Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

briany · 13-02-2019 5:50pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

I see Bertie graciously offered his time to the Exiting the European Union Committee in Westminster today.

One particular highlight seems to have been his citing 'an 800-year past of difficulties', as reported by the Irish Times. There is a snippet of video in the article on this. It was in relation to comments on the suggestion that 'Ireland throws in its lot with the UK'.

I'll try and watch this in full later on parliament tv.

The 800 years thing is a bit of rhetoric on the Irish side, to be fair. There were no Irish state if you go back that far, England's rulers at the time weren't even from there, and the initial invasion had to excuse of imposing Catholic orthodoxy at the behest of Pope Adrian IV.

Better for Bertie just to say, "We've thrown our lot in with the UK before and it didn't work out so well. Why would we leave the EU, when the EU has been mostly good for us?"

Quin_Dub · 13-02-2019 6:14pm

downcow wrote: »

Try answering the question i asked as opposed to the question you want to answer ie
Then if the negotiators had came back with a plan that left EU beholding to the UK indefinitely and the EU27 was disgusted with it and rejected it. Would you accept me saying,tough, this is the WA and the UK will not reopen it (as if it was now closed) and we won't talk about it??

As others have pointed out under the current WA the EU are indefinitely beholden to the UK already.. But to answer the "disgusted" part - If that was the deal that the fully authorised negotiating team agreed to , then we really couldn't reject it in good faith..

We can hate it , we can utterly punish the morons that agreed to it , but they would be who we voted for and who we authorised (via our parliaments) to negotiate on our behalves.

As other have said , here's what happened..

UK Voted Leave
UK & EU agreed to negotiations
Both Sides sent teams to carry out that negotiation with the approval of their Stakeholders**
EU team kept all their stakeholders up to date and aligned at all times during said negotiations
UK Team , it appears did not keep their stakeholders updated and aligned
UK & EU teams completed negotiations and went back home
EU team , because they'd done their job properly, had a simple rubber stamp activity to get sign-off from their Stakeholders
UK Team went home and not only discovered that their stakeholders didn't agree to what they had done , but also decided that they too didn't agree with what they had done

Now , after that , the UK team are saying that it is the EU that are being unfair and unreasonable and not that they , the UK were utterly incompetent .

And on top of that , beyond saying , we can't have a Backstop , they have offered exactly ZERO alternatives (and before you say it , a time limit or the ability for unilateral cancellation is exactly the same as no backstop so it is NOT an alternative).

And still , it is the EU that are being unreasonable ?!!?

** By stakeholders here we mean -

For the EU , 27 Different National parliaments
For the UK - A Majority of a single parliament, currently lead by the party that sent the negotiating team.

View · 13-02-2019 6:16pm

robinph wrote: »

Since 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010s

Ukraine: 1
British : 6
Pakistan: 1
Morocco: 2
Irish: ?

Therefore the UK clearly needs to stop people from the UK entering the country in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

When exactly did Ukraine, Pakistan and Morocco join the EU?

And how will Brexit prevent terrorist incidents by Irish citizens if the U.K. post-Brexit decides to somehow maintain an open border with Ireland?

RobMc59 · 13-02-2019 6:18pm

With the increasing calls from Germany to give concessions to the UK and the latest being the apparently highly regarded IFO think tank recommending this,is there a danger the EU may do this?
Before its asked of me,no -I don't think this would be a good thing as I would prefer to stay in the EU and see the proposed deal as nowhere near as good as what the UK already has.

10000maniacs · 13-02-2019 6:23pm

briany wrote: »

The 800 years thing is a bit of rhetoric on the Irish side, to be fair. There were no Irish state if you go back that far, England's rulers at the time weren't even from there, and the initial invasion had to excuse of imposing Catholic orthodoxy at the behest of Pope Adrian IV.

Better for Bertie just to say, "We've thrown our lot in with the UK before and it didn't work out so well. Why would we leave the EU, when the EU has been mostly good for us?"

I bet Norway are thinking the same way. If we let a monolith like the UK into our little club, will they accept equal voting rights?

Calina · 13-02-2019 6:28pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

With the increasing calls from Germany to give concessions to the UK and the latest being the apparently highly regarded IFO think tank recommending this,is there a danger the EU may do this?
Before its asked of me,no -I don't think this would be a good thing as I would prefer to stay in the EU and see the proposed deal as nowhere near as good as what the UK already has.

I am not asking you what you think but sone sources for those calls by Germany not from British sources would help and a reference to this IFO thing too.

Folkstonian · 13-02-2019 6:31pm

robinph wrote: »

How?

It's a nice and noble idea that you should never disrespect your parents, but just because someone used to wipe my arse for me doesn't mean they are exempt from being called stupid when they do something stupid.

It’s people like you and views like this that wore me down and really turned me off the idea of a second campaign and a second referendum.

People had legitimate concerns and reasons for voting to leave. It’s a fact. You may not agree, or at least you may not believe their reasons hold the same importance as reasons for remaining, but they do exist. To call them stupid, to be so rude and divisive, is utterly tiresome.

The thing that particularly grates is that vocal pro-remain campaigners have often carried on like they have a monopoly on civility and moral virtue. So many of them are as bad as the other lot, if not worse.

The last thing Britain needs is to relive the last campaign, because a large number of people can’t control themselves or the urge to be uncivil

Enzokk · 13-02-2019 6:38pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

With the increasing calls from Germany to give concessions to the UK and the latest being the apparently highly regarded IFO think tank recommending this,is there a danger the EU may do this?
Before its asked of me,no -I don't think this would be a good thing as I would prefer to stay in the EU and see the proposed deal as nowhere near as good as what the UK already has.

Here is the article, please link it next time if you can or say why you cannot.

German think tank calls for EU to make Brexit concessions

I will leave this quote here from the article.

The concern was not so much about if there would be tariffs or controls at the borders. "The big concern is how to get rid of this enormous uncertainty that has been weighing on economic activity for two years now," he said.

While German business groups were maintaining a tough stance to avoid undermining the European Commission's negotiating stance, Mr Felbermayr said the EU should take a softer approach.

"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key," he said.

So it seems that much of the reason for this is to take away the uncertainty which is harming business and if removing the backstop will do that, this is what they want to happen.

Here is the link for Bertie Ahern appearing at the Brexit Committee this morning.

Paliament TV link

He confirms that the negotiations on the GFA was done with both countries in the EU when it was completed and the discussions around the GFA wasn't about customs or tariffs but about peace. You could assume that because there was no need to customs checks that is why there was no discussions around it as both were in the single market and the customs union that removed the need for these between the two areas.

I am not through the whole way but Sammy Wilson starts asking questions at 10h29:45.

Calina · 13-02-2019 6:40pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s people like you and views like this that wore me down and really turned me off the idea of a second campaign and a second referendum.

People had legitimate concerns and reasons for voting to leave. It’s a fact. You may not agree, or at least regard that they hold the same importance, but they do exist. To call them stupid, to be so rude and divisive, is utterly tiresome.

The thing that particularly grates is that vocal pro-remain campaigners have often carried on like they have a monopoly on civility and moral virtue. So many of them are as bad as the other lot, if not worse.

The last thing Britain needs is to relive the last campaign, because a large number of people can’t control themselves or the urge to be uncivil

There are major issues with components of the Remain campaign in terms of arrogance but not in the way you perceive, I think.

Ultimately, many of the rationales for voting no were ill founded, based on misinformation and manipulation.

But a lot of the remain side focusses on reforming the EU from within the frame of British desires. The EU is an iterative process in constant evolution so the assumption of no regorm happening is garbage. But there are 27 other member states whose interests may differ somewhat from what Britain wants. It is arrogant to assume that Britain could drive the reform process now, particularly in light of the vandalism it visited on the EU by voting for Brexit and handling it badly.

I do not see a second referendum campaign working because both leave and remain sides lack the self awareness to learn either from their own mistakes or reality.

Fionn1952 · 13-02-2019 6:42pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

How?

It's a nice and noble idea that you should never disrespect your parents, but just because someone used to wipe my arse for me doesn't mean they are exempt from being called stupid when they do something stupid.

It’s people like you and views like this that wore me down and really turned me off the idea of a second campaign and a second referendum.

People had legitimate concerns and reasons for voting to leave. It’s a fact. You may not agree, or at least you may not believe their reasons hold the same importance as reasons for remaining, but they do exist. To call them stupid, to be so rude and divisive, is utterly tiresome.

The thing that particularly grates is that vocal pro-remain campaigners have often carried on like they have a monopoly on civility and moral virtue. So many of them are as bad as the other lot, if not worse.

The last thing Britain needs is to relive the last campaign, because a large number of people can’t control themselves or the urge to be uncivil

When were you actually in favour of a second referendum?

While I haven't posted very much, I've certainly been following this thread through all its iterations. I recall you being polite throughout, but I can't recall your posts being in any way differing in position from where they are now.

Folkstonian · 13-02-2019 6:44pm

robinph wrote: »

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

There is absolutely zero reason to think that when asked if you want to remain a member of a club, or not, to think that on voting to leave that club you would continue to have access to the facilities of that club.

This analogy has long been discredited as being far too simplistic. How many country clubs pay their members to stay as a part of the club?

Many EU countries, including this one until recently, have been in exactly this position. It’s not particularly edifying to continue using this comparison

Enzokk · 13-02-2019 6:45pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s people like you and views like this that wore me down and really turned me off the idea of a second campaign and a second referendum.

People had legitimate concerns and reasons for voting to leave. It’s a fact. You may not agree, or at least you may not believe their reasons hold the same importance as reasons for remaining, but they do exist. To call them stupid, to be so rude and divisive, is utterly tiresome.

The thing that particularly grates is that vocal pro-remain campaigners have often carried on like they have a monopoly on civility and moral virtue. So many of them are as bad as the other lot, if not worse.

The last thing Britain needs is to relive the last campaign, because a large number of people can’t control themselves or the urge to be uncivil

What is the fact? That people had concerns or that those concerns were legitimate? There were a lot of facts that have subsequently come out on EU immigration and the way the UK dealt with EU migrants. If you ask me whether this would have changed some minds I have to say no. I still don't think knowing that the UK could have expelled EU migrants after 3 months if they weren't able to sustain themselves financially as I think most of the vote on immigration was just plain racism. No amount of facts would have changed that.

As for one lot being worse than the other, I can go into it but all I will say is Jo Cox and also just say that the warnings we have seen so far has been to avoid violence from people that voted to leave the EU and if they don't get their way. I have seen no violence from remain voters from the result up to now that would indicate that the remain side is, the same if not worse, than the other side.

RobMc59 · 13-02-2019 6:49pm

Calina wrote: »

I am not asking you what you think but sone sources for those calls by Germany not from British sources would help and a reference to this IFO thing too.

I got the information from reuters and bbc-the think tank is called IFO.

Folkstonian · 13-02-2019 6:50pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

When were you actually in favour of a second referendum?

While I haven't posted very much, I've certainly been following this thread through all its iterations. I recall you being polite throughout, but I can't recall your posts being in any way differing in position from where they are now.

I was wholly undecided for a long time - and my views on it changed almost from hour to hour. Since Christmas I’ve been a little bit more certain that a second vote would be particularly damaging for English society though, I now think having looked back at the promises made by David Cameron and the pledges made by parliament etc, the Rubicon has already been crossed on this one.

If people don’t get the course of action they voted for, they will simply give up with the democratic process for evermore

Enzokk · 13-02-2019 6:50pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

This analogy has long been discredited as being far too simplistic. How many country clubs pay their members to stay as a part of the club?

Many EU countries, including this one until recently, have been in exactly this position. It’s not particularly edifying to continue using this comparison

But the problem is once you go into details people's brains switch off when it becomes complicated. This is a easy way to describe what the EU (sort of) is what would happen when you leave as well.

CelticRambler · 13-02-2019 6:56pm

downcow wrote: »

Try answering the question i asked as opposed to the question you want to answer ie
Then if the negotiators had came back with a plan that left EU beholding to the UK indefinitely and the EU27 was disgusted with it and rejected it. Would you accept me saying,tough, this is the WA and the UK will not reopen it (as if it was now closed) and we won't talk about it??

Well, as you're being really insistent, the answer is yes, if that was the situation, I would have to accept it ... but then promptly demand that the people who signed off on the negotiation were hauled out of office and never allowed back.

However, as others have said above, why invent a nonsensical scenario? The reality is that we (the EU) were forced into an unpleasant situation by English xenophobes, disaster capitalists and various shadowy figures yet to be identified. Much and all as we don't want the UK to leave the EU, that was "the will of the people" and there does not appear to be any appetite amongst the 48% to raise merry hell over the fact that the 52% and their political masters triggered these time-limited negotiations without any pressure from the EU, and with less strategy than a bag of cats.

To quote your own words back at you, from an earlier post: we are where we are, so if you had the choice tonight, what future would you pick:
- No Deal
- May's Deal (as is, no renegotiation)
- No Brexit
?

Calina · 13-02-2019 6:56pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I got the information from reuters and bbc-the think tank is called IFO.

Okay. You can't copy in a link?

I know Enzokk already did your homework for you but it would help enormously in evaluating your post. One think tank is not "the increasing German calls..."

First Up · 13-02-2019 6:58pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

If people don’t get the course of action they voted for, they will simply give up with the democratic process for evermore

Well a lot of what they think they voted for was total nonsense so when they don't get that, they can decide who to blame.

Folkstonian · 13-02-2019 7:00pm

Enzokk wrote: »

What is the fact? That people had concerns or that those concerns were legitimate? There were a lot of facts that have subsequently come out on EU immigration and the way the UK dealt with EU migrants. If you ask me whether this would have changed some minds I have to say no. I still don't think knowing that the UK could have expelled EU migrants after 3 months if they weren't able to sustain themselves financially as I think most of the vote on immigration was just plain racism. No amount of facts would have changed that.

As for one lot being worse than the other, I can go into it but all I will say is Jo Cox and also just say that the warnings we have seen so far has been to avoid violence from people that voted to leave the EU and if they don't get their way. I have seen no violence from remain voters from the result up to now that would indicate that the remain side is, the same if not worse, than the other side.

Threats to commit acts of violence because you’re unhappy with a democratic decision are utterly abhorrent of course. It makes me angry that anyone, regardless of their position, would use them for leverage in the path we take towards the future relationship with Europe.

But I am talking more about the divide and bitterness in wider society. The portrayal of leave voters as one monolithic block of thick, ignorant, racist b*stards. The real visceral nastiness on social media, local newsletters, and national news publications.

A case in point would be today I saw a link from twitter (not a user myself but I know things like this are very prevalent) of someone urging business owners to fire Brexit voters before remain voters if they are forced to let staff go. It has hundreds of likes. Not only would that be completely criminal of course, but it’s just sickeningly nasty in my opinion as well.

Not sure, honestly, how we begin to remedy a fractured society, but I don’t place any faith at all in the extreme remain side to participate in any reconciliation and reconstruction efforts

CelticRambler · 13-02-2019 7:00pm

eagle eye wrote: »

With all the terrorist activity in the UK over the past 15 or so years it's understandable that people would vote to stop free movement.

Maybe, but seeing as the UK suffered twenty years of terrorist attacks by Irish Republicans (more widespread, more disruptive and more deadly than anything the ISIS amateurs have yet managed), and yet the CTA is still being touted as a Good Thing, "fear of terrorists" is hardly an argument in favour of Brexit.

CelticRambler · 13-02-2019 7:11pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

Since Christmas I’ve been a little bit more certain that a second vote would be particularly damaging for English society though, I now think having looked back at the promises made by David Cameron and the pledges made by parliament etc, the Rubicon has already been crossed on this one.

If people don’t get the course of action they voted for, they will simply give up with the democratic process for evermore

Folkstonian wrote: »

But I am talking more about the divide and bitterness in wider society. The portrayal of leave voters as one monolithic block of thick, ignorant, racist b*stards. The real visceral nastiness on social media, local newsletters, and national news publications.

A case in point would be today I saw a link from twitter (not a user myself but I know things like this are very prevalent) of someone urging business owners to fire Brexit voters before remain voters if they are forced to let staff go. It has hundreds of likes. Not only would that be completely criminal of course, but it’s just sickeningly nasty in my opinion as well.

Not sure, honestly, how we begin to remedy a fractured society, but I don’t place any faith at all in the extreme remain side to participate in any reconciliation and reconstruction efforts

Would you agree with (what seems to be) the majority view on this forum, that this polarisation is due in part - or perhaps very much - to the FPTP electoral system? What you describe is very similar to the vitriolic hate-campaigning in the US, and has also been characteristic of French elections (until the last round). If the "representatives of the people" are chosen in a process that is inherently combative - them or us, red or blue, left or right - is it not inevitable that society will eventually come to resemble its representatives?

All of which is a long-winded way of asking: do you think that one way to repair the damage done to post-Brexit British society would be comprehensive electoral reform?

robinph · 13-02-2019 7:20pm

View wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

Since 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010s

Ukraine: 1
British : 6
Pakistan: 1
Morocco: 2
Irish: ?

Therefore the UK clearly needs to stop people from the UK entering the country in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

When exactly did Ukraine, Pakistan and Morocco join the EU?

And how will Brexit prevent terrorist incidents by Irish citizens if the U.K. post-Brexit decides to somehow maintain an open border with Ireland?

Think you have totally missed the point of the post.

Enzokk · 13-02-2019 7:21pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

Threats to commit acts of violence because you’re unhappy with a democratic decision are utterly abhorrent of course. It makes me angry that anyone, regardless of their position, would use them for leverage in the path we take towards the future relationship with Europe.

But I am talking more about the divide and bitterness in wider society. The portrayal of leave voters as one monolithic block of thick, ignorant, racist b*stards. The real visceral nastiness on social media, local newsletters, and national news publications.

A case in point would be today I saw a link from twitter (not a user myself but I know things like this are very prevalent) of someone urging business owners to fire Brexit voters before remain voters if they are forced to let staff go. It has hundreds of likes. Not only would that be completely criminal of course, but it’s just sickeningly nasty in my opinion as well.

Not sure, honestly, how we begin to remedy a fractured society, but I don’t place any faith at all in the extreme remain side to participate in any reconciliation and reconstruction efforts

<snip> it seems that in the main all you get is people spouting rubbish on it and abuse at others. This goes for both sides and if you really want to be depressed just read replies to a tweet or a person that you know will be open to abusive tweets and you will begin to wonder how humanity has gotten so low.

As for healing the UK society, I know one way is not to shout abuse at your opposite politician and how terrible he will be and how he will cause the greatest harm ever to the UK is he is elected is not the way to go, yet that is exactly what happens every week in the HoC. I think fixing that is one small step that would start making a difference.

First Up · 13-02-2019 7:21pm

CelticRambler wrote:

Maybe, but seeing as the UK suffered twenty years of terrorist attacks by Irish Republicans (more widespread, more disruptive and more deadly than anything the ISIS amateurs have yet managed), and yet the CTA is still being touted as a Good Thing, "fear of terrorists" is hardly an argument in favour of Brexit.

The ISIS amateurs (and professionals) tend not to be EU citizens.

Beechwoodspark · 13-02-2019 7:22pm

To address the terrorism issue -

Huge problem in UK is “home grown” Islamic terrorism. British citizens in the main.

They have a migrant population there that has built up since the 1950s and Brexit won’t matter much regarding that particular problem.

spacecoyote · 13-02-2019 7:26pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

If people don’t get the course of action they voted for, they will simply give up with the democratic process for evermore

In Ireland there would have been frustration when there was a second vote on Lisbon, but I don't think it in any way undermined the democratic process, nor does it seem to have caused the Irish to give up on either the EU, or the democratic process.

If it is demonstrably proven that people voted for something on the basis of a campaign of lies, exaggerations & false promises, would it not be a more democratic process to ask the people again to either reaffirm their view that they were happy to leave, knowing the reality of what it means, or if they now feel differently given they have a more informed view?

How someone can call that undemocratic, I don't know. When you ask the first time it's a democratic vote, when you ask the second time, it's an affront to democracy? It just seems absurd to me

Varik · 13-02-2019 7:41pm

You either have first past the post and get the US or UK, or you do proportional representation and get the rest of Europe and populist parties.

One of the biggest recent opponents of first past the post were UKIP.

downcow · 13-02-2019 7:50pm

Lets park Project Fear etc. for a moment
what do you guys really think life will be like in NI (and indeed in ROI) in 2 years if we have a no deal on 29th March? I am curious!

Seth Brundle · 13-02-2019 7:52pm

Watching the video of Bertie at the HoC committee: can't stand the man but he's doing well.
Had to laugh at his comment on how technology has advanced so much in then last 20 years, sure even revenue have progressed so much!

RobMc59 · 13-02-2019 7:56pm

Calina wrote: »

Okay. You can't copy in a link?

I know Enzokk already did your homework for you but it would help enormously in evaluating your post. One think tank is not "the increasing German calls..."

My Internet skills aren't brilliant admittedly,its that rather than me trying to irritate people.
One thing I have learned from this forum is not to automatically believe the BBC or British press so I do try to find a reference of things on European sites as well,I have noticed a few references to Germany being unhappy with the brexit situation.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments