-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Too late to talk about the way it should have been handled.
Obviously you can't change the past - but the current situation shouldn't be divorced from how we got here. Once the ballot was taken and results known there have been obstructionists, people acting in bad faith and parties completely willing to intentionally sabotage the negotiations in order to get a revote.
To sit back and say "look at the mess we are currently in, let's take the easy way out" actively rewards the forces that actively sandbagged and worked against the will of the nation.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
Sure. Then flounder around for ages trying to work out their next move. If they were to have that as part of their manifesto how many votes would they lose?
As much as a balls up this has been, I have to give May some credit for at least trying to make a silk purse from a pig's scrotum. It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?Yes. Imagine that. A ridiculous thought.
As the Australian republic vote and NZ flag vote show this is the most effective strategy to dilute overall majority support for an idea by forcing it to coalesce behind a single form of brexit/flag/republic.
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Too late to talk about the way it should have been handled.
Obviously you can't change the past - but the current situation shouldn't be divorced from how we got here. Once the ballot was taken and results known there have been obstructionists, people acting in bad faith and parties completely willing to intentionally sabotage the negotiations in order to get a revote.
To sit back and say "look at the mess we are currently in, let's take the easy way out" actively rewards the forces that actively sandbagged and worked against the will of the nation.
Can you name these obstructionists etc? Who has intentionally sabotaged negotiations?
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
I’m sorry but that is one of the most facile things I have read on the issue. Reducing the Irish problem to “trade arrangements” is either disingenuous or deluded. The problem isn’t moving goods and services, it is, and always has been, the expectations of the populations of two separate nations occupying one island.
Some (the republicans) demand free movement throughout the island. They have proven over the course of decades that they will resort to murder and terrorism to bring that about and they only stopped because of the Good Friday Agreement. And that was only possible because mutual membership of the EU made the border effectively redundant.
But you have others (the loyalists) who are rabidly pro unionist. They will not stand for a border of any description between Ulster and the mainland and their parliamentary representatives, the DUP have already expressed that. There’s no border between Wales and England, so why do Northern Irish get second class citizenship status, being made to feel like non-UK citizens? And loyalists have been just as violent as the republicans in the past.
Note how, though, the UKIP mouthpieces you linked to avoid mentioning that altogether, yet without it how the fuck will the UK ever be able to stem migration - which let’s face it a majority of Brexit voters wanted ahead of everything else -when anybody who sets foot in Ireland can walk across the soft border to NI then make their way to the mainland at their leisure without further checks?
This though: “Although there is no explicit obstacle to a hard border in the Good Friday Agreement, it could be seen, and is certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit, as being contrary to the ‘Spirit of Concord’ and the undertaking to remove security installations, though the latter refers specifically to military installations and not civil ones.
A hard border, then, is not prohibited by the peace agreement, though it is undesirable and, more to the point, completely unnecessary.“ ... This takes the cake. No it’s not prohibited. The UK can impose it whenever it wants. But it comes with bombs, carnage and murder, same as it did for 80 years. But hey, someone has to be prepared to take one for Team UK, it’s for the greater good and fuck ‘me, they’re only Irish eh?“certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit”. No, it’s being presented as a barrier by angry madmen with guns who will murder or maim your children in a heartbeat. UKIP can reduce it to ideology if they want. But the suggestion that this can be overcome through goodwill is laughable. These people have never shown goodwill in their lives.
Utter, utter bollocks.
That is such a good post. Dispelling one of the many, far too many, myths floating around about this split.
I would say this though on the border and people crossing issue. It's not too big a deal really, as currently UK/Ireland still do border controls for each other. And it's already been agreed that UK/EU will still be visa free access, so stopping people coming in on that front won't change. If Merkel gives 2 mm refugees passports then they will still be able to walk through borders into the UK no problems. They just won't be able to work, setup shop, claim benefits etc.
Now, the tricky part is obviously where the immigration rules are different for the UK/EU. But given that each country has always allowed it's own rules for those outside the EU, there is little change here.
Hence, I don't think the entry is that much of a deal.
That’s only partially true. The border only effectively exists if you fly in, but that’s just airport security really. There are nearly 300 roads (which are the routes that matter most to people on the island) that enter NI from Eire and none of them have border checks. I drove there a bit in the early 90s and was stopped by the army for a random ID check but there haven’t been any border posts or checks since the GFA. It is in practice an open border.
I’m not sure what your point is re the immigration rules. At present there are, as you say, different rules for those outside the EU. But with a hard Brexit there will effectively be no rules in place for movement of EU citizens to the UK, because that’s all part of the May agreement.
In any case, if nothing changes I suspect almost all Brexit voters will deem any implementation a failure as stemming migration was a central theme in the Leave campaign.
-
May should survive tonight's challenge (just) with it clear that she only survives on the basis of it adding more crazy to the situation if she goes.
Because she's lost the confidence of a bunch of shit stirring, spineless tosspots who when presented with 'let's see you do better' crawl back to their holes.
Fair play to May to go all in.
And I'm not a May or Conservative supporter, but admire her grasping the poisoned chalice.
-
@jc which what part of what I said is false?
People are confusing visitors with migration. The border is still open for EU visitors - nothing is changing there.
Anybody who enters Ireland via a legitimate method will pass the same checks they do now.
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@jc which what part of what I said is false?
People are confusing visitors with migration. The border is still open for EU visitors - nothing is changing there.
Anybody who enters Ireland via a legitimate method will pass the same checks they do now.
The bit that is only partially true is the part where it has already been agreed that UK/EU access will still be visa free. That is only true if the May agreement is ratified. If there is a hard Brexit anything agreed won’t be put in place will it?
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
Sure. Then flounder around for ages trying to work out their next move. If they were to have that as part of their manifesto how many votes would they lose?
As much as a balls up this has been, I have to give May some credit for at least trying to make a silk purse from a pig's scrotum. It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?Yes. Imagine that. A ridiculous thought.
As the Australian republic vote and NZ flag vote show this is the most effective strategy to dilute overall majority support for an idea by forcing it to coalesce behind a single form of brexit/flag/republic.
Except that didn't work for Cameron. And in a big way.
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@jc which what part of what I said is false?
People are confusing visitors with migration. The border is still open for EU visitors - nothing is changing there.
Anybody who enters Ireland via a legitimate method will pass the same checks they do now.
The bit that is only partially true is the part where it has already been agreed that UK/EU access will still be visa free. That is only true if the May agreement is ratified. If there is a hard Brexit anything agreed won’t be put in place will it?
Ok gotcha. From UK to EU and vice versa that is correct. However my understanding is that UK/ROI has a separate agreement that they do each other’s entry checks - I don’t believe that leaving EU changes that, as the agreement there is seperate.
Not read the rules on that though, pure second hand information (travel desk at work)
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?
You seem to keep beatng the drum that the vote was somehow confusing. It wasnt. It was very very straight forward. People wanted out of the EU, they werent voting on process, and for good reason. That would never end. Where exactly do you dstop ewith that? Answer - You dont, and therefore you never leaver the EU. Which admittedly is the goal of the remainers but hardly democratic.
This is just a continuation of the remainers arrogance in the assumption that people didnt know what they were voting for. Yes... they did.The question was straight forward, people understood it.
I think remainers will keep pushing for referendums until they get a win.. then suddenly all votes will be stopped and things will me magically clear. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?
You seem to keep beatng the drum that the vote was somehow confusing. It wasnt. It was very very straight forward. People wanted out of the EU, they werent voting on process, and for good reason. That would never end. Where exactly do you dstop ewith that? Answer - You dont, and therefore you never leaver the EU. Which admittedly is the goal of the remainers but hardly democratic.
This is just a continuation of the remainers arrogance in the assumption that people didnt know what they were voting for. Yes... they did.The question was straight forward, people understood it.
I think remainers will keep pushing for referendums until they get a win.. then suddenly all votes will be stopped and things will me magically clear. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?
You seem to keep beatng the drum that the vote was somehow confusing. It wasnt. It was very very straight forward. People wanted out of the EU, they werent voting on process, and for good reason. That would never end. Where exactly do you dstop ewith that? Answer - You dont, and therefore you never leaver the EU. Which admittedly is the goal of the remainers but hardly democratic.
This is just a continuation of the remainers arrogance in the assumption that people didnt know what they were voting for. Yes... they did.The question was straight forward, people understood it.
I think remainers will keep pushing for referendums until they get a win.. then suddenly all votes will be stopped and things will me magically clear.Seriously? That is quite an astounding lack of self awareness you are showing. You have been repeating ther same mantra for years and then accuse people who respond to it as broken record..
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
@crucial Labour would withdraw article 50 without a doubt.
It has been the process and vagueness around what 'out' really means that has been the killer. Imaging voting for something that wasn't defined but would have a major impact?
You seem to keep beatng the drum that the vote was somehow confusing. It wasnt. It was very very straight forward. People wanted out of the EU, they werent voting on process, and for good reason. That would never end. Where exactly do you dstop ewith that? Answer - You dont, and therefore you never leaver the EU. Which admittedly is the goal of the remainers but hardly democratic.
This is just a continuation of the remainers arrogance in the assumption that people didnt know what they were voting for. Yes... they did.The question was straight forward, people understood it.
I think remainers will keep pushing for referendums until they get a win.. then suddenly all votes will be stopped and things will me magically clear.That the Remainer logo?
-
-
-
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
So May wins the confidence vote 200 - 117.
Would you say that makes her position stronger than before the no confidence vote was forced? I'm thinking yes. Whilst it's not good to have 33% odd of your own party having no confidence it is still a pretty large margin of support.
I am not sure. But I think she only survived by promising to resign before the next election.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
So May wins the confidence vote 200 - 117.
Would you say that makes her position stronger than before the no confidence vote was forced? I'm thinking yes. Whilst it's not good to have 33% odd of your own party having no confidence it is still a pretty large margin of support.
Here it would be an overwhelming display of support for the PM.
-
@catogrande There can't be another No Confidence vote for 12 months so it gives her time to push through whatever she wants / can unencumbered by the threat of being rolled. She still has to win in parliament but I think her position has been strengthened somewhat - particularly as she's fucking off.
I'm with MiketheSnow - not a fan of May per se but having been foolish enough to grasp the poisoned chalice have a grudging regard (respect / admiration go too far) for her sticktoitiveness.
Brexit