How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

[paulrockliffe]

mattmurdock said:

don'tbesilly said:

Vanden Saab said:

psi310398 said:

As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?

The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.

One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.

Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.

At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.

But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.

What a great idea.

I like it, Scotland seems desperate to get away, so a vote to help them on their way would be gratefully received, can you imagine never having to listen to Sturgeon ever again, it would be like a divorcee never having to listen to the ex ever again, sheer bliss I'd guess

Brilliant, we'll solve the problem of the backstop breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification by breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification.

What an absolute winner, why on earth has no-one thought of it before?

What's the problem? Scotland wants to remain, Ian Blackford told me, and NI too, though I accept their election of DUP MPs is confusing. I'd keep Wales, they're behind the project too, so long as we didn't get lumbered with their politicians obviously.

Of course if Scotland and NI then want to leave the UK (and the Backstop) too and join England to create a new country unencumbered by the EU and it's backstop then they'd be welcome. If it was all done at the same time that would probably by simplest.

[wc98]

paulrockliffe said:

Vanden Saab said:

What a great idea.

I'm in. You have my vote.

fking great , i have spent the last umpteen years arguing with all and sundry up here on the merits of continuing the union and now you fkers want to dump me and others like me and throw us to the wolves. bds

[PurpleMoonlight]

wc98 said:

fking great , i have spent the last umpteen years arguing with all and sundry up here on the merits of continuing the union and now you fkers want to dump me and others like me and throw us to the wolves. bds

Don't worry, you can move south providing you are compatible with our immigration requirements.

[paulrockliffe]

wc98 said:

paulrockliffe said:

Vanden Saab said:

What a great idea.

I'm in. You have my vote.

fking great , i have spent the last umpteen years arguing with all and sundry up here on the merits of continuing the union and now you fkers want to dump me and others like me and throw us to the wolves. bds

Get rid of the SNP and you're welcome to join us. Otherwise.....

We've been quite tolerant of your lot electing wkers to apply disproportionate pressure in Westminster, enough is enough.

:-)

[mattmurdock]

paulrockliffe said:

What's the problem? Scotland wants to remain, Ian Blackford told me, and NI too, though I accept their election of DUP MPs is confusing. I'd keep Wales, they're behind the project too, so long as we didn't get lumbered with their politicians obviously.

Of course if Scotland and NI then want to leave the UK (and the Backstop) too and join England to create a new country unencumbered by the EU and it's backstop then they'd be welcome. If it was all done at the same time that would probably by simplest.

Pretty much the only reason we are now not leaving on the 29th March is the ERG and DUP being absolutely dead set on keeping the UK together and avoiding anything that may lead to Irish re-unification. If they did not care about that, the deal would have passed the House of Commons.

Your comments suggest that you aren't actually interested in increasing the sovereignty of the UK, but the sovereignty of England on its own, which I would hazard would not be the position of the majority of the leavers in this discussion.

[wc98]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Don't worry, you can move south providing you are compatible with our immigration requirements.

[Vanden Saab]

PurpleMoonlight said:

wc98 said:

fking great , i have spent the last umpteen years arguing with all and sundry up here on the merits of continuing the union and now you fkers want to dump me and others like me and throw us to the wolves. bds

Don't worry, you can move south providing you are compatible with our immigration requirements.

winners and losers

[wc98]

paulrockliffe said:

Get rid of the SNP and you're welcome to join us. Otherwise.....

We've been quite tolerant of your lot electing wkers to apply disproportionate pressure in Westminster, enough is enough.

:-)

hopefully sorted at the next election. they really have pissed a lot of people off up here in recent years.

[SunsetZed]

Elysium said:

Elysium said:

I don’t believe that a referendum can succeed now without a no-deal option.

However, I suspect May will want this on the order paper as a last ditch effort to get the ERG to support the deal, gambling that it will be defeated before the final vote.

It just occurred to me that the ERG might support this amendment with the further addition of a no-deal option.

I think we have a 2 horse race:

1. Approval of Mays deal without amendment
2. Approval of Mays deal subject to a referendum (deal, no deal or remain).

Hang on you've lost me a little. In scenario 3 assume the following results:
1. No Deal 38%
2. Deal 22%
3. Remain 40%

Who wins? If you're answer is remain then I can't see the ERG supporting that.

[biggles330d]

don'tbesilly said:

Their Manifesto in 2017 was very similar to the above, I guess that's what you voted for?

Were you disappointed with the GE result?

I did for the reasons stated and I was. Didn't say it would work, just a wish I guess!

As a traditional conservative voter I have to say the chaos that they have wreaked on the country over the last couple of years means I'll not vote for them again. I'd not vote for Labour either as Corbyn is a fruitcake and the party is way too far left for my liking.

In my view, unpopular as it may be, the best recent government we had was the 'Dave and Nick' show. A coalition of centre right where the rough edges were rubbed off each other and generally got the better bits of both.
It was unfortuate the hard core Lib Dem voter appeared to take the view that principle and being nothing more than irrelevant white noise in the sidelines is a better position that realising that a little compromise but being in power is the actual way to progress their ideals.

As for Brexit, what began as a totally non-partisan issue in the actual lead up to the referendum has descended into tribal politics which in my view has been the nub of the problem. Sure, parties take different views of the world to which we tend to align as a population and that's fine for everyday issues but Brexit should have been from day 1 a non-political, cross party approach with the interest of the people at the forefront. This wasn't done as the politicians resorted to type. Its been an object lesson that our political system is utterly unsuited to handling these sorts of decisions.

Edited by biggles330d on Friday 15th March 15:25

[psi310398]

mattmurdock said:

Brilliant, we'll solve the problem of the backstop breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification by breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification.

What an absolute winner, why on earth has no-one thought of it before?

I never claimed to be a Unionist and I don’t much care what happens on the island of Ireland or to Scotland, for that matter.

[paulrockliffe]

mattmurdock said:

paulrockliffe said:

What's the problem? Scotland wants to remain, Ian Blackford told me, and NI too, though I accept their election of DUP MPs is confusing. I'd keep Wales, they're behind the project too, so long as we didn't get lumbered with their politicians obviously.

Of course if Scotland and NI then want to leave the UK (and the Backstop) too and join England to create a new country unencumbered by the EU and it's backstop then they'd be welcome. If it was all done at the same time that would probably by simplest.

Pretty much the only reason we are now not leaving on the 29th March is the ERG and DUP being absolutely dead set on keeping the UK together and avoiding anything that may lead to Irish re-unification. If they did not care about that, the deal would have passed the House of Commons.

Your comments suggest that you aren't actually interested in increasing the sovereignty of the UK, but the sovereignty of England on its own, which I would hazard would not be the position of the majority of the leavers in this discussion.

Cheer up you miserable bugger, this is not a particularly serious line of discussion.

[alfie2244]

Nickgnome said:

alfie2244 said:

Nickgnome said:

I think if a far right party sprung up at least we would be able to see the real mindset of what I hope would be a few of the population but probably in reality many more.

Visibility of these people is a good thing.

Don't you think UKIP may be moving that way and leaving a hole for a new"not so far" right party to fill.....perhaps with Brexit as it's main, if not only issue?

I really do not care. I would never vote for a single issue party. Seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.

You may think it dumb and I think In normal circumstances I would agree..........hence why the Referendum party failed.

However not Brexiting as per the will of 17.4m people is not normal hence why I would vote for a single issue party.....in fact, in supporting it, I would even become politically active for the 1st time ever.

[crankedup]

Nickgnome said:

crankedup said:

Put this forward again as the question remains unanswered, being as the debate is featured around the issue of representation / instruction I am interested in your and others pov.

It is my opinion that the referendum should not have been called.

However I accept that the government proposed and parliament confirmed via a vote.

I also accept that parliament should as far as they are able try to fulfill the request of the voting majority in the referendum.

That is were the problem lies.

The question was very simple the action required to fulfil the answer is not.

The advantage for those with little knowledge of the functioning of the economy is that they believe the solution is simple. Whilst many here do have some knowledge of the issues unfortunately a few seem never to have read or researched anything on how our government works or had any engagement with their local politicians or MP/MEP.

I maintain if TM had adopted a more colleagate approach there would have been a deal by now.

It seems she may be 3rd time lucky. My concern is the populous will think it is all sorted but actually this should have been the easy bit and what’s to come will be just as hard.

We should not dilude ourselves that any future trade agreements with major economies are going to come either easily or quickly.

Thanks for reply, it was the arrangement of how and why our MPs should follow the principle of
instigating the electorates desire following a National referendum. Given that it is a majority of constituencies that voted leave along with individual voters voting to exit it seems to me MPs have lost sight of thier responsibility to thier electorate.
Having looked at the voting record of ‘my own’ Tory MP it is pleasing that she is at least broadly supporting her constituents wish to leave the EU.

[mattmurdock]

paulrockliffe said:

Cheer up you miserable bugger, this is not a particularly serious line of discussion.

Fair enough, mea culpa.

Although, Poe's Law is prevalent in this discussion, so I hope you forgive me .

[crankedup]

Elysium said:

I just read a comment piece in today’s times that makes a lot of sense.

The people’s vote and labour second ref supporters referred to the Kyle Wilson amendment as a preferential route to a second ref.

This was supposed to be tabled on Tuesday when the EU deal was put to the second meaningful vote. However it was withdrawn. The amendment would see labour support the deal in return for an undertaking that it would go to a plebiscite (second ref) who would choose between ‘the deal’ and ‘remain’

The Times piece suggests that this could now reappear for the third meaningful vote as a high stakes manoeuvre for Corbyn and May.

It makes a lot of sense as it crystallises a number of things.

It makes no sense whatsoever, no matter how it’s dressed up a second referendum would be an affront to democracy. If remainers had won the referendum all this talk about another referendum would simply not exist. Be honest, you don’t like that the outcome of the referendum result.

[sunbeam alpine]

The level of support for a "Hard" Brexit on PH amazes me.

I posted a while back (vol 6 or 7, I think) that a no-deal Brexit which resulted in tariffs in agriculture would cost me personally about €2500 per month, and threaten 9 jobs at one of my UK-based suppliers. It would also put both my brother and sister-in-law's jobs in the UK under threat.

A general question (if I may) to members who are supporting Brexit "at any cost" - how can you be so certain that you will not be personally affected by the UK crashing out?

[crankedup]

Nickgnome said:

jsf said:

Elysium said:

I just read a comment piece in today’s times that makes a lot of sense.

The people’s vote and labour second ref supporters referred to the Kyle Wilson amendment as a preferential route to a second ref.

This was supposed to be tabled on Tuesday when the EU deal was put to the second meaningful vote. However it was withdrawn. The amendment would see labour support the deal in return for an undertaking that it would go to a plebiscite (second ref) who would choose between ‘the deal’ and ‘remain’

The Times piece suggests that this could now reappear for the third meaningful vote as a high stakes manoeuvre for Corbyn and May.

It makes a lot of sense as it crystallises a number of things.

The Grieve total stitch up choice, which will destroy UK politics. If you want to see far right politics take hold in the UK, go for it.

I think if a far right party sprung up at least we would be able to see the real mindset of what I hope would be a few of the population but probably in reality many more.

Visibility of these people is a good thing.

Certainly agree, the risk of the HoC overturning the referendum vote will almost definitely
some voters to ‘punish’ them come next GE.
Hopefully the HoC will recognise the very real risk of breaking trust with the electorate and need thier own common sense.

[crankedup]

PurpleMoonlight said:

psi310398 said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/14/ex...

Ta.

That's paywalled but I found a summary elsewhere.

I note prominent leavers have already rubbished it though.

Today on BBC alive Politics,Gina Miller dismissed the idea of the conventions use entirely.

[CrutyRammers]

Alfa numeric said:

It's true that the second referendum campaign seems to be a Remain campaign. This is probably due to people who voted leave assuming that everyone holds the same view they do and don't think it's necessary.

No, it's because it's transparently a desperate attempt to frustrate the result of the referendum.