Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

One thing everyone outside the UK is so dumbfounded about is why any logical people (and the British were seen as realists up to recently) would so willingly cut their nose to spite their face sorta say.

Why would politicians willingly want to lower the living standards and make worse the livelihoods of their own constituents? In face of all the facts that point to no silver lining to Brexit, nothing, nada.

But then we should remember that UK politics is very different to our own brand of parish pump politics, however much we might dislike the likes of Healy Rae he at least at some level cares for his constituents and represents them. In UK on other hands mostly due to first past the post voting and mostly due to a stratified society and maybe also factor in the rabid media, it's normal to ignore your constituents.

Those MPs live in a bubble in London, London is almost a different country to the rest of UK. They look around and do not see what the rest of the UK population sees, hence its easy to overestimate the "greatness" of the Britains position. Other Brexiteers come from Etonian background and already "different" to the rest of the population. And if it all goes south they just walk away and collect a pension. There is no penalty for screwing over their own countrymen.

No silver lining? There are massive silver linings, for the right people. Getting rid of standards, lower CT rate to complete on the world stage for FDI due to loss of EU access, reduction in oversight on financial regulations.

There is going to have to be serious investment by the UK in lots of areas to try to kickstart the economy. Already they have spent billions on getting ready for Brexit, and we have seen with Covid that having the right connections can be very lucrative.

Enzokk

So we are waiting for an update on the state of play from the phone call. Fun times.


While we wait, look at the way Brexit no-deal is being framed now as the fault of remainers,

Hard remainers wouldn't accept a soft Brexit. Now we're all paying the price

There are now only two certainties when it comes to Brexit: either Britain and the EU will sign off the hardest possible mutually agreed rupture, or the self-inflicted disaster of no deal will become a reality. None of this was inevitable. Don’t listen to me; heed the words of Peter Mandelson instead, who has declared that this is “the price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit”. Much too late. The price that will be paid over a generation or more due to a failure to unite around a compromise is steep indeed.

So basically because those that wanted to remain didn't accept a Brexit that was never on the table it is their fault, or they have to share blame for no-deal. Talk about rewriting history there.

Shelga

Enzokk wrote: »

So we are waiting for an update on the state of play from the phone call. Fun times.


While we wait, look at the way Brexit no-deal is being framed now as the fault of remainers,

Hard remainers wouldn't accept a soft Brexit. Now we're all paying the price



So basically because those that wanted to remain didn't accept a Brexit that was never on the table it is their fault, or they have to share blame for no-deal. Talk about rewriting history there.

Owen Jones is the definition of the word insufferable. Can't bring myself to read his drivel. He's the epitome of what people cannot stand about The Guardian. Smugness personified.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

So we are waiting for an update on the state of play from the phone call. Fun times.


While we wait, look at the way Brexit no-deal is being framed now as the fault of remainers,

Hard remainers wouldn't accept a soft Brexit. Now we're all paying the price



So basically because those that wanted to remain didn't accept a Brexit that was never on the table it is their fault, or they have to share blame for no-deal. Talk about rewriting history there.

People are forgetting the ERG would have sabotaged a "soft" Brexit. Firstly vote it down and if moderate Tories and Labour MPs had voted it through, they would have then collapsed the government to stop them signing a deal with the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

Owen Jones is the definition of the word insufferable. Can't bring myself to read his drivel. He's the epitome of what people cannot stand about The Guardian. Smugness personified.

Surprisingly, there's no inspection of Corbyn's office which frustrated the Labour remain campaign, Corbyn himself who called for the invocation of Article 50 on the 24th June 2016 before anyone else or the Labour left who seem to be allergic to ever leaving London for more than a day or two each election.

Labour needs to build a base for the next election and a member of the commentariat waving his finger from his posh Soho flat with his premium pure-bred cat couldn't look more out of touch with liberals, the working class or the red wall if he tried.

trellheim

Listening to Defence Questions here, the usual wittering re Brexit is mostly absent, MPs have been sent out with a holding brief....

trellheim

Meanwhile Boris is doing a presser with the candidate for mayor of Uxbridge (his constituency. ). Its in a fishmongers.. Is it wrong my eyes rolled back in my head

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1335969114293215237?s=20

trellheim

right Rachel Reeves on now in the Commons re Brexit

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b9d83851-4ca0-43a3-bbdd-a4e94e38766e

Enzokk

SSDD, "take back control of our laws trade and waters" and something about a Australia type deal.

Edit:

https://twitter.com/denisstaunton/status/1335972620886478848?s=20

Luckily we have Gove on the case to negotiate this with the EU, I am sure it will easy to have all of this sorted to ensure the UK drops the offending clauses.

Kermit.de.frog

Progress

https://twitter.com/PureValueMetric/status/1335974269512265729

Seth Brundle

Apparently, the UK will remove the offending clauses from the IMB if discussions are agreed...
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1335972719935025152


Edit: not remove but deactivate :rolleyes:

Hurrache

Enzokk wrote: »

SSDD, "take back control of our laws trade and waters" and something about a Australia type deal.

Edit:

https://twitter.com/denisstaunton/status/1335972620886478848?s=20

Luckily we have Gove on the case to negotiate this with the EU, I am sure it will easy to have all of this sorted to ensure the UK drops the offending clauses.

I don't believe for 1 minute that if a deal was reached they wouldn't reintroduce those clauses at a later sitting. It's a bit blackmail-y.

Leroy42

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't believe for 1 minute that if a deal was reached they wouldn't reintroduce those clauses at a later sitting.

Yeah, I agree. At the most, the Uk will use it to create an additional transition type period to get them over the winter and Covid before going back to it.

And as for this 'olive branch' that they will remove the offending clauses, golly. It is more like they will stop breaking the house if you let them stay up and watch TV! It is not an olive branch, it is a ransom demand.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Progress

https://twitter.com/PureValueMetric/status/1335974269512265729

Is that something of a sideshow though? The IMB is only one element....apparently the talks were stuck yesterday on the three big issues, not on the IMB.

And "deactivated" is a rather suspicious word to be using. When are they planning on reactivating them?

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

Is that something of a sideshow though? The IMB is only one element....apparently the talks were stuck yesterday on the three big issues, not on the IMB.

True, for the EU the IM is dealing with issues that they consider already agreed and closed. So taking out the clauses merely puts us back to where we were when the WA was agreed.

That is why Ii am saying that some journalists (Beth Rigby for one called it a peace offering) are wrong. The UK would break international law by passing that bill, so taking them out is not a peace offering it is accepting that they will stick by their word.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK would break international law by passing that bill, so taking them out is not a peace offering it is accepting that they will stick by their word.

The EU already said that while they would continue to negotiate, no deal would come into force while those provisions were law.

So we all knew the UK would withdraw them if they wanted a deal, it isn't news.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1335985368416612354

Telegraph saying the government is prepared to remove the 3 clauses.

For a giggle...

https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1335979810556948482

trellheim

Reminder :

Clause 44 IMB : Notification of State aid for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Protocol ( proposed to be dropped )

Clause 45 : Allows international law to be broken ( proposed to be inactivated

Clause 47 : Allows monies to be doled out for Stated Aid ( proposed to be inactivated


I'd say its not enough

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In NI, practically all the national quota is owned by locals, and I believe the stats for the Republic are pretty much the same:

https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116

NI half the quota is owned by one NI boat operating out of Killybeg rather than NI. By value about half the rest is prawns and guess where they are exported to ?

It's worse in Wales

Wales has less than 1% of the UK quota

A transition to being outside of the EU could have very serious consequences, given that in 2017 90% of what was caught (some £38.8m) was sold directly to EU markets.

paul71

trellheim wrote: »

Reminder :

Clause 44 IMB : Notification of State aid for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Protocol ( proposed to be dropped )

Clause 45 : Allows international law to be broken ( proposed to be inactivated

Clause 47 : Allows monies to be doled out for Stated Aid ( proposed to be inactivated


I'd say its not enough

Anybody know what inactivated means?

10000maniacs

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apparently, the UK will remove the offending clauses from the IMB if discussions are agreed...
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1335972719935025152


Edit: not remove but deactivate :rolleyes:

It's still blackmail. I think more than anything else, this is what has triggered Macrons anger over the last couple of months.

10000maniacs

What is probably happening in the background is Johnson saying Ursula Von der Leyen, I am willing to back down, but give me something concrete to save face with. Whatever Johnson is up to, it's clown politics.

Kermit.de.frog

trellheim wrote: »

Reminder :

Clause 44 IMB : Notification of State aid for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Protocol ( proposed to be dropped )

Clause 45 : Allows international law to be broken ( proposed to be inactivated

Clause 47 : Allows monies to be doled out for Stated Aid ( proposed to be inactivated


I'd say its not enough

Agree. They have to be removed completely.

CelticRambler

Jeeez ... :rolleyes: ... just listening to IDS on Sky saying that the people of France and Germany and the likes will come to their senses soon enough and tell the EU negotiators to cop on and do a deal to ... <drum roll> save their exports of French wine and German cars.

FFS. :rolleyes:

Sam Russell

I cannot see how there can be a deal without a complete climb down by the UK, which is unlikely.

How could the EU accept that the IMB should proceed at all given that the EU have already issued legal proceedings on the basis that it already breaches the WA as it demonstrates bad faith on the UK's part.

So NO DEAL.

ambro25

Sam Russell wrote: »

I cannot see how there can be a deal without a complete climb down by the UK, which is unlikely.

How could the EU accept that the IMB should proceed at all given that the EU have already issued legal proceedings on the basis that it already breaches the WA as it demonstrates bad faith on the UK's part.

So NO DEAL.

I'm thinking increasingly that, far from a hubristic bluff too far, these clauses were drafted to help provoke, and then 'lock in', no deal from the start: Johnson was never going to be seen, to be dictated UK law (IMB) by Brussels. So once they were in the draft and out in the open, a climb down was never possible.

An Ciarraioch

UK propose sending fishing to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which will sound klaxons for anyone with knowledge of the industry:

https://twitter.com/bearaboi/status/1336005568473927680

Brussels Sprout

CelticRambler wrote: »

Jeeez ... :rolleyes: ... just listening to IDS on Sky saying that the people of France and Germany and the likes will come to their senses soon enough and tell the EU negotiators to cop on and do a deal to ... <drum roll> save their exports of French wine and German cars.

FFS. :rolleyes:

When someone repeats that bankrupt argument a Klaxon should go off live in studio, preferably drowning out whatever else they have to say.

Spanish Eyes

I would not trust any of them in Gov at Westminster. They have lied and obfuscated all the way through.

They might change the IMB laws, but nothing to stop them changing it back again either.

CelticRambler

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

When someone repeats that bankrupt argument a Klaxon should go off live in studio, preferably drowning out whatever else they have to say.

It should! :pac:

And then again, for all that we'd say that IDS is obviously living in a long-distant past, I had a flash of déjà-vu when Sky's Mark Austin gave a run-down on the expected vote times for later this evening, making me think of those heady Bercow days when we watched PM Johnson indulge in unconstitutional behaviour (in a limited and specific way) and MPs call him to heel.

And then it struck me: one year after the infamous oven-ready election deal, Westminster is still arguing over stuff that's supposedly done and dusted. Isn't this yet another example of Brexiters utterly incapable of coping with their own win?