Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

As each day goes by the complete insanity of not seeking an extension to the the roll out of any new agreement is laid bare as almost criminal.

The previous 'transition' was nothing, since nothing actually changed. But to expect that things could be done smoothly with only a few days notice was reckless.

What would an extension have accomplished, though? What would be the point unless there were indications that the government were willing to compromise or go for a better deal for both sides?

It was deflating but I'm glad that the main body of Brexit is done. We know what it is now and the country can move on. It's going to quickly get old as the complaints about trade no longer being seamless mount up after people voted repeatedly to end seamless trade but that's the UK in 2021.

People here seem to regret Brexit based on polls but not so much that they'd want to undo it via a referendum. They've decided to live with it it seems.

Enzokk

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Seems to me those who invested a lot over the past few years in Blairism wresting control of the Labour Party back from Momentum will always find an excuse not to oppose the Conservatives in any fundamental way. Starmer had 9 months to formulate an opposition on Brexit. Moving Labour to a full on Brexit supporting party is absolutely ridiculous.

As an outsider, Labour will never get close to power. There is so much infighting about who is leader and moaning when it isn't your candidate. Most of the opposition to Starmer seems to be from Labour right now and not the Tories.

Look at your post, all of a sudden the opposition party is now a full on Brexit supporting party. This is because they didn't stop Brexit, didn't somehow manage a BRINO Brexit and hasn't carved in stone that they want to rejoin in 4 years time. With supporters like that, its no wonder they always struggle.

LuckyLloyd

Enzokk wrote: »

As an outsider, Labour will never get close to power. There is so much infighting about who is leader and moaning when it isn't your candidate. Most of the opposition to Starmer seems to be from Labour right now and not the Tories.

Look at your post, all of a sudden the opposition party is now a full on Brexit supporting party. This is because they didn't stop Brexit, didn't somehow manage a BRINO Brexit and hasn't carved in stone that they want to rejoin in 4 years time. With supporters like that, its no wonder they always struggle.

How else do you characterise a Party that voted for the Brexit agreement and have indicated no desire to revisit the topic at the next general election?

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How else do you characterise a Party that voted for the Brexit agreement and have indicated no desire to revisit the topic at the next general election?

It's absurd to claim that Labour is a full-on Brexit-supporting party. Starmer has inherited a pathetically weak position due to the ineptitude and incompetence of his predecessor who attained the worst result for the party since the early half of last century.

The vote was for this deal or no deal. I think they should have abstained but I see why he supported the deal.

Dylan765

What is the situation with shipments from the EU into Ireland that transit through the UK post brexit?

joeysoap

At US preclearance at Dublin airport 2+ years ago, the lady being processed turned to me ( next in line but about 3 meters away) and informed me the Us Customs officer told her to bin sandwiches which she had just bought. The officer then said ‘ma’am, I told you to bin the food’ . Which she did, reluctantly. There was a cafe after preclearance so she wasn’t stuck.

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How else do you characterise a Party that voted for the Brexit agreement and have indicated no desire to revisit the topic at the next general election?

Firstly, they voted for it on the basis that they couldn't be sure it would pass and the default would have been no-deal in that case. Surely you're aware of that?

Secondly, many Labour voters (a majority including the major unions) voted for brexit. This (imo) due to Corbyn's wishy-washy '7/10' support and lacklustre campaign for a yes vote. And since those people are in the main, still quite entrenched in their belief in brexit (c/f Tories taking the so-called red wall) Labour are forced to maintain the facade until eventually events prove what everyone else knew would happen. I don't particularly care for this approach as it smacks of a leadership deficit, but that's brexit for you. The revolution eats its children.

An Ciarraioch

Dylan765 wrote: »

What is the situation with shipments from the EU into Ireland that transit through the UK post brexit?

Not quite the same as the repackaging issues reported by Tony Connelly, but presumably need to TIR:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0108/1188595-tony-connelly-brexit/

70% of shipments into Dublin Port (700 a day) now getting green clearance:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0112/1189201-dublin-port-goods-movements/

prawnsambo

Dylan765 wrote: »

What is the situation with shipments from the EU into Ireland that transit through the UK post brexit?

Very little going via that route now. It's a nightmare. Stena ferry almost empty on the Holyhead route.

View

sondagefaux wrote: »

You've completely missed my point. Never mind.

Your point was based on a single opinion poll showing a slim majority of one “social category” favoured uniting with Ireland over remaining with the U.K.

As I pointed out, single opinion polls can’t be relied on for results on a referendum day.

I refrained from remarking on your dubious claim that increased prosperity in NI would incline people there to vote for uniting with Ireland, since there is no evidence to back it up, just as there is no evidence that increasing prosperity in Ireland has resulted in any increase (or decrease) in the likelihood of people here voting to re-unite with the U.K. (or voting to unite with any other country).

View

prawnsambo wrote: »

Firstly, they voted for it on the basis that they couldn't be sure it would pass and the default would have been no-deal in that case. Surely you're aware of that?

Secondly, many Labour voters (a majority including the major unions) voted for brexit. This (imo) due to Corbyn's wishy-washy '7/10' support and lacklustre campaign for a yes vote. And since those people are in the main, still quite entrenched in their belief in brexit (c/f Tories taking the so-called red wall) Labour are forced to maintain the facade until eventually events prove what everyone else knew would happen. I don't particularly care for this approach as it smacks of a leadership deficit, but that's brexit for you. The revolution eats its children.

Johnson has an eighty seat majority in Parliament. There wasn’t even the remotest possibility that he would have lost the vote, particularly as it was voted on over the Christmas break when nobody cared what was in it as they just wanted to be home with their families.

View

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's absurd to claim that Labour is a full-on Brexit-supporting party. Starmer has inherited a pathetically weak position due to the ineptitude and incompetence of his predecessor who attained the worst result for the party since the early half of last century.

The vote was for this deal or no deal. I think they should have abstained but I see why he supported the deal.

A party that voted to allow Mrs May to trigger art 50, blocked all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit, had multiple members on multiple occasions cross the floor to vote with the Conservatives on Brexit - with total impunity from any disciplinary sanctions - was a Brexit supporting party.

A party that has publicly stated it is opposed to renegotiating the current Brexit trade deal - which is a hard Brexit one lest anyone have any doubt - and which has never made the slightest indication that it would support rejoining EFTA, much less the EU, is a Brexit supporting party.

If any of our own domestic political parties adopted even a fraction of those positions wrt to our EU membership, no one would even dream of trying to argue that they are really neutral on our EU membership, much less pro it.

sondagefaux

schmoo2k wrote: »

Here is a list of non EU countries that can swap:


To be fair if Gibraltar, Jersey and the Isle of Man can exchange theirs, then no reason the UK couldn't get added to the list above?

There's a bilateral agreement between Ireland and the UK to enable just that.

sondagefaux

View wrote: »

Your point was based on a single opinion poll showing a slim majority of one “social category” favoured uniting with Ireland over remaining with the U.K.

As I pointed out, single opinion polls can’t be relied on for results on a referendum day.

I refrained from remarking on your dubious claim that increased prosperity in NI would incline people there to vote for uniting with Ireland, since there is no evidence to back it up, just as there is no evidence that increasing prosperity in Ireland has resulted in any increase (or decrease) in the likelihood of people here voting to re-unite with the U.K. (or voting to unite with any other country).

As I thought. Goodbye.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

A party that voted to allow Mrs May to trigger art 50, blocked all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit, had multiple members on multiple occasions cross the floor to vote with the Conservatives on Brexit - with total impunity from any disciplinary sanctions - was a Brexit supporting party.

A party that has publicly stated it is opposed to renegotiating the current Brexit trade deal - which is a hard Brexit one lest anyone have any doubt - and which has never made the slightest indication that it would support rejoining EFTA, much less the EU, is a Brexit supporting party.

If any of our own domestic political parties adopted even a fraction of those positions wrt to our EU membership, no one would even dream of trying to argue that they are really neutral on our EU membership, much less pro it.

Nuance. If you don't want to get it I don't think it will help to try and explain it. I don't know how you are trying to blame the opposition for the decisions of the ruling party.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

Johnson has an eighty seat majority in Parliament. There wasn’t even the remotest possibility that he would have lost the vote, particularly as it was voted on over the Christmas break when nobody cared what was in it as they just wanted to be home with their families.

Let me guess, had they abstained or voted against it and it failed you would have blamed Starmer, right?

ancapailldorcha

View wrote: »

A party that voted to allow Mrs May to trigger art 50, blocked all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit, had multiple members on multiple occasions cross the floor to vote with the Conservatives on Brexit - with total impunity from any disciplinary sanctions - was a Brexit supporting party.

A party that has publicly stated it is opposed to renegotiating the current Brexit trade deal - which is a hard Brexit one lest anyone have any doubt - and which has never made the slightest indication that it would support rejoining EFTA, much less the EU, is a Brexit supporting party.

If any of our own domestic political parties adopted even a fraction of those positions wrt to our EU membership, no one would even dream of trying to argue that they are really neutral on our EU membership, much less pro it.

The claim was that Labour was a "full on Brexit supporting party". This is patently ridiculous. UKIP is the only party that fits that description. Even the Tories were plagued with a few remainers.

Labour had, under Corbyn committed to respecting the 2016 vote so voting to revoke Article 50 wasn't unreasonable. The public had voted for Brexit less than a year before.

Where did Labour block "all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit?" I don't recall this at all.

The comparison with Irish parties is a false equivalence. The British system awards unchecked power to whoever wins 40-45% of the vote thus encouraging coalitions to merge awkwardly into the Labour and Conservative parties. The Irish system is fairer but that's not what prevails here.

ArmaniJeanss

I think there were plausible reasons to vote with the government, to vote against the government and to abstain. Definitely drawbacks against each option as well.

To an extent it depends which you think is more important - a) positioning the UK to rejoin the EU at an unspecified date in the future or b) getting the Labour party elected.

As outsiders we probably think A. For MPs of the party it's more likely B.

sondagefaux

Slideways wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/11/dutch-officials-seize-ham-sandwiches-from-british-drivers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other


Surely this borders on pettiness. I take great joy from seeing what the uk has done to itself but taking a truckies lunch off them is a bit too Jobsworth for me

There are sound reasons for this.

prawnsambo

View wrote: »

Johnson has an eighty seat majority in Parliament. There wasn’t even the remotest possibility that he would have lost the vote, particularly as it was voted on over the Christmas break when nobody cared what was in it as they just wanted to be home with their families.

Yes. But there was still the chance that the ERG headbangers (and others) might find something in there they didn't like and vote against it. But that's not the over-riding factor as I explained further on. Which you ignored.

listermint

Ireland to get 1 billion of the EU brexit fund.

Per Tony Connelly.

Fairly sizeable share.

An Ciarraioch

A quarter of this year's share - will be interesting to see what France gets, when there were rumours before Christmas that it was campaigning for €2 billion, but Ireland will surely be the biggest beneficiary by the time Spain, Netherlands, Denmark etc get their portions.

Padre_Pio

listermint wrote: »

Ireland to get 1 billion of the EU brexit fund.

Per Tony Connelly.

Fairly sizeable share.

Over €1k for every man woman and child.
Where do I collect?

listermint

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Over €1k for every man woman and child.
Where do I collect?

I think it's best we shore up industries first.

MBSnr

listermint wrote: »

I think it's best we shore up industries first.

Or buy a calculator..

1bn divide by 5m population is 200 Euro eaxh...

Patser

listermint wrote: »

Ireland to get 1 billion of the EU brexit fund.

Per Tony Connelly.

Fairly sizeable share.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0112/1189279-eu-fisheries-fund/

More detail here, actually getting slightly more, €1.051billion. 25% of the total fund set up by EU to support those impacted by Brexit. Good to have friends help out

Capt'n Midnight

View wrote: »

Johnson has an eighty seat majority in Parliament. There wasn’t even the remotest possibility that he would have lost the vote, particularly as it was voted on over the Christmas break when nobody cared what was in it as they just wanted to be home with their families.

Add in SF abstentions and threaten the DUP with a border poll and becomes a de facto 100 seat majority.

Opinion piece in the Guardian suggests that Boris might try a snap election during the post-covid boom. ie. Before the chickens come home to roost in 2024 when borrowing is predicted to be at it's highest since WWII.

And boundary changes might give them another 10 seats. And it might be worth might be worth a dangling a carrot in front of the fooled-me-once Lib Dems. If being in govt is all that matters then if all else fails Boris could offer the SNP a referendum. Even Churchill admitted that in some circumstances I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House


Not sure how Labour gets a majority if things align for the Conservatives in the next year or two.

breezy1985

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Add in SF abstentions and threaten the DUP with a border poll and becomes a de facto 100 seat majority.

Opinion piece in the Guardian suggests that Boris might try a snap election during the post-covid boom. ie. Before the chickens come home to roost in 2024 when borrowing is predicted to be at it's highest since WWII.

And boundary changes might give them another 10 seats. And it might be worth might be worth a dangling a carrot in front of the fooled-me-once Lib Dems. If being in govt is all that matters then if all else fails Boris could offer the SNP a referendum. Even Churchill admitted that in some circumstances I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House


Not sure how Labour gets a majority if things align for the Conservatives in the next year or two.

Lib Dems or the SNP wont do any deal that puts Johnson back in. It would be toxic with their voters

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The claim was that Labour was a "full on Brexit supporting party". This is patently ridiculous. UKIP is the only party that fits that description. Even the Tories were plagued with a few remainers.

Labour had, under Corbyn committed to respecting the 2016 vote so voting to revoke Article 50 wasn't unreasonable. The public had voted for Brexit less than a year before.

Where did Labour block "all efforts by the other opposition parties to hinder Brexit?" I don't recall this at all.

The comparison with Irish parties is a false equivalence. The British system awards unchecked power to whoever wins 40-45% of the vote thus encouraging coalitions to merge awkwardly into the Labour and Conservative parties. The Irish system is fairer but that's not what prevails here.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
- John Philpott Curran , London 1790

Labour effectively stood aside on Brexit. The purity of a theoretically possible hard left win in an election was all that mattered. Despite the difficult of attracting the centre or splitting the vote with the Lib Dems if they moved too far left.

Corbyn's appearance on The Last Leg showed his heart wasn't in the 7/10 and the margin was so small that any other Labour leader should have been able to thwart Tory plans instead of handing over complete control of Brexit.
Labour could have done what Cameron should have done, insisted on the public choosing what type of deal they wanted.

Instead of getting rid of EU rules on state aid and keeping Johnny Foreigner out of the jobs market like they wanted, Labour now live in a country where EU workers rights and wages are being eroded.

Capt'n Midnight

breezy1985 wrote: »

Lib Dems or the SNP wont do any deal that puts Johnson back in. It would be toxic with their voters

Yes it's unlikely. But not impossible. The SNP might hold their noses if means a triple lock guarantee of Independence.

And it would only be necessary if Boris looses the equivalent of 110 seats.
80 majority + SF abstentions + DUP + up to 10 from boundary changes + a handful of independents

The permutations are scary.