Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Cheesy]

I'd have sympathy for those arguing from the democratic POV if parliament were putting forward viable proposals to leave the EU. As it stands, they aren't. The only one left is to remain within the customs union. If it's No Deal or a second referendum then a second referendum is clearly the better option. It may have been the will of the people to leave the EU but that same will elected our current leaders, and as it stands those current leaders are proving themselves to be incompetent in delivering Brexit.

 

[Honest John]

Why? This is all a mess of our own making. Why trigger Article 50 if we had no idea how the feck we were going to solve these problems?

I wonder what the situation would be if say the SNP won their referendum by 52 48 and the UK government with the Scottish labour and Tory parties were trying to reverse it. You reckon the Scots would take that lying down?

 

[JPRouve]

I wonder what the situation would be if say the SNP won their referendum by 52 48 and the UK government with the Scottish labour and Tory parties were trying to reverse it. You reckon the Scots would take that lying down?

You still make no sense. Scotland doesn't have a border issue, they don't have an agreement to not have borders.

 

[Honest John]

You don't even know that if the backstop was changed , which it won't and can't be, it would pass parliament. It still probably wouldn't.

It would be the solution that would be closest to passing. And by your yardstick what if there was a second referendum and leave won again. You’d have pissed off 17.4 million people to change nothing.

 

[Cascarino]

Yes I am. It will be an anathema to the people who voted leave what ever way it is diced and as for the questions, well you tell me.
It’s a disaster, but May’s deal with movement on the backstop is the best of all the shitty ideas.

At the start of this thread you actually suggested a second referendum, why has that changed?

And I can't tell you, I genuinely don't know what the disastrous implications you mentioned to be. That's why I asked, riots?

 

[do.ob]

This is going round in circles with the same old silly boy argument. It won’t solve anything. The eu agreed a WA, with some other arrangement on the backstop it passes parliament. If they are serious then bloody well talk about it. No deal is the default legal position and May won’t take it off the table. So Ireland needs to think about it.

It's fairly simple, isn't it?
a) The four freedoms are the very core principle of the EU.
b) Either the UK accepts the four freedoms or it will have to have a hard border with the EU and thus Ireland to enforce the differences.
c) The GFA says there can't be a hard border with Ireland and the UK.

You think the EU and it's 27 remaining members should abandon the very core principles of their union for a state that's leaving the bloc? Because the UK is trying to push for something that violates their own treaty with Ireland?
It's up the UK to either accept regulatory alignment with the EU, modify/abandon the GFA or come up with some magical solution.

 

[Honest John]

You still make no sense. Scotland doesn't have a border issue, they don't have an agreement to not have borders.

the sense is that there was a referendum and however stupid we think the people who voted to leave are, the genie is out of the bottle and it won’t be put back. If they are fecked over I truly believe lives will be lost. But hey if that’s worth avoiding any economic hit then so be it eh. What will the questions be? Do you seriously think that 17.4 million people after having been called stupid for three years are suddenly going to admit the error of their ways and vote against leaving in some way.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It would be the solution that would be closest to passing. And by your yardstick what if there was a second referendum and leave won again. You’d have pissed off 17.4 million people to change nothing.

I don't think a GE or a referendum would solve anything. For me there are 3 choices, which there always were, which parliament has to now decide , leave with no deal, cancel Brexit or go with the withdrawal agreement as it is.
Millions are going to be seriously unhappy whatever and the chances are that all of them will be with no deal.

A backstop can not have a time limit.
Even in the event that the backstop were changed, do you actually see parliament agreeing on anything going forward, there are too many divisions.

 

[JPRouve]

the sense is that there was a referendum and however stupid we think the people who voted to leave are, the genie is out of the bottle and it won’t be put back. If they are fecked over I truly believe lives will be lost. But hey if that’s worth avoiding any economic hit then so be it eh. What will the questions be? Do you seriously think that 17.4 million people after having been called stupid for three years are suddenly going to admit the error of their ways and vote against leaving in some way.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the backstop or the issue at hand. Read the points b and c in @do.ob's last post. The issue isn't the referendum or preventing the EU from leaving, the backstop doesn't prevent anything.

 

[Honest John]

At the start of this thread you actually suggested a second referendum, why has that changed?

And I can't tell you, I genuinely don't know what the disastrous implications you mentioned to be. That's why I asked, riots?

I was pissed off with the result and like many considered the leave campaign to be lies. But looking at it in the round now I cannot see a way out. May’s deal as mad as it seems given the weight of the defeat is still the one most likely to get a majority. But it needs movement on the backstop. Now I hear all this lot chucking all the logic, law and 4 freedoms at me but something has to be done and it sure as shit is not reversing A50 or a 2nd ref. Nobody wants no deal but at this moment in time it is set in law and is the default position if no deal is struck. Ireland have overplayed its hand on this because a no deal brexit would be a far bigger disaster for them. So they need to soften up a bit. Agree a time limit - as bulshitty that may be it would be enough for the Brexiteers and the DUP. Then if May can do some deals with the opposition on workers rights and environmental law then she might get it over the line.

 

[Cascarino]

I was pissed off with the result and like many considered the leave campaign to be lies. But looking at it in the round now I cannot see a way out. May’s deal as mad as it seems given the weight of the defeat is still the one most likely to get a majority. But it needs movement on the backstop. Now I hear all this lot chucking all the logic, law and 4 freedoms at me but something has to be done and it sure as shit is not reversing A50 or a 2nd ref. Nobody wants no deal but at this moment in time it is set in law and is the default position if no deal is struck. Ireland have overplayed its hand on this because a no deal brexit would be a far bigger disaster for them. So they need to soften up a bit. Agree a time limit - as bulshitty that may be it would be enough for the Brexiteers and the DUP. Then if May can do some deals with the opposition on workers rights and environmental law then she might get it over the line.

Thanks for answering, I'm fully behind a 2nd ref but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your stance.

 

[Honest John]

So what?

Brexit is an anathema to everyone else and clearly a disaster for Britain as a whole.

So it is a Hotel California

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I was pissed off with the result and like many considered the leave campaign to be lies. But looking at it in the round now I cannot see a way out. May’s deal as mad as it seems given the weight of the defeat is still the one most likely to get a majority. But it needs movement on the backstop. Now I hear all this lot chucking all the logic, law and 4 freedoms at me but something has to be done and it sure as shit is not reversing A50 or a 2nd ref. Nobody wants no deal but at this moment in time it is set in law and is the default position if no deal is struck. Ireland have overplayed its hand on this because a no deal brexit would be a far bigger disaster for them. So they need to soften up a bit. Agree a time limit - as bulshitty that may be it would be enough for the Brexiteers and the DUP. Then if May can do some deals with the opposition on workers rights and environmental law then she might get it over the line.

No.1 loser by far is the UK with no deal, not Ireland, even though it will be hit hard. The EU are never ever going to compromise the 4 freedoms so it's no deal then .

 

[do.ob]

I was pissed off with the result and like many considered the leave campaign to be lies. But looking at it in the round now I cannot see a way out. May’s deal as mad as it seems given the weight of the defeat is still the one most likely to get a majority. But it needs movement on the backstop. Now I hear all this lot chucking all the logic, law and 4 freedoms at me but something has to be done and it sure as shit is not reversing A50 or a 2nd ref. Nobody wants no deal but at this moment in time it is set in law and is the default position if no deal is struck. Ireland have overplayed its hand on this because a no deal brexit would be a far bigger disaster for them. So they need to soften up a bit. Agree a time limit - as bulshitty that may be it would be enough for the Brexiteers and the DUP. Then if May can do some deals with the opposition on workers rights and environmental law then she might get it over the line.

If British politicians want to keep refusing simple realities to the point of a no deal Brexit then that's sad for everyone, but I don't think it can be helped. The British position is that they want 1+1 to be 3. You can't negotiate like that, you can't accomodate such a position any further.
The backstop itself is already a helping hand from Brussels, because it allows both parties to negotiate a future trade deal while assuming that the biggest obstacle of all will somehow be solved, but you can't set a fantasy expiration date when there is no solution in sight.

 

[Honest John]

No.1 loser by far is the UK with no deal, not Ireland, even though it will be hit hard. The EU are never ever going to compromise the 4 freedoms so it's no deal then .

The EU have agreed a WA among the 27. In agreeing it and declaring the backstop temporary they must have a concept of how the border issue may be resolve with the final trade deal. Else why agree the WA.

 

[JPRouve]

It's actually daft. The UK takes a decision and everyone has to change at the exception of the UK who for some reason is the only one not making compromises, not accepting the consequences of its actions and not offering any alternatives.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The EU have agreed a WA among the 27. In agreeing it and declaring the backstop temporary they must have a concept of how the border issue may be resolve with the final trade deal. Else why agree the WA.

No-one has the solution, otherwise it would already be there. CU/SM would solve it, the EU also suggested the border in the Irish Sea. The Final trade deal will take years, maybe something will be possible by then.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It's actually daft. The UK takes a decision and everyone has to change at the exception of the UK who for some reason is the only one not making compromises, not accepting the consequences of its actions and not offering any alternatives.

Welcome to Britain

 

[Honest John]

If British politicians want to keep refusing simple realities to the point of a no deal Brexit then that's sad for everyone, but I don't think it can be helped. The British position is that they want 1+1 to be 3. You can't negotiate like that, you can't accomodate such a position any further.
The backstop itself is already a helping hand from Brussels, because it allows both parties to negotiate a future trade deal while assuming that the biggest obstacle of all will somehow be solved, but you can't set a fantasy expiration date when there is no solution in sight.

It is obvious that the future trade deal will have to take the form of a customs union. It won’t be Norway or Canada. It will be the UK deal, unique because of the GFA. With it the UK will probably have to sacrifice third party trade deals or at least have them truncated and the EU will have to make a special case with its red lines.

 

[Cheesy]

It is obvious that the future trade deal will have to take the form of a customs union. It won’t be Norway or Canada. It will be the UK deal, unique because of the GFA. With it the UK will probably have to sacrifice third party trade deals or at least have them truncated and the EU will have to make a special case with its red lines.

And why should the EU allow it to be anything other than the current customs union which suits them perfectly?

 

[Honest John]

No-one has the solution, otherwise it would already be there. CU/SM would solve it, the EU also suggested the border in the Irish Sea. The Final trade deal will take years, maybe something will be possible by then.

So if the UK accepts the WA in current form and the Backstop is invoked because of delays in a FTA then the EU will have to compromise on its rules. The UK will have all the benefits of membership and won’t have to pay a penny for it while at the same time shutting off our waters to everyone. So if the EU can envisage making that compromise then, why can’t it move now to get the WA deal done?

 

[2cents]

 

[Honest John]

And why should the EU allow it to be anything other than the current customs union which suits them perfectly?

Because of the GFA. It’s unique to the UK and Ireland. They can sell that to the rest of the block instead of levering the Irish situation to force the UK to reconsider.

 

[Cheesy]

Because of the GFA. It’s unique to the UK and Ireland. They can sell that to the rest of the block instead of levering the Irish situation to force the UK to reconsider.

But why will they reconsider the current arrangement? They have no reason to! The only argument the GFA strengthens is ones that argue for us either remaining within the EU or ensuring there is no hard border.

 

[Cheesy]

Very interesting stuff. Still find it astonishing Remain weren't highlighting this in 2016. Like...genuinely, all the clear, obvious arguments were there at the time.

 

[Smores]

It's actually daft. The UK takes a decision and everyone has to change at the exception of the UK who for some reason is the only one not making compromises, not accepting the consequences of its actions and not offering any alternatives.

From TV and radio I'm 90% sure that quite a few leave voters don't understand that the backstop is down to us and not the EU.

 

[Honest John]

But why will they reconsider the current arrangement? They have no reason to! The only argument the GFA strengthens is ones that argue for us either remaining within the EU or ensuring there is no hard border.

They passed A50 into law and it does not take account of the GFA. So the EU bears some responsibility for the impass.

 

[Cheesy]

They passed A50 into law and it does not take account of the GFA. So the EU bears some responsibility for the impass.

Could you imagine the scenes that would've occurred if the EU had tried to actively prevent us from leaving?

 

[sullydnl]

It's actually daft. The UK takes a decision and everyone has to change at the exception of the UK who for some reason is the only one not making compromises, not accepting the consequences of its actions and not offering any alternatives.

The sheer level of British exceptionalism that Brexit has exposed within the UK's political class is staggering.

 

[Honest John]

Could you imagine the scenes that would've occurred if the EU had tried to actively prevent us from leaving?

I think May would have been voted out and A Brexiteer made PM.

 

[Smores]

They passed A50 into law and it does not take account of the GFA. So the EU bears some responsibility for the impass.

But there's a number of options that would be compatible with the GFA and they've presented them, we just don't want any of them. It's not done to the EU to ratify if our government understood the basics before approving it.

 

[Honest John]

But there's a number of options that would be compatible with the GFA and they've presented them, we just don't want any of them. It's not done to the EU to ratify if our government understood the basics before approving it.

Look I didn’t vote leave but I do have some sympathy with leavers that say we need a FTA and the right to strike deals of our own. No problem, just crash out on WTO rules. Enter left stage the GFA which was overlooked by the EU in A50. So there was EU legislation that failed to take account of all its member states. So now the UK can’t leave on wto without going against the GFA. Some bespoke arrangement is necessary. Else you are saying that A50 is available to everyone except the UK. If the UK invokes A50 it has to accept an EU construct in the form of a CU and if it accepts that, it can’t do its own deals.

 

[stevoc]

It's fairly simple, isn't it?
a) The four freedoms are the very core principle of the EU.
b) Either the UK accepts the four freedoms or it will have to have a hard border with the EU and thus Ireland to enforce the differences.
c) The GFA says there can't be a hard border with Ireland and the UK.

You think the EU and it's 27 remaining members should abandon the very core principles of their union for a state that's leaving the bloc? Because the UK is trying to push for something that violates their own treaty with Ireland?
It's up the UK to either accept regulatory alignment with the EU, modify/abandon the GFA or come up with some magical solution.

They seem to have spent the last 2 years hoping for option 3 to appear.

 

[stevoc]

No you don’t understand. There will be no deal without some flexibility on the backstop. Blithely suggesting that it’s a mess so let’s just stop it is naive. There will be an outcry. And much as I do not like the situation I am starting to get pissed off with the EU. What is this? The fecking Hotel California? What is the point of A50 if it can never be enacted without the leaver suffering severe punitive consequence? Ireland will be much worse off with a no deal so they need to move. And now I hear fecking Blair is tramping around Europe canvassing every man and his dog to hold firm because a 2nd referendum is inevitable.

It's a unique situation it isn't the EU's fault that the UK has signed an international peace agreement with another EU member that basically makes it impossible for the UK (specifically NI) to leave the EU in any meaningful way without breaking it.

This should have been considered before calling the referendum or even before triggering article 50 or at any point over the last 3 years.

 

[caid]

This is going round in circles with the same old silly boy argument. It won’t solve anything. The eu agreed a WA, with some other arrangement on the backstop it passes parliament. If they are serious then bloody well talk about it. No deal is the default legal position and May won’t take it off the table. So Ireland needs to think about it.

We have, were preparing for a no deal brexit atm.

the sense is that there was a referendum and however stupid we think the people who voted to leave are, the genie is out of the bottle and it won’t be put back. If they are fecked over I truly believe lives will be lost. But hey if that’s worth avoiding any economic hit then so be it eh. What will the questions be? Do you seriously think that 17.4 million people after having been called stupid for three years are suddenly going to admit the error of their ways and vote against leaving in some way.

What like in Northern Ireland if a hard brexit goes through?

Look I didn’t vote leave but I do have some sympathy with leavers that say we need a FTA and the right to strike deals of our own. No problem, just crash out on WTO rules. Enter left stage the GFA which was overlooked by the EU in A50. So there was EU legislation that failed to take account of all its member states. So now the UK can’t leave on wto without going against the GFA. Some bespoke arrangement is necessary. Else you are saying that A50 is available to everyone except the UK. If the UK invokes A50 it has to accept an EU construct in the form of a CU and if it accepts that, it can’t do its own deals.

A50 is available to everyone, its just complicated to pull Northern Ireland out of it. The English parliament unilatteraly pulling them out of europe against their wishes while consulting with one side exclusively isn't a sound strategy to go about doing it. The entire UK staying in the Customs Union was a way to keep the DUP onside, they voted it against it anyway so drop it and put the customs border in the Irish Sea. UK can make its own trade agreements, job done.

 

[Abizzz]

They passed A50 into law and it does not take account of the GFA. So the EU bears some responsibility for the impass.

So every EU law should have clauses for every eventuality of every member state? Given most member states don't have just one land border with another member state but multiple with different histories between each relation any law would need to have 10s of thousands of clauses (I'm not exaggerating).

Anyways, A50 and the GFA have very little to do with each other. It is the state that the UK achieves after A50 is over that is breaching the GFA, not A50. And if it didn't do that A50 wouldn't deliver a way to leave the EU. It's solely on the UK to achieve a state of things that doesn't breach agreements the UK has entered into.

 

[Foxbatt]

Cameron the bloody fool got merked. He never expected to win a majority and was bluffing about the referendum and he thought the he had to have a coalition with the LidDems, who would stop the referendum.

 

[Wibble]

They seem to have spent the last 2 years hoping for option 3 to appear.

Solution unicorn likes this.

 

[Barca84]

As long as it’s a week in margate

Margate is actually on the up. Lots of creatives heading in that direction...an interesting place.

 

[GloryHunter07]

the sense is that there was a referendum and however stupid we think the people who voted to leave are, the genie is out of the bottle and it won’t be put back. If they are fecked over I truly believe lives will be lost. But hey if that’s worth avoiding any economic hit then so be it eh. What will the questions be? Do you seriously think that 17.4 million people after having been called stupid for three years are suddenly going to admit the error of their ways and vote against leaving in some way.

If people lose jobs post Brexit, lives will be lost.