Brexit

[Ketraar]

To be fair, its not quite as one-sided as you make out to be though. Losing a trade partner of the size of the UK will hurt many in the EU. Yes the UK will have it harder, but there will be people hurt on the EU side as well. But I dont think this should be a point of contest, which one will hurt more, is a rather idiotic metric to use tbh, since if there is ANYONE that will suffer from this its a bad thing regardless on which side of the border they are.

MFG

Ketraar

[pjknibbs]

So, Boris has finally come clean and admitted that he's going for no deal. He's finished played around, pretending to try and come up with a solution to the Irish border issue so that he can claim (presumably to his supporters, since nobody else is going to be fooled) that he tried and that the EU are the ones who are being unreasonable.

Odd, I didn't think I could dislike the man more, but apparently it *is* possible.

[RegisterMe]

So, Boris has finally come clean and admitted that he's going for no deal. He's finished played around, pretending to try and come up with a solution to the Irish border issue so that he can claim (presumably to his supporters, since nobody else is going to be fooled) that he tried and that the EU are the ones who are being unreasonable. Next up, barely keeping up the pretence of abiding by the law, while actually working hard to ensure that the extension he's legally required to request won't be granted. It's not like any of this is really much of a surprise, but it's quite brazen by UK political standards.

While I agree with you in that I think that's what he was aiming for all along I haven't actually seen anything that states that Johnson has said he's going for no deal. Have you got a link? Especially if it explains how he's going to get round parliament?

[Tamina]

I wonder how much of an impact this is going to have though. The old trading treaty with the EU stays until they have an agreement. So Britain is going to leave but not leave, isn't it?
I also wonder if I have to start stashing Cathedral City cheddar cheese in my basement, now. Just realized this is a British product.

[RegisterMe]

I also wonder if I have to start stashing Cathedral City cheddar cheese in my basement, now. Just realized this is a British product.

Try this, if you can get your hands on it. It's the best cheddar you will ever eat. It's not cheap, but bloody hell is it good, so well worth it if you deserve a treat .

[RegisterMe]

So, Boris has finally come clean and admitted that he's going for no deal. He's finished played around, pretending to try and come up with a solution to the Irish border issue so that he can claim (presumably to his supporters, since nobody else is going to be fooled) that he tried and that the EU are the ones who are being unreasonable. Next up, barely keeping up the pretence of abiding by the law, while actually working hard to ensure that the extension he's legally required to request won't be granted. It's not like any of this is really much of a surprise, but it's quite brazen by UK political standards.

While I agree with you in that I think that's what he was aiming for all along I haven't actually seen anything that states that Johnson has said he's going for no deal. Have you got a link? Especially if it explains how he's going to get round parliament?

Found this Kuennsberg blog from this evening which alludes to what you're saying but doesn't say it quite so emphatically....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49972097

[Vertigo 7]

I've been hearing that a no deal Brexit would seriously wreck the UK by adding huge delays on goods imported from the EU at border crossings, the most profoundly adverse impact being felt on time sensitive deliveries for medicines and perishable goods. If that's true, I don't understand why there is such a hard push for it?

And then the whole issue of Ireland. I've not heard of many options there that avoids much in the way of reigniting conflict.

Admittedly, I haven't followed the Brexit thing too closely, but from everything I have heard about this, however well intended, the logistics of execution just never sounded like a good idea to me from the start.

[RegisterMe]

1) I've been hearing that a no deal Brexit would seriously wreck the UK by adding huge delays on goods imported from the EU at border crossings, the most profoundly adverse impact being felt on time sensitive deliveries for medicines and perishable goods. If that's true, I don't understand why there is such a hard push for it?

2) And then the whole issue of Ireland. I've not heard of many options there that avoids much in the way of reigniting conflict.

(I made a couple of minor edits to your post - numbering the paras to make my reply easier, and deleting the last para, no offense intended, and no intent to mislead / misquote <g>).

1. Why is there such a hard push for it? Three reasons, the importance depending on who's talking and listening, or writing and reading - first ideology; second, perhaps informed by ideology, that respecting the result of the referendum is more important than anything else; third, "it won't be that bad in the long term". Perhaps a fourth as well, along the lines of "tired of this, let's get it done already, time to move on". I don't think it would "seriously wreck the UK". I do think it would be, in the short term, extremely disruptive. And if you were somebody who depended on a medicine that was currently imported via Dover, eg insulin, you'd have some cause to be concerned. Or if you entire livelihood for the last three decades was devoted to importing the best, freshest tomatoes from Spain......

2a. "Reigniting conflict" is a concern, but it's perhaps less of a concern than the disruption to the current economy on the island of Ireland. The extremists on both sides have, since the GFA, largely been marginalised (and let's hope it stays that way). The economies (and border communities) of Eire and Northern Ireland are extremely integrated, and much of it is time sensitive in the form of agricultural goods, which are themselves a real hot button in terms of the EU and access to its markets.

2b. Of more concern, to me anyway, than "reigniting conflict" is that the imposition of a hard border by the UK (ignore the posturing that says it's the EU that would be responsible for this, that wilfully ignores the reality of the situation) would be a(nother) standout example of the UK walking away from international obligations that it has voluntarily bound itself to. For example:-

* The signatories to the GFA were the British and Irish governments and all major political parties in Northern Ireland.
* The US had a stake because Clinton sent Mitchell as a mediator.
* The agreement states at one point that ".. the UK and Ireland as partners in the European Union..." (which of course the UK won't be when it leaves).

Cut that Gordian knot, go on then .

2b1. Context - Northern Ireland is the poorest region in the UK and has the largest proportion of public sector jobs in the UK. Add significant economic stress to latent sectarian tensions and you do make a tinderbox, even if it doesn't have to result in bombings.

2b2. Context - I'm not trying to minimise the real historical angst, or the real political injustice felt by both sides (I'm half English half Irish) but much of the paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, on both sides, has over the last two or three decades increasingly been about simple criminality - smuggling (cigarettes, alcohol, fuel, drugs) and protection rackets being front and centre. Of course it masked itself in dubious nationalistic claims but regardless the bombs and bullets were real enough.

A hard border introduces lots of opportunity for gain on the part of the IRA / UDA and their offshoots, and lots of opportunity for risk on the part of everybody else .

[Vertigo 7]

Do you think if there was another public referendum today that the outcome would be any different? It could be phrased as "Are you sure this is what you want?"... leave out the political grand standing. Without making things overly complex, the pro brexiters could make a bullet point list of pros and cons, and those against brexit could do the same. No bus advertisements, no adds trying to sway decisions one way or the other, none of that. Just a website or a printed pamphlet with the pros and cons from both sides, side by side.

From all accounts, it sounded like the majority of people just didn't understand the ramifications of leaving the EU at the time.

Maybe I'm just being overly simplistic with my limited view point. I know this is and will be a very complicated issue.

[RegisterMe]

I think that Remain might get a majority, but I am uncertain. And I would have an enormous amount of sympathy with those (not just leavers) who would state that a second referendum would be seriously damaging to our democracy.

Cameron was a bloody idiot for letting the genie out of the bottle. And he did it for party political reasons which makes it all the more damning .

[Ketraar]

For reference Switzerland had about 10 (guessing here, but I'm probably underestimating) Referendums to partially join the EU, no one there thought that having multiple Referendums was damaging the Democracy. Bet the again the Swiss tend to have Referendums a lot.

MFG

Ketraar

[RegisterMe]

For reference Switzerland had about 10 (guessing here, but I'm probably underestimating) Referendums to partially join the EU, no one there thought that having multiple Referendums was damaging the Democracy. Bet the again the Swiss tend to have Referendums a lot.

MFG

Ketraar

Referendums are an integral part of the Swiss democratic system - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in ... eferendums - that is not the case in the UK.

[Ketraar]

I'm aware, having lived there most of my life and also have pointed it out in the second sentence. Does not detract from my point in any way though.

MFG

Ketraar

[CBJ]

On the topic of voting multiple times on the same thing being "undemocratic", I find it odd that nobody raised the point that the same politicians who were making that claim most loudly were also the ones asking MPs to vote repeatedly on the same proposed deal with the EU when they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time.

[Bishop149]

And then the whole issue of Ireland. I've not heard of many options there that avoids much in the way of reigniting conflict.

Yep, it's basically impossible for Brexit and the GFA to legally co-exist.
The best way to avoid reigniting The Troubles is to basically treat the whole of Ireland as part of the EU, but seeing as NI would not be in the EU this will automatically compromise the single market and the EU won't be having that.
One of those two things will have to shift and regret it through they may 27 countries are not going to chuck their own economic interests under the bus to prevent a potential conflict in one of them. . . . for another example of this, see Catalonia.

2a. "Reigniting conflict" is a concern, but it's perhaps less of a concern than the disruption to the current economy on the island of Ireland. The extremists on both sides have, since the GFA, largely been marginalised (and let's hope it stays that way). The economies (and border communities) of Eire and Northern Ireland are extremely integrated, and much of it is time sensitive in the form of agricultural goods, which are themselves a real hot button in terms of the EU and access to its markets.

The effects upon the Republic of Irelnad would be fairly minimal. The primary economic importance of the NI/I border is that goods from the EU flow through it. A hard border would slow this down, but an alternative exists. . . shipping. Goods from the EU currently go via land through UK/NI because its quicker. . . but only by a matter of hours, as soon as that isn't true any more the EU will just ship via sea directly to the Republic.
NI however would be much more adversely affected, but frankly why would the EU care, NI would be a non-member and a small market.

[felter]

There is a story in the BBC today with Nissan cars which builds and employs 7000 people in Sunderland, there is one part of the story that I find pretty amazing considering that there is only probably 3 weeks till we leave the UK without a deal. Anyway the Nissan boss man said:

We do not know still what a no-deal means.

Why with such a short time till we leave and Johnson screaming we are leaving even if we don't get/have a deal. Yet these major manufacturers who rely on EU exports and employ thousands have not got a clue what a no deal means to them, and how it will effect their business. What the hell is the government doing and playing at.

[Chips]

It's interesting listening to the views of the Brexiteers and others and just how insane some of them can be, just never ask them for facts on what they are talking about.

Insane views.

I liked the first one.

I liked 31:30 - completely bonkers

[CBJ]

While I agree with you in that I think that's what he was aiming for all along I haven't actually seen anything that states that Johnson has said he's going for no deal. Have you got a link? Especially if it explains how he's going to get round parliament?

Just to say, I wasn't ignoring this. I've looked for a link to the article, but I can't find it. When I said "come clean" I meant more that he'd done so in private and that it had been leaked than that he'd actually stated it publicly. This came from an article based on "a source close to the government" as usual, and based on the BBC's recent record of reporting such sources, I'm more inclined to believe them than any public statements by Boris and co. Regarding getting round parliament, it essentially said that he would deliver the letter as required by the law, but also threaten any country that agreed to the terms requested by the letter with various forms of non-cooperation.

Incidentally, I'm aware of the irony of me trusting the BBC's word on things like this, given my usual position on "the press". I have to say, though, that the political team at the BBC, particularly Laura Kuenssberg and Katya Adler, have been doing an excellent job of making the Byzantine complexity of the whole Brexit process, and all the political wrangling around it, accessible to those who want to know what's going on. It serves as a salutary reminder that good quality journalism is a positive thing, and that it can still be found amid all the sensationalist rubbish.

[RegisterMe]

While I agree with you in that I think that's what he was aiming for all along I haven't actually seen anything that states that Johnson has said he's going for no deal. Have you got a link? Especially if it explains how he's going to get round parliament?

Just to say, I wasn't ignoring this. I've looked for a link to the article, but I can't find it. When I said "come clean" I meant more that he'd done so in private and that it had been leaked than that he'd actually stated it publicly. This came from an article based on "a source close to the government" as usual, and based on the BBC's recent record of reporting such sources, I'm more inclined to believe them than any public statements by Boris and co. Regarding getting round parliament, it essentially said that he would deliver the letter as required by the law, but also threaten any country that agreed to the terms requested by the letter with various forms of non-cooperation.

Incidentally, I'm aware of the irony of me trusting the BBC's word on things like this, given my usual position on "the press". I have to say, though, that the political team at the BBC, particularly Laura Kuenssberg and Katya Adler, have been doing an excellent job of making the Byzantine complexity of the whole Brexit process, and all the political wrangling around it, accessible to those who want to know what's going on. It serves as a salutary reminder that good quality journalism is a positive thing, and that it can still be found amid all the sensationalist rubbish.

No problem. I was just curious because I hadn't seen anything definitive either, and was interested if I'd missed something .

[Santi]

Will Boris get the deal approved in Saturday? Seems people are optimistic that he will prevail where May failed. I think it will be down to how much discipline Corbyn can enforce within the Labour party. If it gets approved that will be a huge boost for Boris and the Conservative party in electoral terms.

Then we will see how the economic deal pans out, that I believe is where people is expecting to make significant gains compared to being in the EU.