK we will do whatever you want".

To reiterate again, while it was inside the EU, the UK had a seat at the table in formulating any policy. It also had a veto over any major changes. Under WTO it will be reduced to "take-it-or-leave-it" scenarios.

McGiver

eagle eye wrote: »

You can complain all you want about Brexit and I wasn't Inn favour of it but trying to suggest it was undemocratic or not the will of the British people is garbage. Telling us how politicians lied and frightened people into it reminds me of the Lisbon treaty here where the Irish people rejected it but a second referendum was planned quite quickly and we were frightened into voting for it.

Serious revisionism.
Also colloquially called a lie.

Donald Trump

McGiver wrote: »

Serious revisionism.
Also colloquially called a lie.

He can only speak for himself. He might have been frightened into it even though he didn't want to. We don't know. He could have spent the intervening months between the referendums cowering in a basement somewhere.



Whereas others might have simply changed their mind, or else had used the first one to cast a protest vote and decided that they had achieved their aims and didn't want to do that again.


Others might have been genuinely against the first version but happy with the second version due to the changes and reassurances written into the treaty.


You don't know whether he himself was frightened into it. If he says he was then he was. He can only speak for himself on that. He might be just a fella that is easily scared.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

The Brexit party did not stand in 192 seats.

To avoid splitting the vote in favour of Johnson's Brexit. And yet Johnson's Brexit was still less popular than EU membership

blinding wrote: »

There are some anomalies in the British system ( i admit ) but at least you very often get One Party Government and not the Horse Trading Coalitions the likes of Pat Rabbite is so fond of i.e. A nice carve up for the politicians and the Electorate are told any auld bollix during the Election campaign because it makes no difference when the coalition shilly shally-ing starts.

These coalitions are a godsend to politicians who want to do as they please and not what the Electorate wants’

Whereas the British system is a godsend to politicians who want to form governments that a majority of the electorate have rejected to ram through policies that they couldn't persuade the electorate to endorse. Like the Tory government ramming through Johnson's Brexit.

I don't mind you supporting Johnson's Brexit, blinding. But your pretence that it's democratic is not a convincing one, and gives the impression that you don't think you can support it with anything more credible, which is probably not the impression you would like to give.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Brexit must mean a regaining of control from the EU.

What control did the UK not have that they have now regained since they left?

theological wrote: »

This is why I'd prefer a WTO exit over the Norway option any day of the week.

Now, do I want a WTO exit? No, but if the EU are not willing to give an acceptable middle way to the UK between it and the Norway option I'd say that the UK should take the WTO option and regain control over handing over control to the EU again.

What of the other people in the UK? Does their opinion on how the UK interacts with the EU (Or not) not matter but your opinion counts?
Where's the democracy now?

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

To avoid splitting the vote in favour of Johnson's Brexit. And yet Johnson's Brexit was still less popular than EU membership


Whereas the British system is a godsend to politicians who want to form governments that a majority of the electorate have rejected to ram through policies that they couldn't persuade the electorate to endorse. Like the Tory government ramming through Johnson's Brexit.

I don't mind you supporting Johnson's Brexit, blinding. But your pretence that it's democratic is not a convincing one, and gives the impression that you don't think you can support it with anything more credible, which is probably not the impression you would like to give.

If you keep going you will convince yourself that Jo Swinson won the Election and is Prime Minister. :eek::D

It's pity Channel 4 took down their Election Night Coverage because as well as being very very funny you would see how the Eu-Philes did :D:D

It was such a $h!t show for them Channel 4 had to take down their coverage because it showed how absolutely out of touch Channel 4 and their Panels were with the British Electorate. :eek::eek:

Now if anyone has it or can find it please send me a Link. To see Anti- Democrats get their a$$es whooped was marvellous.

trashcan

fash wrote: »

That's not on the table however. Brexit itself was formulated in Russia and the US. After Brexit, UK's policy decisions will be made in Brussels, Washington & Moscow - except now not only with the UK not be present or have a voice, those decisions will be made to the disadvantage the UK.
Rather pathetic to be honest.

I for one welcome their new overlords :D:D

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What control did the UK not have that they have now regained since they left?


What of the other people in the UK? Does their opinion on how the UK interacts with the EU (Or not) not matter but your opinion counts?
Where's the democracy now?

There was an election largely based around this very issue in December. As far as I'm concerned the matter is settled and the government has a mandate.

The government have been pretty clear that a Norway option is completely unacceptable. I would agree with them.

Donald Trump

Blinding, Theo

I know you like to think that the December election meant that the UK now has a strongly anti-EU parliament, but whatever happened to those previously influential hardline ERG people and DUP? We don't seem to hear about them these days at all. They were among the hardest anti-EU people and they seem to have lost their relevance.

Those people were trying to push for a "no deal" hardest possible Brexit and they had a good chance of getting their way if the December election had not went the way it did. In many ways, that election was a defeat for those people. It wasn't a defeat for the EU because the EU weren't running in the election. It wasn't a defeat for "Remain" because that vote was already long passed and Article 50 had already been triggered.

trashcan

blinding wrote: »

Donald Tusk for One.

The disparaging comments that people did not know what they were voting for ! Coming from the likes of the Irish who voted for FFG for years and years:eek::eek:

Verhofstadt , Juncker with they smart ass comments.

So, nothing of substance at all then ! :P:p

blinding

Donald Trump wrote: »

Blinding,

I know you like to think that the December election meant that the UK now has a strongly anti-EU parliament, but whatever happened to those previously influential hardline ERG people and DUP? We don't seem to hear about them these days at all. They were among the hardest anti-EU people and they seem to have lost their relevance.

Those people were trying to push for a "no deal" hardest possible Brexit and they had a good chance of getting their way if the December election had not went the way it did. In many ways, that election was a defeat for those people. It wasn't a defeat for the EU because the EU weren't running in the election. It wasn't a defeat for "Remain" because that vote was already long passed and Article 50 had already been triggered.

Because this this is the most Eu-Sceptic group of Tory MPs ever elected with an 80 Seat Majority. They don’t have to say anything. They are in control of the British Government. The British Government Ministers are all Eu-sceptics.

They are the Government of Britain elected with an 80 seat, thats an 80 seat majority.

eagle eye

Donald Trump wrote:

He can only speak for himself. He might have been frightened into it even though he didn't want to. We don't know. He could have spent the intervening months between the referendums cowering in a basement somewhere.

I voted for Lisbon both times. I'm not talking about myself. It was defeated and that should have been the end of it. That didn't happen though, it was a full on scare the crap out of everybody and get it in no matter what.
Unlike a lot of people in this thread I don't get upset if something doesn't go as I wish. I get upset by things being done that shouldn't be done like a second Lisbon treaty referendum.
As far as Brexit is concerned the person at fault is David Cameron. He didn't need to have a referendum when he did, he didn't do research to see how it would go and then threw his toys out of the pram and ran away when the unexpected result arrived. People can talk about Boris Johnson and the ukip idiots all they want but Cameron is the clown that caused Brexit.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Blinding, Theo

I know you like to think that the December election meant that the UK now has a strongly anti-EU parliament, but whatever happened to those previously influential hardline ERG people and DUP? We don't seem to hear about them these days at all. They were among the hardest anti-EU people and they seem to have lost their relevance.

Those people were trying to push for a "no deal" hardest possible Brexit and they had a good chance of getting their way if the December election had not went the way it did. In many ways, that election was a defeat for those people. It wasn't a defeat for the EU because the EU weren't running in the election. It wasn't a defeat for "Remain" because that vote was already long passed and Article 50 had already been triggered.

Some of the ERG members are in cabinet, and some are on the back benches.

The prominence of the whole Brexit issue has dropped for two reasons:
1) Coronavirus
2) The fact that the remain side have squarely lost.

There isn't a prayer of a Norway option or rejoining the EU. We all know this so there's no point pretending otherwise. Therefore the government are rightly considering other options.

Donald Trump

blinding wrote: »

Because this this is the most Eu-Sceptic group of Tory MPs ever elected with an 80 Seat Majority. They don’t have to say anything. They are in control of the British Government. The British Government Ministers are all Eu-sceptics.

They are the Government of Britain elected with an 80 seat, thats an 80 seat majority.

But they lost their momentum for a no-deal? It might still happen of course but it still looks less likely, as of today, than it looked before that election and the chaos they had in their Parliament. The hardliners got sidelined. They don't have the influence now.



They would have had it had dead-in-a-ditch man not asked for an extension. Most observers thought that without a clear majority one way or the other, that a hard Brexit was very likely.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Some of the ERG members are in cabinet, and some are on the back benches.

The prominence of the whole Brexit issue has dropped for two reasons:
1) Coronavirus
2) The fact that the remain side have squarely lost.

There isn't a prayer of a Norway option or rejoining the EU. We all know this so there's no point pretending otherwise. Therefore the government are rightly considering other options.

Coronavirus has indeed taken the limelight but there were many news items and articles since the election. Actually even if you look at the Brexit section on rte.ie you can look at the last 50 articles there. I don't see anything about the DUP or ERG. Last September, every second Brexit story had something from JRM or Sammy Wilson.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Coronavirus has indeed taken the limelight but there were many news items and articles since the election. Actually even if you look at the Brexit section on rte.ie you can look at the last 50 articles there. I don't see anything about the DUP or ERG. Last September, every second Brexit story had something from JRM or Sammy Wilson.

Yes because Brexit was the headline issue, and there was a slim majority in parliament.

Now that there is a large majority in the Commons the issue of course is less spectacular because Johnson can easily pass the legislation he needs.

Your response to blinding shows that you have an incredibly revisionist understanding of recent history. Can I remind you that it was pro-remain MPs who forced an extension by passing a law? It was pro-remain MPs who were trying to thwart Brexit from the start. The electorate punished them in so far as Labour has the worst result since the 1930's.

Hopefully the government will finish the job off in December. Preferably with an arrangement, or worst case scenario without one.