Brexit Discussion Thread VI

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't know but I'm increasingly finding myself just saying please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The EU isn't perfect and I think pretty much everyone accepts that it's a work in progress but the kind do toxic vitriol that comes out of that aspect of the British political and media sphere is just not something that anyone can really respond to.

I mean you can't negotiate with someone who's negotiating position is basically that you need to destroy yourself and dissolve.

It's a shame we've got the whole mixup with the Northern Ireland border but I'm sure we'll figure it out some way, possibly after a change of government in the UK but honestly, nobody should be accepting that kind of rhetoric. It's worse that what you'd hear from Russia.

I always had a sense when living in the UK that there was bubbling hatred of the EU but I had no idea it would ever go this far.

You're not talking to logic when you talk to this. It's just raw naduonalism.

Exactly. If it weren't for the fact that a disorderly Brexit would cost us many thousands of jobs, I'd happily let them crash out on the 29th. But then again I have some English friends so I wouldn't wish that on them.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This from the headline article in today's Telegraph. An informative insight into the mindset of Brexiteers.


"Britain’s best chance of getting revenge on Brussels for its Brexit bullying is to remain in the European Union. For the EU’s most fanatical and full-throated theologians, few outcomes could be more horrific than an intransigent, hostile Britain trapped in a project that it plots to undermine from the inside."


Lovely.

Delusional. Absolutely bloody delusional.

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

I keep reading that Ireland and the EU are at fault for the potential of the troubles restarting in Northern Ireland.....

When will people realise that the potential problems facing Northern Ireland and Ireland are made and caused by London. It is not the EUs fault nor Irelands for that matter that TM supported by the wonderful DUP made a balls of the WA. She is the one who spoke to the EU without consulting her government before or during the process, she is the one who cannot bring her government together to get support and she is the one who is steering the UK and Northern Ireland out of the EU without an agreement. The UK know exactly what that means...they know right well that that means a hard border.

The main thing that the HoC cannot agree on is the backstop, so whether or not she had rigorously consulted parliament during the process, that would still have been the bugbear they arrived at.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This from the headline article in today's Telegraph. An informative insight into the mindset of Brexiteers.


"Britain’s best chance of getting revenge on Brussels for its Brexit bullying is to remain in the European Union. For the EU’s most fanatical and full-throated theologians, few outcomes could be more horrific than an intransigent, hostile Britain trapped in a project that it plots to undermine from the inside."


Lovely.

Actually, for all it's bluster,there is a germ of truth in that statement.
Britain was quite successful in the past, while in the EU, accepting the best bits (free trade, Maggie's rebate) and refusing the nasty bits (EU working rights, Schengen).
Inadvertently the quote demonstrates why leaving was a stupid option

briany wrote: »

The main thing that the HoC cannot agree on is the backstop, so whether or not she had rigorously consulted parliament during the process, that would still have been the bugbear they arrived at.

Im not sure that most really have a problem with the backstop really. I think the entire agreement is just so large, comprehensive and overwhelming in terms of its affects and scale that they themselves are just struggling.

The backstop is convenient in that it was identified as a 'problem' and May took that ball and ran with it. Now it's all anyone can talk about.

What about the other 'issues'? Everything else can now be glossed over.

EdgeCase wrote: »

The reality of it is that the structures of the EU were specifically designed to make conflicts like Northern Ireland be able to disappear by making the extremes of European nationalism fade into the background. Instead we are focused on pragmatic things and cooperation.

That's how places like Belgium have been calm and able to function - their borders don't matter. Even if Belgium were to split, practically within the EU it would make very little difference.

Northern Ireland (and the UK and the Republic of Ireland) benefited enormously from that system.

The UK is basically taking away a big part of NI's solution, which was the EU membership that made the border not matter, and then blaming the very solution it's ripping apart. It makes absolutely no sense and I don't think anyone, without going through a process of cognitive and logical contortions could possibly blame anyone other than the Brexiteers and the DUP for this.

The British Government has allowed itself to become wedded to the politics of Ian Paisley.

Its abundantly clear where the blame lies but it doesn't end with "blame". The consequences of the UK's stupidity and insanity will be widely felt and all the EU (and the rest of us) can do is take the least worse decisions that are being forced on us.

The EU project is too big, important and successful to allow one dysfunctional government and one regional (post-colonial) conflict undermine seventy years of peace and prosperity across the entire European continent.

The EU has offered the UK a solution that deals with the Irish border. The UK parliament has refused to accept it. The EU is not responsible for the decisions of the UK parliament (or electorate) but it is responsible for the collective well-being of its members.

The Single Market will not be compromised. Neither will the Common External Tariff, the Common Agricultural Policy or the common food and technical standards. Nor will a member state be disadvantaged in its membership by reason of geography or the actions of departing member.

To fail to understand this is to fail to understand what the EU is, where it has come from and where it is going. The EU will do what needs to be done.

blanch152 wrote: »

If the troubles start again in Northern Ireland the fault will lie with those who start them and those who give them succour and suppport. The issue of Irish unification is not one worth committing criminal acts or violence over.

Those people who take to weapons because of Brexit or the consequences of Brexit are sad sick people who do not represent the majority of the population of the island. They are in fact a very small percentage of the population. Added to the fact that no one knows if the troubles will reignite it is a lame argument. They could paint a house the wrong colour or put up the wrong flag on a building and it could all kick off. If people are looking for a reason they will find one.



Fault for their actions cannot be laid at the feet of the EU nor the Irish government. They negotiated and agreed a WA with TM that would prevent a hard border by having a backstop. She and her government are the ones blocking that agreed backstop....hence she has gone back on the agreement she made with the EU. The UK government wants its cake with cherries on top as they still havent realised that the EU is much supierior to them and that the EU dont need them as they have nothing the EU depends on.

briany wrote: »

The main thing that the HoC cannot agree on is the backstop, so whether or not she had rigorously consulted parliament during the process, that would still have been the bugbear they arrived at.

She agreed to the backstop when negotiating with the EU, it wasnt an issue until she went to the HoC and flopped. Had she consulted the HoC during the process she would have known that they didnt want it......that is not the problem of the EU and is nothing but a British problem.


Would you sign a contract to buy a house or car without speaking to your wife or clearing the amount the bank would lend you before???

Tell me how wrote: »

You could use that analogy to suggest a second vote would be the most righteous action.

This is so far from "Easiest deal in the World", "First call will be to Berlin", "They will be queuing up to talk to us", "£350M/week for the NHS" statement which were thrown around before the referendum that you could be forgiven for thinking they were never actually said.

Yeah but if you listen to the idiots like Farage, all of the above would have been true if only it hadn't been a remained PM doing the negotiating.

It's a very convenient excuse, and one that is never followed up with an explanation as to how he would have solved all the problems

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

She agreed to the backstop when negotiating with the EU, it wasnt an issue until she went to the HoC and flopped. Had she consulted the HoC during the process she would have known that they didnt want it......that is not the problem of the EU and is nothing but a British problem.


Would you sign a contract to buy a house or car without speaking to your wife or clearing the amount the bank would lend you before???

The backstop was always an issue, and MPs loudly voiced their opposition to it the moment it was announced in December 2017 that the UK and EU had agreed to it in principle. So much so that the UK quickly reneged on it.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would have been a more right and proper thing to have parliament involved. Whether that was workable I don't know, but I don't think that they would have arrived at an alternative to the backstop that was agreeable to both the HoC and the EU. Not a lot the HoC can agree on, these days. So we'd still arrive at this scenario of Ireland and the EU wanting the backstop, and the UK government paralysed by infighting, looking squarely down the barrel of no-deal.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't think they fully comprehend how much damage they've done either.
Even if Brexit doesn't happen, I could see a lot of companies feeling very jittery about the UK for the next decade or more.

Also, France would want to watch that trend too. I am hearing people starting to have jitters about French stability due to the possibility of a Marine Le Pen government taking France down a Brexit-like route.

I don't think the French electorate would necessarily go that far, but you can see why investors would be a bit iffy about it.

Italy has a chaotic political system that tends to be able to go off the deepens and then right itself quite quickly. That is not the case in the UK or France.

Regardless of Europe's problems, of which there are many, the current car crash is hardly a useful road map (oh my mixed metaphors) for any country to follow Britain on the exit ramp (kill me now).

Strazdas wrote: »

Totally agree here : the idea that 230 MPs voted down the deal because of a tiny clause in a 600 page agreement is laughable.

A lot of people have latched onto it because the ERG and Daily Telegraph have (the whole Brexit debate is beyond surreal at this point)

The backstop is not a tiny clause. It's a huge part of the document

Akrasia wrote: »

Is it the start of a pivot towards staying in the EU?

Pretending its their own choice is one way to back down with less humiliation

Quite possibly. I wouldn't be at all surprised if TM and her absolute shambles of a so-called 'governement' do give in first before our government or the EU do.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This from the headline article in today's Telegraph. An informative insight into the mindset of Brexiteers.


"Britain’s best chance of getting revenge on Brussels for its Brexit bullying is to remain in the European Union. For the EU’s most fanatical and full-throated theologians, few outcomes could be more horrific than an intransigent, hostile Britain trapped in a project that it plots to undermine from the inside."


Lovely.

Some one was watching Yes Minister for tips on dealing with Europe.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The backstop is not a tiny clause. It's a huge part of the document

Perhaps, but it will/should never arise in practise. Its an insurance policy no one wants to trigger. To the extent it affects the UK outside of Northern Ireland, it is at the request of the British themselves.

The British have built this up into some nefarious conspiracy, which is so ludicrous that it does support the view that its merely a (misunderstood) cause the Tory faithful can rally around.

Here's a possibility, it was mooted by an expert on EU affairs on Today this morning, and it comes from the EU's method of dealing with intractable problems.

After March 29th, the EU implements on the WA on a provisional basis.

From that point on, the EU and Britain start negotiations on the Future Arrangements. that gives two years to agee the shape of that agreement.

By that time, it's hoped that with calm heads a solution can be found.