I'd even be happier with some false justification!
Does he assume they all are "remoaners"? The stats tell us at least half will be leave voters. I just don't get it.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I'd even be happier with some false justification!
Does he assume they all are "remoaners"? The stats tell us at least half will be leave voters. I just don't get it.
economic impact assessment
I’d argue civil servants are more educated than general population, and there was a huge correlation between high education and remain vote.
Yeah, if that was a part of the conversation, GFA wouldn't have happened for sure and still would have been fighting!.
I don't mean to be condescending but to call the GFA an incompetent solution means that you don't seem to get a grasp of the geopolitical nature of that time or for that matter even now!
Well that's not what I said, I said that the protection of the GFA was incompetently done which is why we are in the current situation. The GFA by itself like I said several time is a great achievement.
I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on the GFA but I don't think those terms would have been politically viable. Unless I'm reading it wrong your suggestion leads to one of two potential scenarios.
1. The GFA can be rendered void if the UK and a NI majority vote in that direction.
Why would nationalists or the Republic agree to these terms? The nationalists required the GFA to guarantee a degree of protection from the UK and NI majority. Agreeing to them having the power to revoke the influence of the EU on issues like the border and justice would surely be an immediate non-starter? I can't imagine the Republic would have been any more agreeable to this scenario either given their current views on relationship between Brexit the GFA.
2. Any decisions like Brexit that might impact on the GFA must receive the approval of the Republic of Ireland.
Would the UK or unionists have been happy to surrender that sort of power to the Republic? Especially in the broad terms that would be required to ensure the Republic agreed? I very much doubt it as it would be a pretty extraordinary thing to do. It would certainly run against the "take back control" narrative of Brexit itself. Plus even in this scenario, the suggestion that the UK might want to leave the EU at some point would have been an issue for nationalists.
The GFA left us with a NI that was technically part of the UK whilst still kinda/sorta part of Ireland, whose citizens could be both British and Irish and who were allowed seemingly contradictory freedoms, protections and potential political futures. This was only really possible because various factors (such as EU membership and improved relations between the UK and ROI) made so many of these contradictions irrelevant. This was the magic that made the agreement work; double-think and sidestepping issues. I rather suspect that any practical measures that might have safeguarded against the current brexit crisis would also have undermined the constructive ambiguity that allowed the GFA to function in the first place. It was impossible for the GFA to address these questions because it fundamentally relied on these questions never being asked.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
I bet there was a high correlation between high education and a tory vote promising a ref. Look how that turned out for you.
Not wrong at all Sully, very well put.Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
Will we ever get to the point where Brexit backers will go, 'you know what, maybe this isn't a good idea'?
@sullydnl Thanks for your reply.
1. It's not a term, it's not a suggestion either, it's the reality of the situation if one party decides to leave the EU, they alter the framework of the GFA and makes it void. This statement is supposed to ask the questions that you are mentioning without actually asking them.
2. No the Republic of Ireland has no say in Brexit, only NI has a say, in that case it's "or" not "and". In the case of Brexit, it's about the UK and NI, NI are the only one deciding whether they want to live with the consequence of Brexit.
Edit: What you wrote is how I see it too, the issues are obvious and understandable but at some point the questions need to be asked because an answer has to be provided. Today we are at that point.
1. It's not a term, it's not a suggestion either, it's the reality of the situation if one party decides to leave the EU, they alter the framework of the GFA and makes it void. This statement is supposed to ask the questions that you are mentioning without actually asking them.
2. No the Republic of Ireland has no say in Brexit, only NI has a say, in that case it's "or" not "and". In the case of Brexit, it's about the UK and NI, NI are the only one deciding whether they want to live with the consequence of Brexit.
Edit: What you wrote is how I see it too, the issues are obvious and understandable but at some point the questions need to be asked because an answer has to be provided. Today we are at that point.
Good post.I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on the GFA but I don't think those terms would have been politically viable. Unless I'm reading it wrong your suggestion leads to one of two potential scenarios.
1. The GFA can be rendered void if the UK and a NI majority vote in that direction.
Why would nationalists or the Republic agree to these terms? The nationalists required the GFA to guarantee a degree of protection from the UK and NI majority. Agreeing to them having the power to revoke the influence of the EU on issues like the border and justice would surely be an immediate non-starter? I can't imagine the Republic would have been any more agreeable to this scenario either given their current views on relationship between Brexit the GFA.
2. Any decisions like Brexit that might impact on the GFA must receive the approval of the Republic of Ireland.
Would the UK or unionists have been happy to surrender that sort of power to the Republic? Especially in the broad terms that would be required to ensure the Republic agreed? I very much doubt it as it would be a pretty extraordinary thing to do. It would certainly run against the "take back control" narrative of Brexit itself. Plus even in this scenario, the suggestion that the UK might want to leave the EU at some point would have been an issue for nationalists.
The GFA left us with a NI that was technically part of the UK whilst still kinda/sorta part of Ireland, whose citizens could be both British and Irish and who were allowed seemingly contradictory freedoms, protections and potential political futures. This was only really possible because various factors (such as EU membership and improved relations between the UK and ROI) made so many of these contradictions irrelevant. This was the magic that made the agreement work; double-think and sidestepping issues. I rather suspect that any practical measures that might have safeguarded against the current brexit crisis would also have undermined the constructive ambiguity that allowed the GFA to function in the first place. It was impossible for the GFA to address these questions because it fundamentally relied on these questions never being asked.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
I can only laugh as it's so tragic. Do you want to be part of the world's richest trading bloc? No. Would you rather our economy was irrevocably fecked in the vain hope you can keep swarthy foreigners out? Yes.Oh god.
Are you British? What do you think? I am not, and from this side of the Irish Sea seems like those asking your question almost tend to exclude their own passion from the equation, as if it was somehow mildly shameful to be a Pro European, an advocate for that project. Think that once that barrier was crossed by Remainers, things would become clearer.
Oh god.
no
Will we ever get to the point where Jeremy Corbyn will go, 'you know what, maybe this isn't a good idea'?
Doesn't look that way so far.
Because it would kill off a ton of Labour's voting base. People can criticise Labour Brexit policy(which for the most part is simply not talking about Brexit)but wanting Cobyn to actively come out against Brexit is living in fantasy world.
Last edited:
So Corbyn is as much responsible for Brexit as anyone else then. Just as much to blame as Boris, Gove and the rest.
Well yes and no. Yes because we had a referendum and leave won so Corbyn is following the ''democratic'' process but no because the UK under a Corbyn lead Labour government would be vastly better than anything the Tories could offer.
They could try and substantiate an actual policy though. Labour still refuse to commit to either a hard or soft Brexit.
Following the "democratic" process is exactly the same excuse May has used, so I take it you agree he's equally to blame.
Corbyn might lead a vastly better government but this is the Brexit thread so I'm sticking to that. Unless you're saying Brexit would be worth it to get a Labour government?
It's getting clearer that Labour haven't really got any policy regarding Brexit but I can't say what their policy should be. Everyone mostly agrees that Labour should have a policy but no ones what that policy should be(A policy that doesn't alienate their voters).
Firstly I don't blame anyone really, Brexit was a 20-30 odd years in the making and certainly not the shock result some people think it is. As for the excuse, people did in the end vote to leave, political parties can't just ignore that.
The only alternative that can be argued is to have another referendum but even that seem rather pointless as
1)It's not particularly clear that Remain would win
2)Even if Remain did win, what would make it anymore legitimate than the first referendum(Do we have to make a best of 3 ?)
The argument to stopping Brexit has to be more than economical and at the moment it isn't.
But there's really no way of stopping Brexit, if the Labour Party supported stopping Brexit or even a second referendum than all it would achieved is destroying it's voting base.
I don't deny that - opting for soft Brexit alienates Labour voters who supported Brexit and feel like they haven't been listened to, while a hard Brexit alienates the majority of the pro-European membership base. Logistically speaking it's a sensible move for Labour to have an obscured and ill-defined Brexit policy because like with the vote itself, it allows voters to project what their idea of a Labour Brexit is onto the party. The problem is that it's just incredibly frustrating to see the actual opposition offering so little in the way of a genuine viewpoint as to what's happening with Brexit.
Completely agree and this response by Labour will only last so long. But it's really only frustrating for those who care about Brexit, which is a small part of the country(For better or worse)
Obviously there's a lot more going on than Brexit but it's still a hugely significant issue which will impact - directly or indirectly - most of the other areas currently in need of being addressed.
With the Grapes Of Wrath scenario that has been predicted on here, all financial companies will be based in europe. So someone is full of shit. The experts report or caf posters? You decide.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...th-east-west-midlands-hardest-secret-analysis
It doesn't, it's a mis-print, sorry @Stanley Road
People in glass houses Stanley
See, not even you scaremongers get things right
Heh that’s amusing.See, not even you scaremongers get things right
So these are now ‘serious’ and ‘accurate’ stats / predictions that we should believe huh, after the IMF, treasury, CBI and whatever else...
See, not even you scaremongers get things right
If the UK does that "well" with a no-deal scenario they will be doing very well - fortunately for them I doubt we'll ever find out, how's that for scaremongering.
Moar numbers!
Thanks for the correction. Interesting they aren't predicting it gets hit harder though with the loss of finance jobs
I guess it is all about the size of the local economy. 3% hit on London would still be a lot harder to take than 3% elsewhere. Still 16% is pretty difficult to take regardless of how your big your economy is.
The figures seem quite optimistic to me for the no deal scenario. If the UK remains in the CU/SM then the figures seem more coherent.
I almost wish it would simply happen with a no deal just to punish the idiots that brought this upon us BUT I am afraid that they won't learn and just blame the EU instead.
Reality is getting closer and David Davis doesn't seem to like it
https://ec.europa.eu/info/brexit/brexit-preparedness_en?field_core_tags_tid_i18n=22848
https://ec.europa.eu/info/brexit/brexit-preparedness_en?field_core_tags_tid_i18n=22848
Not scary enuff. Mad max world seems to be what uk is expectingIf the UK does that "well" with a no-deal scenario they will be doing very well - fortunately for them I doubt we'll ever find out, how's that for scaremongering.