Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

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".

They kind of did with the GE. Johnson certainly campaigned on the basis of back the deal or not.

Of course the government seem totally fine with now ignoring the will of people, which for a few years after the ref seemed to be the No 1 concern of Brexiteers.

Strazdas

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

The real reason is that any sort of detail on the ballot paper would have increased the risk of the referendum being lost by the Leave side. They wanted and needed it to be as vague as possible and Cameron obliged them.

Podge_irl

Strazdas wrote: »

The real reason is that any sort of detail on the ballot paper would have increased the risk of the referendum being lost by the Leave side. They wanted and needed it to be as vague as possible and Cameron obliged them.

And any further detail on the ballot paper would have been a lie. Brexit has been a ****show, quite clearly, but this idea of a fully formed brexit on the ballot paper as a first step is utterly deluded. It was never (and will never in any similar scenario be) an option. The UK had no right to decide whether they would stay in the single market or not and had no power to unilaterally impose that.

The real flaw was the utter lack of consultation with parliament after the vote in order to form a basis for what basis they wanted to negotiate on. We won't, and Scotland won't, have a fully formed idea of what the UI or independence means on the ballot paper because that is simply not how it works. The UK is not going to negotiate about what a post independence Scotland looks like before an actual vote for independence. The EU was also clear it wouldn't discuss a post Brexit UK before A50 was triggered.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

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).

It did not mean rolling the clock back to 1973 because it also meant leaving the EFTA which the UK had been a member of since it was setup in 1960.

The EFTA was setup with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland as an alternative bloc to the EEC. The UK being the big cheese.


Parliament gave the Tory party a blank cheque.

Strazdas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It did not mean rolling the clock back to 1973 because it also meant leaving the EFTA which the UK had been a member of since it was setup in 1960.

The EFTA was setup with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland as an alternative bloc to the EEC. The UK being the big cheese.


Parliament gave the Tory party a blank cheque.

The way it was phrased was incredibly sloppy. An advisory question about leaving "the European Union" but without even specifying what they meant by European Union and what leaving it would entail.

It's beyond absurd that people in summer 2016 were debating whether the 52% had voted to leave the Single Market or not.

Akrasia

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

Yeah, so the confirmation referendum should have been baked in from the start

1 vote to begin withdrawal negotiations 2nd vote to ratify the treaty

Of course the brexiteers didn't want that because they knew that the actual will of the people would have been to reject the final deal.

University textbooks will be written about how inept and politically disastrous the Brexit referendum and subsequent withdrawal process was

Of course no number of referendums would have prevented the Johnson strategy of signing a treaty and simply tearing it up the day after

54and56

This "UK is one country" line the BoJo govt has decided to parrot is a great opportunity for sporting organisations to hit the reset button and stop positively discriminating towards the UK by recognising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 4 distinct "countries" and instead grant the UK the status of one country just as all other European countries with multiple "Nations" or regions are only recognised for the title of their unified government.

Imagine FIFA trying to explain why NI with a population of 2m is one of 4 UK "countries" but California with a population of 40m is bundled together with 50 other states (virtually all of whom have a larger population than NI) to form just one country because.......

Akrasia

54and56 wrote: »

This "UK is one country" line the BoJo govt has decided to parrot is a great opportunity for sporting organisations to hit the reset button and stop positively discriminating towards the UK by recognising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 4 distinct "countries" and instead grant the UK the status of one country just as all other European countries with multiple "Nations" or regions are only recognised for the title of their unified government.

Imagine FIFA trying to explain why NI with a population of 2m is one of 4 UK "countries" but California with a population of 40m is bundled together with 50 other states (virtually all of whom have a larger population than NI) to form just one country because.......

Massive ginormous can of worms. Would be fun to watch though

ZeroThreat

54and56 wrote: »

This "UK is one country" line the BoJo govt has decided to parrot is a great opportunity for sporting organisations to hit the reset button and stop positively discriminating towards the UK by recognising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 4 distinct "countries" and instead grant the UK the status of one country just as all other European countries with multiple "Nations" or regions are only recognised for the title of their unified government.

Imagine FIFA trying to explain why NI with a population of 2m is one of 4 UK "countries" but California with a population of 40m is bundled together with 50 other states (virtually all of whom have a larger population than NI) to form just one country because.......

Actually there's not as many people living in Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakoka, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho and West Virginia as you think

BonnieSituation

54and56 wrote: »

This "UK is one country" line the BoJo govt has decided to parrot is a great opportunity for sporting organisations to hit the reset button and stop positively discriminating towards the UK by recognising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 4 distinct "countries" and instead grant the UK the status of one country just as all other European countries with multiple "Nations" or regions are only recognised for the title of their unified government.

Imagine FIFA trying to explain why NI with a population of 2m is one of 4 UK "countries" but California with a population of 40m is bundled together with 50 other states (virtually all of whom have a larger population than NI) to form just one country because.......

The 4 associations predate FIFA. Part of the deal to join FIFA was to ensure their continued existence and that they would form 50% of IFAB and thus retain their preeminence in world soccer.

Also, the UK is not the only sovereign nation with multiple international soccer teams.

China (China and Hong Kong), Denmark (Denmark and Faroes), Netherlands (Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao) and of course France (France, Tahiti/French Polynesia) all have multiple teams.

That being said, while watching the BBC this weekend, you'd be hard pushed to know that Wales were even playing. As it was ever thus.

---

On Johnson's pronouncements, there seems to be a serious amount of exasperation emanating from Cornwall.

I see no way for the the British Government for winning this battle.

The pausing of the reopening next week will be the beginning of the end I feel.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The 4 associations predate FIFA. Part of the deal to join FIFA was to ensure their continued existence and that they would form 50% of IFAB and thus retain their preeminence in world soccer.

Also, the UK is not the only sovereign nation with multiple international soccer teams.

China (China and Hong Kong), Denmark (Denmark and Faroes), Netherlands (Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao) and of course France (France, Tahiti/French Polynesia) all have multiple teams.

That being said, while watching the BBC this weekend, you'd be hard pushed to know that Wales were even playing. As it was ever thus.

---

On Johnson's pronouncements, there seems to be a serious amount of exasperation emanating from Cornwall.

I see no way for the the British Government for winning this battle.

The pausing of the reopening next week will be the beginning of the end I feel.

Your correct on your footballing detail there but this also applies to other sports. Rugby would be another example.

BonnieSituation

eire4 wrote: »

Your correct on your footballing detail there but this also applies to other sports. Rugby would be another example.

Absolutely. But as the Euros is on and as the OP brought up soccer I felt it best I didn't bore the thread with any further examples.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Absolutely. But as the Euros is on and as the OP brought up soccer I felt it best I didn't bore the thread with any further examples.

Haha I can see that:)

nc6000

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The pausing of the reopening next week will be the beginning of the end I feel.

Do you think it will be the end of Johnson?

ClosedAccountFuzzy

nc6000 wrote: »

Do you think it will be the end of Johnson?

Unlikely. He exists in a cult of personality. I think we’re stuck with him until the next general election.

BonnieSituation

nc6000 wrote: »

Do you think it will be the end of Johnson?

It will be the beginning of the end of this "feel good" buzz the last while, ie. the vaccine bounce. That being said, if England do well in the Euros... All bets are off.

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

On Johnson's pronouncements, there seems to be a serious amount of exasperation emanating from Cornwall.

I see no way for the the British Government for winning this battle.

Well ... perhaps it might help hammer home to the Johnson spin team that they are not in charge of the narrative on the world stage. This summit as flagged (by Johnson & Co.) as a demonstration of Independent Britain Taking Its Rightful Place As Leader Of The Free World.

Instead, it turned into a Let's All Gang Up On Boris's Brexit weekend. Even the minor success of reviving a transatlantic agreement with the US was tainted by the American (?)ambassador saying that there was no point celebrating it because Britain couldn't be trusted to abide by it.

As a PR exercise for Britain, this summit has been a disaster; I cannot believe the Downing Street strategists will be in a rush to repeat the mistake. At the same time, they'll need to to something to repair the damage ... so either (a) Johnson will do a U-turn, agree to a temporary alignment of SPS rules for the sake of stabilising relations with the EU, sell it as a win for NI and Scottish fishermen, and subsequently forget that it was supposed to be temporary; or (b) for the sake of the domestic audience, he'll try to save face, and go for an economic war with the Big Bad EU (because we know that the EU needs us more than we need them ... :rolleyes: )

murphaph

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

Unlikely. He exists in a cult of personality. I think we’re stuck with him until the next general election.

I don't think his personality cult is anything like as powerful as that of say Trump. I can see a lot of anger being directed at him over rumoured delays to reopening by the right wing.

But to be honest anyone waiting to replace him is likely to be as bad or worse from an Irish/EU perspective. Johnson doesn't believe in anything, whereas the likes of Gove and Patel actually do.

Leroy42

I think most people in the UK can see the virus numbers going up, I doubt there will be too much negative impact from the delay. The only issue they have is that they seemed so stuck to it for so long that it nows seems like a u-turn, when all it is is dealing with new facts.

On Brexit, I agree that the summit was a PR disaster. The spat with Macron (I don't believe he said it) but even if he did, there are diplomatic channels that should have been gone down first, rather than running off to the press.

I'm sure that lots of annoying things are said in these meetings, but yet again Johnson has shown he cannot be trusted. There can be no 'off the recond' chat with Boris, no informal chin-wag to try to work out a problem (like Leo did). The risk that Johnson will use anything you say as a weapon in his PR war is simply now far too great.

So that means that everything must be done formally, openly and signed off by all involved. That makes finding any resolution to any issue far harder. One of Johsnon supposed talents was his abiity to use his personal charm to get people to agree with him, but he is actively working to remove that possibility.

The EU are feeling pretty bruised by the entire Brexit episode, certainly not helped by the over reaction to the misstep over Art 16 early in the year. Also, the constant crowing about vaccinations, and the constant pointing out how terrible the EU were, hasn't gained them any friends.

Johnson is still including the line about 'our European friends' ad naseum in almost every interview, but I get the distinct implression that not only does Johsnon, and the UK, have very few friends willing to stick up for him in the EU, he has even managed to lose the backing of the US.

seamus

UK party politics has less of a monarchical structure than the US. In the US, whoever is president is king of the party and remains king until they're voted out of office. Never to be questioned, always to be defended from attack.

In the UK, the party is much quicker to turn on their leader when they're not getting their way. And they have the access to the media to do it. The libertarians and capitalists in the Tories have already started their grumbling over this delayed reopening. And the imagery coming from G7 has all been to show Boris as a bumbling fool amongst the world's great.

Between this, the dressing down he got from Biden over Northern Ireland and the inevitable climbdown against the EU, they'll have the country turned against him before Halloween.

peter kern

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The 4 associations predate FIFA. Part of the deal to join FIFA was to ensure their continued existence and that they would form 50% of IFAB and thus retain their preeminence in world soccer.

Also, the UK is not the only sovereign nation with multiple international soccer teams.

China (China and Hong Kong), Denmark (Denmark and Faroes), Netherlands (Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao) and of course France (France, Tahiti/French Polynesia) all have multiple teams.

That being said, while watching the BBC this weekend, you'd be hard pushed to know that Wales were even playing. As it was ever thus.

---

On Johnson's pronouncements, there seems to be a serious amount of exasperation emanating from Cornwall.

I see no way for the the British Government for winning this battle.

The pausing of the reopening next week will be the beginning of the end I feel.

but for instance french polenesia is not part of the EU .
neither are the faroes islands. which the uk knows well as i think it was one of the first post brexit trade deals.
The three islands of Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are defined as autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
i believe you do not have freedom of movement as an eu person on aruba. they have FOM in eu because they have a dutch passport.

Enzokk

seamus wrote: »

UK party politics has less of a monarchical structure than the US. In the US, whoever is president is king of the party and remains king until they're voted out of office. Never to be questioned, always to be defended from attack.

In the UK, the party is much quicker to turn on their leader when they're not getting their way. And they have the access to the media to do it. The libertarians and capitalists in the Tories have already started their grumbling over this delayed reopening. And the imagery coming from G7 has all been to show Boris as a bumbling fool amongst the world's great.

Between this, the dressing down he got from Biden over Northern Ireland and the inevitable climbdown against the EU, they'll have the country turned against him before Halloween.

It will take a turn in the polls to do that, and if they turn the public against Johnson they may just turn them against the next leader as a consequence as well which will mean they lose the country. As long as Johnson is in charge and selling his lies and the public buys it, they will have to keep him. I mean if the lying to the Queen didn't mean his end, the 150 000 deaths with 2 mismanaged waves that killed thousands more than needed to die, the absolute robbery of public funds by Tory donors and ministers, then the current blip is not going to do it.

Johnson lives a charmed life. He has had the privilege most will never understand and he seems to fall backside first into favourable situations that makes him look good. He became London Mayor after Labour made almost all of the preparations for the Olympics and he got to claim all the credit. He is responsible for thousands of deaths, but because of greed he was able to get vaccines quickly and this has meant they could open quicker than other EU countries. Even with this he still left travel open with India with the knowledge of the new variant and this has meant now that there is a 4 week delay to further openings. He will probably get the advantage of England doing well at the Euro's as a reward.


As for the weekend meeting, here is the RTE take on what was discussed between Biden and Johnson,

Biden's 'candid' message to Johnson on Northern Ireland Brexit row

US President Joe Biden had a "candid discussion" with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Northern Ireland, according to US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Mr Sullivan was asked by reporters if President Biden said anything in his conversations with Mr Johnson about whether a US-UK trade deal would be at risk if he does not protect the Good Friday Agreement or if he asked Mr Johnson not to renege on Brexit agreements.

Mr Sullivan replied that they did discuss the issue.

"They had a candid discussion of it in private," he said.

"The President ... with ... deep sincerity, encouraged the prime minister to protect the Good Friday Agreement and the progress made under it.

"The specifics beyond that, I'm not going to get in to," he said.

Now Johnson can mislead his country but he cannot do that to the world about what is happening with the GFA and Brexit. As for the row with Macron, here seems to be a translation of what he meant,

https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1404095831238709250?s=20

Some hard truths there for the UK. We are sick of hearing about their sovereignty with no regard of other's being given by the UK. They are a selfish nation with selfish leaders who is not doing their reputation any favours. There is no-one else to blame, but my goodness will they and their friends in the media try to find someone and with the gaslighting the last decades it is starting to work.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think his personality cult is anything like as powerful as that of say Trump. I can see a lot of anger being directed at him over rumoured delays to reopening by the right wing.

But to be honest anyone waiting to replace him is likely to be as bad or worse from an Irish/EU perspective. Johnson doesn't believe in anything, whereas the likes of Gove and Patel actually do.

I agree with Fuzzy's view that Johnson has generated a populist milieu in UK politics, where his persona plays very well to the crowd, so I can't see him being dethroned anytime soon. If he is replaced though, it is most likely to be by Sunak. Not sure how much knowledge of NI he possesses and I doubt he gives a rat's ass about the place.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

As for the weekend meeting, here is the RTE take on what was discussed between Biden and Johnson,

Biden's 'candid' message to Johnson on Northern Ireland Brexit row



Now Johnson can mislead his country but he cannot do that to the world about what is happening with the GFA and Brexit. As for the row with Macron, here seems to be a translation of what he meant,

https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1404095831238709250?s=20

Some hard truths there for the UK. We are sick of hearing about their sovereignty with no regard of other's being given by the UK. They are a selfish nation with selfish leaders who is not doing their reputation any favours. There is no-one else to blame, but my goodness will they and their friends in the media try to find someone and with the gaslighting the last decades it is starting to work.

That is pretty hash words from Macron. He is clearly very pissed off. The fact he mentioned calm a number of times, IMO he is very close to losing it and is trying to convince himself, and everytone else that he will stay calm,

His line about the UK taking up 1000's of hours, that they all get the UK sovereingty and are pretty much fed up having to listen to the UK drone on about it.

In diplomatic terms that that really harsh, whatever charm offensive the UK thought they could do at the G7 clearly did not work, alhtought given how Johnson acted all weekend I'm not sure they were gong for a charm offensive.

As one journlist put it (can't recall who) it is now clear that the problem isn't Frost (or at leat not only Frost) the problem lies clearly with Johnson.

lawrencesummers

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.

The Scottish and UI are very different.

There is no question that most things like healthcare and policing, education and taxation would continue in Scotland after independence in the same fashion.

Some changes might be needed, like Policing might require the establishment of the highest court in the land to be in Scotland as opposed to London, (presuming that is the case) but the changes would be in the background or on the admin side of things. Take payroll, the NHs payroll is presumably centralized for the Uk. Scotland will have to build its own department and take over admin but contracts would remain the same and employees wouldn’t notice.

In the north the changes are much bigger. What happenes healthcare in the north under a UI? Does the HSE take over the NHS up north and change it to the system in the south? Do the staff contracts get replaced, rates of pay etc.

Policing in the north, what laws do they follow post UI. What courts are to be used.

These same questions can be asked about almost any government involved aspect of society.

The changes to the north are massive and effect society compared to what are more logistical and admin changes in Scotland should they vote for independence.

Seth Brundle

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree with Fuzzy's view that Johnson has generated a populist milieu in UK politics, where his persona plays very well to the crowd, so I can't see him being dethroned anytime soon. If he is replaced though, it is most likely to be by Sunak. Not sure how much knowledge of NI he possesses and I doubt he gives a rat's ass about the place.

I simply cannot see them (both Tories & England) being ready to be led by a non-white person for a long time.

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I simply cannot see them (both Tories & England) being ready to be led by a non-white person for a long time.

Judging by some of the fawning I've seen done over Priti Patel, I'd say that they're much more concerned that they can get someone to push their agenda than what race they are. I recall a few enjoying the idea of a non-white woman pushing a xenophobic agenda so much they were trolling lefties with it.

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I simply cannot see them (both Tories & England) being ready to be led by a non-white person for a long time.

He's a staunch Brexiteer and a Thatcherite, and he's also popular within the Tory party. The thinking might be that with those credentials he will suit the Tory voter while his non-white ethnicity might also attract the non-white vote.

The bookies have him as clear favourite with Starmer in second place. Then comes Gove with, surprisingly, Jeremy Hunt in fourth place.

Sam Russell

lawrencesummers wrote: »

In the north the changes are much bigger. What hapens healthcare in the north under a UI? Does the HSE take over the NHS up north and change it to the system in the south? Do the staff contracts get replaced, rates of pay etc.

Policing in the north, what laws do they follow post UI. What courts are to be used.

These same questions can be asked about almost any government involved aspect of society.

The changes to the north are massive and effect society compared to what are more logistical and admin changes in Scotland should they vote for independence.

I would think, wrt NI, the healthcare proposals in Slaintecare are close to the NHS system that there would be no problem. The real problem is the phasing out of the private health care system here, but that does not apply to NI.

With policing, the PNSI would be run separately for a time, being absorbed by both transfers from one police force to the other, (we already have one ex PNSI officer in the Gardai) and the question of laws will be dealt with by the same type of mechanism where the Supreme Court would be the arbiter, again taking the NI law for NI cases and as is for our cases.

Social welfare, wage rates (particularly for state employees) are a bigger problem, but that is just money - if the donors donate, it is not a big issue.

If the UK (England) wants to get rid of NI, they will get rid of it.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the UK (England) wants to get rid of NI, they will get rid of it.

From the very beginning, this has always been a landmine waiting to be stood upon by the Loyalists. The Irish government recognised very quickly how NI would be a huge problem if Leave won the referendum; and the EU were very quickly persuaded that NI was a huge problem when Leave won the referendum.

Johnson & Co are only now catching up with what the rest of us have known (and game-planned) for five years. And - such sweet irony - Johnson's fall-back position is exactly the same red line with which he strangled Theresa May: not wishing to stand over the break-up of the Kingdom.

However, he's pushed the Great Buccaneering Brexit boat out so far now that he's at risk of encouraging the real British people (you know, the ones who were born and raised in Britain, not the ones in some overseas territory who speak with a weird accent and pledge their loyalty to the Dutch monarchy every July) ... of encouraging those Britons to demand the Brexit he promised.

If the 17.4m want a border in the Irish Sea so that "the Mainland" can get on with their buccaneering, they'll get their border in the Irish Sea.