Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

firemansam4 wrote: »

Boris as much as a spoofer as he is, is 100% correct in putting Macron right on this one.
NI, England, Scotland and Wales are all just gorified provinces within one nation. They are not separate countries.
And I am somebody who would like to see a UI, but we can't get away with the facts as what they are at this moment in time.

Scotland had there chance go become their own nation and they blew it.

Thats not to say I agree in any way with anything they are doing in relation to the NI protocol, an international agreement they are just going to disregard.

We only have Johnson's word on what Macron said. So...

firemansam4

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We only have Johnson's word on what Macron said. So...

Yea good point...

I suppose I should qualify the post and say "If what Johnson said about Macron was true"

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We only have Johnson's word on what Macron said. So...

Were they conversing in English, French, Latin or Greek?

It could be just a case of the bon mot being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or just lost in translation.

Enzokk

firemansam4 wrote: »

Boris as much as a spoofer as he is, is 100% correct in putting Macron right on this one.
NI, England, Scotland and Wales are all just gorified provinces within one nation. They are not separate countries.
And I am somebody who would like to see a UI, but we can't get away with the facts as what they are at this moment in time.

Scotland had there chance go become their own nation and they blew it.

Thats not to say I agree in any way with anything they are doing in relation to the NI protocol, an international agreement they are just going to disregard.

Not really, as the concept of nations is muddled with the UK. When it suits them they are one nation, and in other areas they like to be 4 or 3. So in rugby you have the 3 nations and NI is encapsulated in Ireland. In football you have 4 where all 4 nations can qualify against other countries to play in the UEFA European Championships (for countries, not provinces) or the World Cup.

You are correct though, if you follow the country definition as the IOC does then it is one country and not 4. But the UK has never, or hardly ever, sent a UK football team to the Olympics because of the commotion it would cause the other nations (not provinces) in the UK.

So Johnson is not right. If you can have 4 nations playing against other national teams there is no reason why for trade you can also have separate arrangements. He needed something to get angry about to feed the base and this is what he latched onto.

Cole

re. the supposed Macron comment...I just watched an outrageously biased Andrew Marr this morning. The comment came up and a guy from the Sun was allowed to point to EU ignorance of NI, with Marr putting on a 'funny' French accent to quote Macron. Then Raab was on later and allowed to spin the sh1t out of it, with Marr virtually egging him on.

We can all see the absolute fecking irony of Johnson et. al being outraged at the EU's supposed ignorance of NI politics, but I expected a bit of probing into the nuance of his comment from the BBC...as apparently it was not said quite in the way it's being spun.

lawrencesummers

So the UK and EU agreed a deal

The UK doesn’t want to follow the terms of that deal, and nothing suggests they will start to follow the terms of the deal either.

It’s hard to leave Europe when you have a boarder with Europe in a different country.

Only two options for an endgame here, a United ireland or a physical boarder of some sort.

Both extremely problematic and something politicians on either side don’t want to be remembered for.

So politicians will do what politicians do and kick the can down the roa another while.

murphaph

Even if it were true that the UK signed the deal under duress, so what? They have forced treaties under duress on Ireland, Cyprus, Spain and who knows who else. A taste of their own medicine will do them good, even if any duress was entirely self imposed!

hotmail.com

I suppose the IRA can take comfort that they can finally accept that London does not want to hold onto the North.

There is no need for violence to achieve a united Ireland.

Seth Brundle

More Brexit induced woes...

Farmers have been left ‘on the brink’ after Brexit put a ‘massive hole’ in the numbers of fruit pickers coming to the UK in the summer months, it has been claimed.

Applications for seasonal work at one Kent-based company are down 90% in the last two years and there are fears for the future.

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1403979348105912325?s=09

murphaph

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So the UK and EU agreed a deal

The UK doesn’t want to follow the terms of that deal, and nothing suggests they will start to follow the terms of the deal either.

It’s hard to leave Europe when you have a boarder with Europe in a different country.

Only two options for an endgame here, a United ireland or a physical boarder of some sort.

Both extremely problematic and something politicians on either side don’t want to be remembered for.

So politicians will do what politicians do and kick the can down the roa another while.

Agreed. The British government could also just do what it said it would. Not being able to buy a particular brand of sausage in Sainsbury's is not a reason for major constitutional change or a hard border in Ireland.

Common sense says either would be very destabilising at present. I think a bit longer term a united Ireland will be the outcome alright but over a fake sausage war? NI actually exports far more sausages to GB than the other way around anyway. It's all fabricated to have a point of conflict with the EU. They don't actually care about NI or sausages or any of that.

Turn the thumbscrews in Calais a bit and see how long the Tories keep up this pretence.

It's amazing how much power Ireland is wielding at a G7 summit lol.

Nody

Seth Brundle wrote: »

More Brexit induced woes...

If only someone would have predicted something like this; this is a lightening bolt from a clear sky...

They have got some UK pickers but to quote a farmer "most don't show up" or "leave with in two weeks where we need them for six months". But I'm sure those British citizens who've been whining about the foreigners taking their jobs will now be spurred to action and come running over clad in blue, white and red to be upskilled to fruit picking as a seasonal job to do, any minute now.

lawrencesummers

The big lesson in all of this is not to have a vote on something if you don’t know the consequences of the outcome.

I hope that lesson is taken into account if there is ever a vote on a United ireland. Unless we know with some level of detail what the consequences are for major things like policing, education, healthcare, social welfare, taxation then nobody should be asked to vote on it.

10000maniacs

Cole wrote: »

re. the supposed Macron comment...I just watched an outrageously biased Andrew Marr this morning. The comment came up and a guy from the Sun was allowed to point to EU ignorance of NI, with Marr putting on a 'funny' French accent to quote Macron. Then Raab was on later and allowed to spin the sh1t out of it, with Marr virtually egging him on.

We can all see the absolute fecking irony of Johnson et. al being outraged at the EU's supposed ignorance of NI politics, but I expected a bit of probing into the nuance of his comment from the BBC...as apparently it was not said quite in the way it's being spun.

Regardless of how Marr and Kuenssberg try to twist what Macron said, the fact of the matter is there is already a United Ireland in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the people of Ireland. ( That was what Macron was trying to articulate). The sooner the British realise that, the less messy it is going to be when it eventually comes to pass.

J Mysterio

The Beth Rigby interview was decent, but Gary Gibbon here from Channel 4 absolutely nailed Johnson, also portraying him as British Trump. He was bowled over, forgetting his words. Caught dead to rights.

"You're not a supporter of the rule based system."

"All of the consequences of the deal you signed were absolutely laid out, very clearly, black and white, repeated again and again over years."

"It was all laid out beforehand. Couldn't have been clearer. There were years of negotiations spelling this all out... It came as a total surprise to you, all these checks?!"

https://twitter.com/ukiswitheu/status/1403775184537018372?s=20

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

The Beth Rigby interview was decent, but Gary Gibbon here from Channel 4 absolutely nailed Johnson, also portraying him as British Trump. He was bowled over, forgetting his words. Caught dead to rights.

"You're not a supporter of the rule based system."

"All of the consequences of the deal you signed were absolutely laid out, very clearly, black and white, repeated again and again over years."

"It was all laid out beforehand. Couldn't have been clearer. There were years of negotiations spelling this all out... It came as a total surprise to you, all these checks?!"

https://twitter.com/ukiswitheu/status/1403775184537018372?s=20

One wonders what Johnson is like with the EU leaders in private. He seems to have very poor social skills and is not at all on top of the detail.

Itssoeasy

Cole wrote: »

re. the supposed Macron comment...I just watched an outrageously biased Andrew Marr this morning. The comment came up and a guy from the Sun was allowed to point to EU ignorance of NI, with Marr putting on a 'funny' French accent to quote Macron. Then Raab was on later and allowed to spin the sh1t out of it, with Marr virtually egging him on.

We can all see the absolute fecking irony of Johnson et. al being outraged at the EU's supposed ignorance of NI politics, but I expected a bit of probing into the nuance of his comment from the BBC...as apparently it was not said quite in the way it's being spun.

As you point as opposed the UK government and a certain section of the UK population who are so well versed in NI is it and who’s political correspondents had to do crash courses on how the DUP were several years ago. FFS it’s ridiculous.

Strazdas

pixelburp wrote: »

It's tangential to the Scottish referendum question, because apparently the planned "love bomb" tactic to counter the independence movement is to emphasise this "one nation" concept. It's a strange, aggressive move that feels wildly anglo-centric given it reads like diminishing or ignoring the 3 assemblies - created explicitly to reverse this sense of London primacy that already existed. Is Johnson trying to ape the US, many variations but ultimately all one nation of America?

Indeed, Johnson's claim that 'the United Kingdom is one country' is him automatically stating that Scotland is not a real country and is a mere region of the UK. I don't think this will go down well there.

10000maniacs

As long as Johnson keeps repeating the veiled threat about ripping up the protocol, The EU are not going to budge on it.

"We are going to sort it out, and if we cannot sort it out, then we will do what is necessary"

Sam Russell

10000maniacs wrote: »

As long as Johnson keeps repeating the veiled threat about ripping up the protocol, The EU are not going to budge on it.

"We are going to sort it out, and if we cannot sort it out, then we will do what is necessary"

Of course, 'we will do what is necessary' could be taken as - 'we will comply with the protocol, because that is what we signed up to' - oh, look a flying pig!

BlitzKrieg

Any word on the deal made with Gibraltar?

No push from the UK to tear that up?

Podge_irl

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The big lesson in all of this is not to have a vote on something if you don’t know the consequences of the outcome.

I hope that lesson is taken into account if there is ever a vote on a United ireland. Unless we know with some level of detail what the consequences are for major things like policing, education, healthcare, social welfare, taxation then nobody should be asked to vote on it.

This is not realistic, nor would it be in the Scottish scenario. Sorting these issues will take monumental amounts of time and effort which won't be expended on a hypothetical. The Brexit referendum, a Scottish indy ref, a UI ref inherently need to be big picture questions. The problem with Brexit is that they then rushed into it by triggering Art50 and starting a countdown clock without figuring out any of these questions internally first and then refusing to involve parliament in any discussions during the negotiation process. Any UI outcome or Scottish indy outcome will need to come with the understanding that it will take a long time to implement and with actual proper political oversight during the process.

Sam Russell

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is not realistic, nor would it be in the Scottish scenario. Sorting these issues will take monumental amounts of time and effort which won't be expended on a hypothetical. The Brexit referendum, a Scottish indy ref, a UI ref inherently need to be big picture questions. The problem with Brexit is that they then rushed into it by triggering Art50 and starting a countdown clock without figuring out any of these questions internally first and then refusing to involve parliament in any discussions during the negotiation process. Any UI outcome or Scottish indy outcome will need to come with the understanding that it will take a long time to implement and with actual proper political oversight during the process.

Well, the NI protocol was part of the WA, which was put to a GE and the Tories won an eighty seat majority ( but on a minority of the popular vote). It was then voted through by a large majority through the HoC. What more could be done to legitimize it?

Well, they could have read it, and discussed it more (or at all) - but that was their choice.

Podge_irl

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the NI protocol was part of the WA, which was put to a GE and the Tories won an eighty seat majority ( but on a minority of the popular vote). It was then voted through by a large majority through the HoC. What more could be done to legitimize it?

Well, they could have read it, and discussed it more (or at all) - but that was their choice.

On the NIP/WA I agree. But parliament was sidelined from the moment A50 was triggered in some ridiculous show of maintaining secrecy in their negotiations with the EU. The outcome was legitimized as well as it could be, but the process was still basically awful.

Ultimately though, my point is more that there is zero chance of any more well defined outcome being attached to a UI vote or Scottish indy vote. It is simple not feasible to work that way. You vote on the big picture then sort out the details in (ideally) a long and laborious process and hopefully get input and insight along the way.

Akrasia

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So the UK and EU agreed a deal

The UK doesn’t want to follow the terms of that deal, and nothing suggests they will start to follow the terms of the deal either.

It’s hard to leave Europe when you have a boarder with Europe in a different country.

Only two options for an endgame here, a United ireland or a physical boarder of some sort.

Both extremely problematic and something politicians on either side don’t want to be remembered for.

So politicians will do what politicians do and kick the can down the roa another while.

There are plenty of solutions if they are mature and realistic about it, but they’re not, the Tories are juggling a whole bunch of mutually exclusive promises and red lines and their strategy is to keep juggling them for as long as they can get away with it in the hope that they can blame someone else when they inevitably all come crashing into each other

They are just using the UK and Irish and European people as playthings in their egotistical game of thrones

Sam Russell

Podge_irl wrote: »

On the NIP/WA I agree. But parliament was sidelined from the moment A50 was triggered in some ridiculous show of maintaining secrecy in their negotiations with the EU. The outcome was legitimized as well as it could be, but the process was still basically awful.

Ultimately though, my point is more that there is zero chance of any more well defined outcome being attached to a UI vote or Scottish indy vote. It is simple not feasible to work that way. You vote on the big picture then sort out the details in (ideally) a long and laborious process and hopefully get input and insight along the way.

The only safe way to go on such an important vote (Brexit, UI, or Scottish IndyRef) is to have a vote to give the OK to then negotiate the details. When those details are determined in broad outline, then a confirmation referendum should be held.

Of course a tight vote, like 52 to 48 would make this difficult. A vicious campaign for the first vote would then become even more vicious. It would not be pretty.

Now we have had close results (like the divorce ref) but no follow up referendum to nail the details, so maybe the losers will just have to get over it.

Akrasia

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only safe way to go on such an important vote (Brexit, UI, or Scottish IndyRef) is to have a vote to give the OK to then negotiate the details. When those details are determined in broad outline, then a confirmation referendum should be held.

Of course a tight vote, like 52 to 48 would make this difficult. A vicious campaign for the first vote would then become even more vicious. It would not be pretty.

Now we have had close results (like the divorce ref) but no follow up referendum to nail the details, so maybe the losers will just have to get over it.

In the divorce referendum, or any other Irish constitutional referendum the exact text of the change is what is being put to the people. With the Brexit referendum, it was a vague ‘non binding’ opinion poll

Ironically the leave campaign were found guilty of breaching electoral regulations and the reason the result wasn’t declared invalid by the courts, was because the courts considered the vote ‘advisory’
If the vote was legally binding it would have been nullified
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a415311-4355-4505-ab81-a3108644f099

Podge_irl

Akrasia wrote: »

In the divorce referendum, or any other Irish constitutional referendum the exact text of the change is what is being put to the people. With the Brexit referendum, it was a vague ‘non binding’ opinion poll

Ironically the leave campaign were found guilty of breaching electoral regulations and the reason the result wasn’t declared invalid by the courts, was because the courts considered the vote ‘advisory’
If the vote was legally binding it would have been nullified
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a415311-4355-4505-ab81-a3108644f099

In a UI referendum there will undoubtedly need to be a follow-up, if not several follow-up referendums to determine the exact constitutional changes. Mind you, these will have nothing to do with taxes, pensions etc.

Be it Brexit, UI or Scottish indy, these issues will never be worked out before a referendum on whether to even go forth with the idea in the first place. Of course the Brexit vote was vague - considering the outcome relied on negotiations with the EU afterwards it could never have been anything else.

Strazdas

Akrasia wrote: »

In the divorce referendum, or any other Irish constitutional referendum the exact text of the change is what is being put to the people. With the Brexit referendum, it was a vague ‘non binding’ opinion poll

Ironically the leave campaign were found guilty of breaching electoral regulations and the reason the result wasn’t declared invalid by the courts, was because the courts considered the vote ‘advisory’
If the vote was legally binding it would have been nullified
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a415311-4355-4505-ab81-a3108644f099

A huge flaw in the UK referendum is that it didn't even specify what "leaving the EU" actually meant. Did it mean the 28 member political union or did it include the Single Market?

It was quite shambolic that it was phrased like an opinion poll question in a tabloid (but in keeping with just about everything about Brexit UK and the Tories these days).

fash

Podge_irl wrote: »

In a UI referendum there will undoubtedly need to be a follow-up, if not several follow-up referendums to determine the exact constitutional changes. Mind you, these will have nothing to do with taxes, pensions etc.

Be it Brexit, UI or Scottish indy, these issues will never be worked out before a referendum on whether to even go forth with the idea in the first place. Of course the Brexit vote was vague - considering the outcome relied on negotiations with the EU afterwards it could never have been anything else.

Yeah but if you thought the general public's opinion was relevant, you could always have gone back to the people with a 2nd referendum on some variation on "leave with this; leave without; stay".

Podge_irl

fash wrote: »

Yeah but if you thought the general public's opinion was relevant, you could always have gone back to the people with a 2nd referendum on some variation on "leave with this; leave without; stay".

Yes you could have, but it is utter fantasy to think you could have ever gone into a Brexit referendum with "this is what Brexit will mean" because, among other reasons, it was not in the UK's agency to decide that.