Another new Brexit thread

[smudgedj]

Came across an online magazine Spiked whose editors confess to be Marxist and hold strong anti EU position and recently comparing the Peterloo massacre with pro remain politics.
Bewildering until you find out they are funded by the Koch brothers.

Non right wing leavers really need to wake up to what this is all about.

That’s a great article; Many thanks for pointing it out.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/16/from-peterloo-to-brexit-anniversary-200/

 

[Vic]

But he did indeed make an excellent point.

It would be an obvious argument to make that the EU - when bringing forward the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties - absolutely should have considered the issue of borders should a member leave and established a protocol/solution in the event of such an occurrence. It is important to note that the GFA was established before both those treaties.

What's important about that? Because it isn't true.

This problem would not exist now had they done so.

That they did not make such consideration speaks volumes of the arrogance of the ideologues

Therefore there is a clear argument that the fault here lies with EU and their development of both treaties was undertaken with utter disregard for the GFA and they are wholly to blame for establishing a situation that has inherent disregard for the GFA

We signed the Maastricht Treaty. The fault (if there is one) must lie with the parties that signed the Treaty that created the EU rather than the EU that the Treaty created - and incredibly, they had "utter disregard" for a GFA that didn't then exist.

I think you underestimate how doing away with customs controls once the single market was established helped toward the GFA. In other words, no EU, quite possibly no GFA.

 

[Vic]

That's sort of the point you are missing. The ones 'banging on' are just a vocal minority that will probably never change their mind. It's the rest that need persuading.

Well, I'm not bothered about the vocal unpersuadables. It's the quiet persuadables I'm after.

You have to ask yourself at what point do we wonder if the thwarting of brexit and attempts to unseat the Pm on the basis of what he might do become unconstitutional or treasonous? I'm surprised Gina Miller isn't more concerned about upholding democracy in this respect.

How could thwarting Brexit be unconstitutional? Nothing in the constitution binds politicians to keeping their word (especially in an advisory referendum). If keeping their word mattered, Gove would not be in the government now as two months ago he couldn't support No Deal because it would break the promises made by the official Leave campaign.

 

[west didsblue]

But he did indeed make an excellent point.

It would be an obvious argument to make that the EU - when bringing forward the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties - absolutely should have considered the issue of borders should a member leave and established a protocol/solution in the event of such an occurrence. It is important to note that the GFA was established before both those treaties.

This problem would not exist now had they done so.

That they did not make such consideration speaks volumes of the arrogance of the ideologues

Therefore there is a clear argument that the fault here lies with EU and their development of both treaties was undertaken with utter disregard for the GFA and they are wholly to blame for establishing a situation that has inherent disregard for the GFA

Oh dear
Maastricht signed 1992, effective 1993
GFA signed 1998, effective 1999

The EC members should absolutely have seen 7 years into the future when they drafted the Maastricht treaty in 1991. Another thing to blame them for.

You don’t even know basic recent history about the subject you’ve been banging on about for 3 years and one you pretend to be some sort of expert on.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Oh dear
Maastricht signed 1992, effective 1993
GFA signed 1998, effective 1999

The EC members should absolutely have seen 7 years into the future when they drafted the Maastricht treaty in 1991. Another thing to blame them for.

You don’t even know basic recent history about the subject you’ve been banging on about for 3 years and one you pretend to be some sort of expert on.

I think his point was that the EU treatise were constructed in such a way as to either arrogantly assume no one would ever want to leave, or deliberately to thwart attempts to leave. It's a fair point and either way it's pretty poor.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well, I'm not bothered about the vocal unpersuadables. It's the quiet persuadables I'm after.


How could thwarting Brexit be unconstitutional? Nothing in the constitution binds politicians to keeping their word (especially in an advisory referendum). If keeping their word mattered, Gove would not be in the government now as two months ago he couldn't support No Deal because it would break the promises made by the official Leave campaign.

It seems like me you only want politicians to keep the promises you like ;-)

 

[bluethrunthru]

I think his point was that the EU treatise were constructed in such a way as to either arrogantly assume no one would ever want to leave, or deliberately to thwart attempts to leave. It's a fair point and either way it's pretty poor.

Or maybe - and just think of this - given the parties involved any discussions prior to the GFA were secret so no matter what the gap is between joining the EC and the EU and the GFA they couldn't have known what was going on. However Maastricht having been signed the GFA was constructed taking that into account thus taking it into account?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Or maybe - and just think of this - given the parties involved any discussions prior to the GFA were secret so no matter what the gap is between joining the EC and the EU and the GFA they couldn't have known what was going on. However Maastricht having been signed the GFA was constructed taking that into account thus taking it into account?

You are absolutely correct. I don't think anyone is suggesting the (at the time) non existent GFA should be taken into account, but the potential volatility border between NI /Ireland should have been looked at in the planning stage. I'm not for one minute suggesting anything underhand went on btw, just a bit shortsighted or overly optimistic.

 

[bluethrunthru]

You are absolutely correct. I don't think anyone is suggesting the (at the time) non existent GFA should be taken into account, but the potential volatility border between NI /Ireland should have been looked at in the planning stage. I'm not for one minute suggesting anything underhand went on btw, just a bit shortsighted or overly optimistic.

From memory folk were just glad to see peace - if it meant nobody could wear brown shoes or banned the use of umbrella's people were still well up for it. Not shortsighted just happy to not have prison officers blown up by car bombs, showbands shot in cross border lanes, soldiers shot or blown up ( Warren point ) no family coaches blown up on the M62 ..... I could go on but won't but all those who go " GFA? Meh" are either stupid or simply didn't live through it. Fucking mortars on number 10, Birmingham pub bombings, knee cappings - how any one can advocate something that even suggest that there is a risk - just a risk - of returning to those days is beyond me. They should hang their heads in shame.

 

[Vic]

I think his point was that the EU treatise were constructed in such a way as to either arrogantly assume no one would ever want to leave, or deliberately to thwart attempts to leave. It's a fair point and either way it's pretty poor.

Give over with this "arrogance" nonsense.

There's no provision in the Acts of Union for the dissolution of the united kingdom of Great Britain. There was no provision in the US constitution for states to leave the Union (and they had a civil war to prove the lack of provision). I guess somewhere in history the creation of a new country or a new economic union included provision for undoing what was being done but they must be rare.

Some might say article 50 was a mistake because it undermined the very concept of ever closer union.

Then there was Churchill's 1940 plan for an indissoluble union berween Britain and France...

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

OK. But you did say about adopting a starting point of where we are now. That starting point now is that Brexit is crap, based on false promises of a deal (and no mention of leaving with No Deal), and about the only argument left for it is based on an opinion of when the sunlit uplands arrive. You're guessing - and that is not rocket science.

No Deal is not "simply" an outcome of negotiations. It is an abrogation of everything everyone in every Leave campaign said about the future relationship with the EU. "No Deal is better than a Deal" was never true, but it was never said before June 2016.

Cameron seemed pretty clear on the action in the event of no deal:-

 

[mcfc1632]

Ah, like the Pool, the team that became known as the Shudders because they shudder won this and they shudder won that.

You shudder put that "straightforward basic planning" to the people instead of promising we'd still be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border (or a deal like Norway, or like Canada).

But the reality is that wasn't put to the people, was it?

God you are obsessed with campaign issues

It was a campaign ffs and both sides lied/exaggerated

You are stuck in 2016

 

[lust overlord]

God you are obsessed with campaign issues

It was a campaign ffs and both sides lied/exaggerated

You are stuck in 2016

One side won with said lies/exaggerations though,especially as the leave lies were a more positive message.

Maybe it's time for the leave politicians involved to come clean, so a line can be drawn through them and the country can move on from 2016.

 

[Vic]

One side won with said lies/exaggerations though,especially as the leave lies were a more positive message.

Maybe it's time for the leave politicians involved to come clean, so a line can be drawn through them and the country can move on from 2016.

Gove did come clean two months ago. It's no good saying we're stuck in 2016 when Gove reminded us of his argument against No Deal (that they promised we'd be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border).

 

[mcfc1632]

The problem with belittling leavers or being a bit sarcy about them, is that although it shuts many of them up they still get one vote each. That's what happened in 2016. Like it or not a (small) majority of the population heard the remain and brexit arguments and quietly decided to put a cross in the leave box. If Remainers want to change that, they can carry on taking the piss and sneering at the majority as is their right, but I'm honestly not sure if it's effective. It doesn't seem to have crossed remain supporters minds that perhaps it wasn't immigration or things written on the side of a bus that caused their argument to fail, but rather the weakness of their own case.

Calmly and accurately stated

I doubt that it will stop any of the sarcasm/snide comments/sneering - I suggest that you should just be satisfied in being spot-on

 

[lust overlord]

Gove did come clean two months ago. It's no good saying we're stuck in 2016 when Gove reminded us of his argument against No Deal (that they promised we'd be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border).

Yeah I know.
Leaves failure to deliver(so far) on their lies is the issue.
Pointing out the remain lies/exaggerations,whataboutery is convenient.

He's right about it being boring though.

 

[mcfc1632]

Really good post and very true.

You can't insult or shame people into or out of an opinion. You can only trust in their intelligence and believe that their view is just as valid as your own, so have a conversation with them to find common ground. We've forgotten that sometime in the last decade or two.

The dehumanisation of Leave voters is something that has bothered me for a long time and I think it applies to the entire right wing spectrum. Right wing views are now cast as ignorant, racist, stupid, backwards and insular. That couldn't be further from the truth for the Tory voting people that I know. They believe in social justice, in the free market, in smaller Government and controlled spending.

Somehow the conversation changed from "I disagree with your view" to "I disagree with your view and you are either morally or intellectually inferior to me because of it" and that's extremely alarming

Another post that gets to the heart of things

On this topic of Brexit I would suggest that situation has become one where leavers are not considered entitled to hold their own opinions

Now Remain voters will insist that is not true, but the old adage "...actions speak louder than words..." applies

Edit: and - as if on cue - the Remain posts following your post are rushed forward to confirm the veracity of what you had said

 

[lust overlord]

Another post that gets to the heart of things

On this topic of Brexit I would suggest that situation has become one where leavers are not considered entitled to hold their own opinions

Now Remain voters will insist that is not true, but the old adage "...actions speak louder than words..." applies

Edit: and - as if on cue - the Remain posts following your post are rushed forward to confirm the veracity of what you had said

To be fair,this incarnation of this Brexit thread has generally been more respectful.
No one has changed their position though ;)

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I have heard that this gym does allow people to use its equipment and not be members of it

My mates Japan and Canada told me they can use it but they aren’t members

And they didn't pay for most of the equipment, either.

And they didn't pay the subscriptions of most of the other members.

 

[Vic]

Cameron seemed pretty clear on the action in the event of no deal:-

You'd love the context - the pound will go down, inflation will go up, it will affect the car industry...

But he was a Remainer. Give me a clip of a Leaver saying we'd leave without a deal. I know Farage said (in response to the Cameron interview) that leaving would be worth the Treasury's no-deal scenario of a £45bn a year hit to the economy but then he was lying about how we'd do other deals with the rest of the world.

That's what I'm talking about. Remainers talking about the horror of No Deal and Leavers playing it down. E.g. Lord O'Donnell on the risk of not being able to negotiate a deal within the two years of article 50 and Dominic Raab responding that the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world and a key export market for the EU: "Of course we'd strike a new deal, and relatively soon, with transitional arrangements if necessary."


This sort of stuff is even in Hansard (May 2016) with Cameron being quizzed in committee and Crispin Blunt playing down going to WTO tariffs.

Cameron: If you take the Crispin Blunt approach and say “Okay, we’ll leave our relationship with Europe, we’ll go to WTO rules, we’ll negotiate with the rest of the world,” you would face massive tariffs and huge dislocation for your economy. I think it would actually be economically much worse than the Norway option.
Crispin Blunt: You would face WTO terms, but I think massive tariffs is something of an exaggeration—another Aunt Sally that should be disposed of.
.Mr Cameron: It is not an Aunt Sally, because they are there for everyone to see.