The Brexit Thread - Page 34 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Brexit Thread


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

The lady's not for turning...

 

The debate really suits her style, keep repeating the same stuff over and over again but in this case, cause no one has any alternative or  better ideas for a negotiated deal, it kind of works. Not seen any video footage today, has she been bustin' any more moves?

Edited by Eisegerwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mariokempes56 said:

The Maybot is stubborn beyond belief.

 

Is she actually going to see this through ?

Don't think so. 

The planets are aligning, we're going to get Boris Johnson. With Donald Trump over there thats going to be some special relationship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

tweet_3559201b.jpg

Mandate fulfilled?

I'd have no problem interpreting the May deal as leaving the EU and so to fulfil the question asked. The question didn't ask what kind of future relationship, did not mention the European Court of Justice or Norway style deal or backstop or border in the Irish sea or anything else.

I'm not saying I like this deal (in some ways it's arguably worse than either properly in or properly out) but it's arguably a reasonable fudge in response to a 52:48 referendum outcome, that is to say, something messy in the middle, very close to still being in, but just out. The muddled will of the British people. 

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

Amazing what a change of editor can do to a paper. 

The editor stance when at the Sunday mail was to remain now been carried over to the daily mail big change from darce who was an ardent Brexiteer I see from the guardian that all Government whips are to convene at parliament later today at all constituency engagements are to be cancelled from huffs post Paul Waugh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

As punishment for the Windrush fiasco, Amber Rudd has been given the Work and Pensions gig. 

To be fair to Amber Rudd, she was absolutely shafted by civil servants at the Home Office.   If you watch the footage of her in front of the committee that caused all the problems, you see her going "Oh, we absolutely don't have any targets for immigration" and the civil service head of the Home Office who was sitting beside her looking very shifty in his seat.  Either he knew there were targets and had lied to Amber Rudd or - probably more likely - he knew that there was a possibility that targets were being used at a lower level but senior management had absolutely no clue what was going on at the ground level.    The more you hear about the Home Office it just seems like a complete law unto itself, especially where immigration cases are concerned.

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, aaid said:

To be fair to Amber Rudd, she was absolutely shafted by civil servants at the Home Office.   If you watch the footage of her in front of the committee that caused all the problems, you see her going "Oh, we absolutely don't have any targets for immigration" and the civil service head of the Home Office who was sitting beside her looking very shifty in his seat.  Either he knew there were targets and had lied to Amber Rudd or - probably more likely - he knew that there was a possibility that targets were being used at a lower level but senior management had absolutely no clue what was going on at the ground level.    The more you hear about the Home Office it just seems like a complete law unto itself, especially where immigration cases are concerned.

Possibly, but there are couple of examples which suggest she was not as innocent as she portrayed. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/30/amber-rudd-played-the-blame-game-over-windrush-and-lost

The experience clearly hasnt deterred her. She must have a thick skin to accept this role at this time , Universal credit is likely to throw her into another nest of vipers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2018 at 8:29 PM, exile said:

I'd have no problem interpreting the May deal as leaving the EU and so to fulfil the question asked. The question didn't ask what kind of future relationship, did not mention the European Court of Justice or Norway style deal or backstop or border in the Irish sea or anything else.

I'm not saying I like this deal (in some ways it's arguably worse than either properly in or properly out) but it's arguably a reasonable fudge in response to a 52:48 referendum outcome, that is to say, something messy in the middle, very close to still being in, but just out. The muddled will of the British people. 

The thing is exile look at what the Leave campaign based itself around. It was touting the leaving of the EU as a golden chance to sign your own trade deals on your terms. That is not happening with this deal. It does not cut all ties with the EU as the Leave campaign wanted as the UK remains tied to some sort of customs deal in order to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. I'd say that has purely and definitely come about by the Tories going into coalition with the DUP. One part of the UK holding closer ties to the EU (Northern Ireland) over the rest of the UK was certainly not spoken about at any time during the campaign. Lets face it this deal is a fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The thing is exile look at what the Leave campaign based itself around. It was touting the leaving of the EU as a golden chance to sign your own trade deals on your terms. That is not happening with this deal. It does not cut all ties with the EU as the Leave campaign wanted as the UK remains tied to some sort of customs deal in order to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. I'd say that has purely and definitely come about by the Tories going into coalition with the DUP. One part of the UK holding closer ties to the EU (Northern Ireland) over the rest of the UK was certainly not spoken about at any time during the campaign. Lets face it this deal is a fiasco.

I agree the deal is seen as so bad that even some Leavers think it is worse than staying in the EU.

However it's difficult to judge anything on the Leave campaign, as they made so many different claims. All we can say is people voted Leave knowing there was no plan and all we'd get was whatever politicians would fight over afterwards, which could include the possibility of this sort of deal. If the question is Does the deal fulfil the question on the ballot, I'd say arguably yes; if the question is, Does it fulfil most Leave voters' hopes then quite possibly no. A conclusion could be that the question on the ballot paper was the wrong question.

But if the question had been more specific, Do you want to "cut all ties with the EU" including the customs union, single market, court of justice, etc etc etc, then it is less likely to have got the Leave result.  It would for a start have shone light on the prospect of a hard border and all sorts of unionist hangups about borders in the Irish Sea, that you refer to. In those circumstances it's quite likely Project Fear would have prevailed, and won it for Remain, as the more staunch staunch unionist eurosceptics would not have risked it  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there again if you were to have a People's Vote and gave three options then I'd bet May's Deal would be bottom of the pile.

Option 1 - A full and complete exit of the EU cutting all ties across the board.

Option 2 - Go with May's Deal

Option 3 - Remain in the EU

May's deal is lunacy. It is keeping the UK tied into trade deals with the EU but without any say on any EU issues some of which will have conitations for the UK. That is totally senseless. It is akin to being involved with a football club as a director but then chucking it in saying you want no more to do with it but then ending up buying a season ticket. You have went from being in a position of influence where you can make a difference to handing that all away but still taking an interest in the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British Government never felt itself bound by whatever Better Together campaign claimed. 'No' voters knew they were handing the fate of Scotland to whatever the British Government wished to honour of the Better Together promises - there was no White Paper for Devo Max to hold them to. If voters had known then, what happened after, it's likely some would have voted Yes instead (though the swing would need to be more than Leave-Remain to make a difference). I don't hear the Tony Blairs and Nick Cleggs calling for indyref 2 though.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

But there again if you were to have a People's Vote and gave three options then I'd bet May's Deal would be bottom of the pile.

Option 1 - A full and complete exit of the EU cutting all ties across the board.

Option 2 - Go with May's Deal

Option 3 - Remain in the EU

May's deal is lunacy. It is keeping the UK tied into trade deals with the EU but without any say on any EU issues some of which will have conitations for the UK. That is totally senseless. It is akin to being involved with a football club as a director but then chucking it in saying you want no more to do with it but then ending up buying a season ticket. You have went from being in a position of influence where you can make a difference to handing that all away but still taking an interest in the club.

I agree the May deal looks weak and am not trying to defend it as a policy gong forward but just answering the original question. (I need to read up more about what's in it, as on Thursday May seemed to be claiming it would stop free movement but that doesn't square with the claim it won't stop immigration.)

I think your take on the three options is quite possible or even most likely, but it hinges on exactly what's in option 1: if you mean a no deal Brexit, or some (other) deal, in which case that deal would need to be specific. It's probably impossible to say what another 'possible' deal would be that would be acceptable to May and the cabinet and the EU, so that's a bit hypothetical. 

If, for the sake of argument, Option 1 means "no deal" (since that is definitely 'available') then things would shift a bit from Option 1 to 2 or 3 but whether that would be enough to keep May's deal at the bottom, I couldn't say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...