Newsthump have announced that Baldrick has been appointed as the new Brexit minister.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Not sure what your point is here?
All options remain on the table... So backing Mays deal... Leaving with no deal ... Probably both as likley as Corbyn backing the 2nd referendum
Out of interest what do people think Corbyn would do in a 2nd referendum
Campaign for leave
Campaign for remain
Sit on the fence
I would argue that as a politician it is his job to work for the people and as such sitting on the fence is his job.
I would suggest that is at best naive and at worst deliberately disinterested. A deal will result in some form of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain while no deal will result in a hard border on the Island of Ireland. Either option is more likely to eventually end in violence than not and to bury your head in the sand and suggest it will all be fine flies in the face of decades of evidence to the contrary.
It was irresponsible and wrong to vote for something for selfish reasons without receiving cast iron guarantees as to how violence would be avoided beforehand. Pretty much every glib assumption offered by the leave campaign have been proved wrong so far so I can't understand how anyone would so easily take something this important as a given.
You would argue that in a second referendum he should not have an opinion... feck me even by his standards that would be piss poor leadership.... Actually yeah perhaps he would
I wouldn't expect him to campaign at all, but I would expect him to favour remain.
To be fair he hardly bothered to campaign last time... If push came to shove though I think he would pick leave based on respecting the first referendum (well that and not really liking the EU anyway)
I'm not sure how it could be clearer?
Scotland and Northern Ireland manage to have their own governments without leaving the UK and Britain has maintained its own government without having to leave the EU. You've said the regions have devolved more power than ever with mayoral systems but at the end of the day they are still accountable to the British government and there are British laws and regulations they must adhere to.
My post that you first replied to was simply asking Andrew why if Britain would be better off completely free from the shackles of EU law and regulation, would the smaller regions of Britain not be better off free of the shackles of British government?
Sure, but those were never the only options on the table. It seems to me the EU heirarchy have been lead to believe that reversing brexit is a viable option, hence them taking a more hard line negotiating stance. A resolution on NI is possible, but not while the EU thinks that by forcing the UK into a corner, they can change the current policy.
Maybe that's naive.
Yeah....But look at the idiots that did campaign. Personally I'm happy for him to sit on the fence
What were the other options on the table in your opinion?
The EU's stance on Article 50, the Four Freedoms and the Good Friday Agreement have been clear and consistent from the very beginning. They were defined long before Brexit was ever a realistic idea. When you say "forcing the UK into a corner" what you are really saying is "not allowing the UK to abdicate their responsibilities and commitments".
You can't solve the N.Ireland issue without it being treated differently. It's time people accepted that and stopped talking shite.
Jesus christ, our country's whole existence revolves around us being treated differently due to the circumstances. You can't just start pretending otherwise.
Jesus christ, our country's whole existence revolves around us being treated differently due to the circumstances. You can't just start pretending otherwise.
Which is....?
It’s hard to make a case for them being better off because they are more reliant on trade with England and subsidies from Westminster than the UK is from the EU. NI is propped up by a massively inflated public sector and is so for political reasons.
Nationalist arguments are always emotional and about identity. A decent number of English are akin to Russians, in that they feel they don’t need or want any input from other countries or cultures. Identity is complex and identity politics trumps economic concerns a lot of the time.
Perhaps the Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish would happier as independent nations but theyd have to pay and economic cost at first, similar to Brexit.
I don't understand; just now Theresa May has managed to negotiate a "no hard border" agreement with EU, even though the agreement technically ends freedom of movement. That option was always there, it's just that the EU knew they could hold out and extract as many concessions as possibe from May to get it.
Yet you're all acting like it's impossible.
So basically you have no idea about what the EU is? First it's a treaty based union where the executive is made of the member states(the EU council), it's literally a cooperation. Secondly there is no police as such there is a police agency that doesn't have any executive power and that is controlled by the council of ministers(the 28 home office ministers), there is no EU military or plan for it(PESCO is a cooperation between 25 members, mainly on equipment), the courts do not replace national courts(in fact national courts have the power to impose EU laws and create precedents), the parliament doesn't have a legislative power.
There will be an EU army within 10 years I’d bet. It needs one.
I don't know if it will be in the next 10 years, mainly because I'm not sure if member states are willing to fund it and reduce their current military.
There's no hard border, yet, because the UK is staying in the EU, in all but name, ie the SM and CU. When the UK leaves the CU and SM, hello hard border. You don't understand, no.
It doesn't end freedom of movement either, May lied.
And that is ok. But when there are concessions to be made in order to solve the issue, those concessions should be made by the nation who has decided to leave the union rather than forced upon nations who haven't. The EU has a duty to its remaining members first and foremost and cannot allow Ireland to be negatively impacted by Brexit just to make the process a bit more comfortable for the UK.
In very simple and non sensational terms:
- Britain decided to invade Ireland.
- Britain decided to give Irish land to British citizens.
- Britain decided to retain 6 counties when Ireland was partitioned.
- Britain decided to enter the European Union.
- Britain decided to sign the Good Friday Agreement.
- Britain decided to leave Europe.
May has negotiated an agreement which will most likely not be passed. It's an agreement you yourself have criticised because it does not give you the sovereignty you so desire. Northern Ireland and the UK will still be subject to a whole range of EU laws and regulations and freedom of movement will remain entirely unchanged under this deal.
It also puts Northern Ireland on a different playing field to the rest of the UK which has been explicitly rejected by the DUP and unionists in NI. It has clear and obvious implications for peace up there.
Feckin hell, I'm reconnected to the internet!
Just as shit's finally getting interesting. Will May survive? If not do we go for elections? So much riding on the next few days.
Just as shit's finally getting interesting. Will May survive? If not do we go for elections? So much riding on the next few days.
Haha, jesus.
1. The EU is as much a coorperation as the US is, albeit the US is much further in it's evolution than the EU is.
2. Europol doesn't have exective power..yet.
3. Yet again, the trend is towards an EU military. This feels like we're rehashing old arguments, people were told in 80s that there was no way EEC treaties would further bind countries, lo and behold a few years later Maastricht happened and Europe had it's own currency.
4. The ECJ is the final appellate courts in all EU countries - on the proviso that the cases are on 'European law and not national law'. But since EU directives are covering ever broader subjects, they are de facto the final courts. Google the famous Factortame case for further insights.
5. The European Parliament has legislative powers. They simply can't propose laws.
As someone said above, the EU and the UK simply have to accept that Ireland needs a bespoke deal because of the unique circumstances there.
All I said was that the option of having an open border is there, given people negotiate in good faith. The EU still think they can dangle that to get concessions, and they've been really successful thanks to Theresa May.
The option of having an open border only exists under the sort of terms and conditions which would surely impact your sovereignty?
The unique circumstances mean that the UK, well NI, cannot leave the CU and SM- it's not a question of concessions, the EU aren't forcing anything. That's what will happen, there's no debate or negotiation. If NI leaves the CU & SM , it's border time.
It's difficult to see how May can survive, especially if her deal is voted down in the house of commons. However, she is a turd that won't flush, like Corbyn, and he manages to hang on.
With the far greater percentage of westminster being pro remain, it's likely that her government will prop her up against a vote of no confidence, but the damage that they know she's doing to conservative election hopes may be a factor. Then there's the fact that if she does step down, it's unlikely that a pro leaver will succeed her, which pretty much keeps things as they are, or may even be more EU driven.
Time has pretty much run out, May has caved in, and effectively the leave vote is being overturned by Westminster.
I disagree.
Dude, all the customs union is, is an agreement to have a free trade area but the union sets external tariffs. The UK already has places with bespoke arrangements regarding the EU - the Isle of Man/Guernsey. The EU has plenty of other agreements with European nations that didn't want to join the full Customs Union - EFTA etc.
I have no idea where this idea that you either have to be in all the way or nothing came from, but it doesn't correspond with reality.
You are rushing too far ahead. If they get the 48 letters in the next couple of days, we'll have a vote of no-confidence before this deal even reaches parliament. The implications of that could be huge. If May is ousted the deal could be going with her and we're back to square one. Probably heading for elections too as there's no unity in this Tory party.
You're ignoring the border here.
Where do you live out of interest? Assuming somewhere in Ireland (North or South) given you seem so clued up on things here.
I don’t disagree with the general tone of your post but conflating what a handful of Norman warlords (who basically enslaved the native English
population) did 800 years ago with the 2016 referendum is stretching it a bit.
EFTA/EEA countries are not in the CU at all. It's not only the CU, it's the SM as well, these arguments have been through a thousand times on here. You are getting confused. But if countries are not in the CU there has to be checks. There also has to be legal jurisdiction. I haven't got the energy to repeat it yet again. Last time it was explained was about 15/20 pages back.
The UK excluding NI can leave the CU and SM - cliff edge. The agreement May negotiated covers not just NI but the whole of the UK and the UK can't leave the SM/CU until the NI problem is resolved - that's what the backstop is for. The UK leaves the EU next March but only in name. That's why it will be rejected.
I can't see her being toppled by a vote of no confidence. I'd be surprised if the votes don't reach the needed 48, but I think she would win any leadership challenge. The house of commons voting down her deal should see her resign, but it's possible she could then go to the country with a second referendum vote. If she did resign, I think she would be replaced by a pro remainer.
I'm not ignoring it. I just think it's clearly open for discussion. I live in England.
That's what I said. My point was this: on the basis of the current situation, yes, there would be a border. But the EU has a very long history of negotiating unique deals with other European nations that wanted to have a modified relationship that only applied to them. Why is this all of a sudden not possible now in relation to the UK?
Ive been out playing footy since 7pm, what have i missed?
I didn't intend to sensationalise the matter but just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean it has no bearing on the present. Britains who weren't Norman warlords had ample opportunity to leave Ireland be throughout that 800 years but made other decisions which have directly influenced the situation as it exists today. Britain cannot simply choose to ignore that past because the reality is a bit inconvenient in the face of their latest desire.
Because these countries either have borders and checks or are part of the EU.