Brexit.

[Kara Spengler]

Yes, they were. However, the main Nationalist (i.e. Irish Nationalist, and advocating unification with the Republic of Ireland) party in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein, who won't take their seats in the House of Commons, because so doing involves swearing allegiance to the British crown. They were pro-Remain. So the majority of Irish MPs are members of the Democratic Unionist Party, who are in favour of Brexit but even more in favour of preventing any sort of deal whereby NI is treated differently from the rest of the UK, since they fear that this would be a precursor to eventual union with the RoI.

Despite having campaigned for Brexit during the referendum, the DUP would be more willing to accept the whole of the UK remaining in the EU than they would a withdrawal agreement that created any sort of customs barriers between NI and the rest of the UK. They don't want a hard customs border between the RoI and Northern Ireland, but still less do they want a border running down the middle of the Irish Sea (or St George's Channel, as I think they prefer to call it) with NI on what the Unionists see as the wrong side of it.

Sounds like the same problems of simplification when you talk about Finland with immigrants. Generally Finland is accepting of immigrants (or at least do not care one way or the other). One of the parties, the Finnish Party (yes, they are named that) is anti-immigrant though so the explanation gets a bit muddled.

 

[Tigger]

That will be a great relief for the thousands that easily could loose their jobs over this matter.


Only one conclusion possible: The British government still has no clue what they are facing with a no deal Brexit.
And that with only 103 days to go until March 29. 74 Business days.

Edited to add the quote and another comment.

For "jobs that could be lost" read "jobs that are being lost". We've seen plenty of reports already of various companies closing or relocating at a cost of a few dozen to a few hundred jobs, but the announcements are getting bigger as brexit gets closer. Like this one, 5000 jobs to go at Jaguar Landrover

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Theresa May explained during the weekend, that she's against a second referendum because she fears that this would increase the political divide in the UK even much, much further.

Another news report was that May wanted to add the possibility of resign the back stop unilitarelly to the deal; the EU was not amused, quite on the contrary, it seems that the patience in Brussels is now wearing thin due to the British behaviour.

 

[Sid]

[QUOTE="Bartholomew Gallacher, post: 18386, member: 296"Another news report was that May wanted to add the possibility of resign the back stop unilitarelly to the deal; the EU was not amused, quite on the contrary, it seems that the patience in Brussels is now wearing thin due to the British behaviour.[/QUOTE]

This is the same as asking for a no deal Brexit. No European leader (except May) will agree with that.

 

[Grandma Bates]

Although I avidly follow this thread, one of the reasons I almost never comment is that I simply don't have the historical and political knowledge to make informed opinions. I've learned a great deal, but still have a long way to go before I could make a meaningful contribution.

Thank you so much to all of you who do contribute to this insightful and informative discussion. I appreciate Eighth's posts as well because she provides giant gaping potholes of ignorance. I benefit from the answers other people are tossing into that void.

eighthdwarf Checchinato presents an extreme view and parts of it are not defensible. She does bring up some important aspects, though, that are not represented on this board. For example, the EU administration is a representative democracy, but I have heard others complain about the process of appointments to institutions other than the European Parliament. Additionally, the EU's actions with respect to individual protections is mixed. There are many examples of how the EU has ensured safe workplaces, but there are other examples where the EU has sided with corporate interests at the expense of the interests of the less powerful. As an example, the long standing drive to push extreme copyright laws has been a frustrating and continuing battle.

I am also largely ignorant of the broader context of what is happening in the EU and appreciate this discussion, but I also try to stay out and listen. The discussion here is largely one sided. For example, when I speak to others about Brexit, one of the arguments I hear is that they believe that the EU is not a sustainable system, and it will eventually break apart. One refrain I hear from them is that, yes, Brexit will be bad, but waiting for what they believe is the obvious conclusion will be worse. While I personally see this as a nihilist argument based more on intuition and faith rather than a factual argument, it is a point of view that should be acknowledged.

Edit to add: When I say "acknowledged" I mean to recognize that the argument exists and do not want to imply anything about its validity.

 

[Sid]

One must keep in mind that the EU is NOT a federal state like the USA. The EU means 28 independent countries working together. Each country is a democracy at it self. The EU has no power to create laws, other than with approval of the member states. Britain can't blame Europe for anything. They were there. They had a say on each and every decision. And if some members don't want things to happen, it will not happen.
As an example the Euro. Some members like the UK and Denmark wanted to stick with their own currencies. So they did.

That the EU parliament has only limited powers, is because the EU is about independent countries working together.
If power would be at the EU parliament, the large countries would have enormous advantages, because they have most parliamentarians.
In the current situation each country has almost the same weight in the decision making, and rightfully so IMHO, because they are all independent countries after all.

There always have been forces, that would like to see the EU unite more into a federal state, bur most countries are against that ATM, so it will not happen any time soon.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

For example, when I speak to others about Brexit, one of the arguments I hear is that they believe that the EU is not a sustainable system, and it will eventually break apart.

Eventually, most political systems change and fall apart. The Soviet Union lasted 70-odd years. The Chinese Empire lasted, in one form or another, for about 2000 years. Do the people who've raised this point have any reason to believe that the EU's eventual break-up will happen any time soon?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

This is a wonderful thread:

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

So basically what I wrote some time ago: the British people refuse to accept who they are

eighthdwarf Checchinato presents an extreme view and parts of it are not defensible. She does bring up some important aspects, though, that are not represented on this board. For example, the EU administration is a representative democracy, but I have heard others complain about the process of appointments to institutions other than the European Parliament. Additionally, the EU's actions with respect to individual protections is mixed. There are many examples of how the EU has ensured safe workplaces, but there are other examples where the EU has sided with corporate interests at the expense of the interests of the less powerful. As an example, the long standing drive to push extreme copyright laws has been a frustrating and continuing battle..

Maybe; I would just like to remind all here, that there has been also a battle about software patents - which were rejected at large by the European parliament back then in 2006, while America has them since ages.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Well, maybe he got that one right, but that is where it actually ends already, because if both sides dislike it equally, it means that both sides are deeply committed and motivated to not let this become a permanent thing. That's what he's not been telling.

It does not matter how much everyone dislikes the backstop, because it will become permanent as no one has an acceptable alternative. There are three options to the border problem:

1. Hard border between Ni and the RoI. This violates the Good Friday Agreement and risks a return to conflict. Literally no one wants this option, but it is the default if there is no deal.​

​

2. Open border on the island with checks on good and people entering or leaving. This option keeps to the letter of the Good Friday agreement but violates the spirit as it favors the Republican desire for a united Ireland separate from Great Britain. Except there is a reason the RoI renounced forcible reunification: they know that an unwilling Unionist core would restart the conflict. It is reunification in name only. This also places NI in different regulatory requirements than the rest of the UK for goods.​

​

3. Open borders on the island and no checks between Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is option only works if the UK follows EU regulation so that goods are equivalent across the border. Either remaining in the EU as members or the backstop mechanism achieves this result. But it ain't really Brexit. This option respects both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement which was possible because both the UK and the RoI are members of the EU at the moment.​

So you must pick one option. The fabled "technological solutions" still requires checks on goods and people at some point, so it is really option 1 or 2.

At some point, the UK must pick an option. There is no Option 4 that makes everybody happy. If there was, it would be in the agreement on the table. The backstop exists because even though nobody likes it, the other options are all worse, not because they can't agree on some better option. I can't see Parliament getting much wiser any time soon, and this is a British problem. The UK made it a problem, and they have to commit to a solution knowing full well the consequences of those solutions. I would say that remaining in the EU is the best solution, the challenge now is getting the Brexiters to realize that EU membership is the least bad solution.

eta: Also worth remembering that a future trade deal can be vetoed by a single EU member. Leaving with or without an agreement now means dealing with Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and fishing rights when the EU members have even more leverage in the negotiations.

 

[Tigger]

Well May's survived a no confidence vote from her party so now Corbyn is trying for a no confidence vote in the commons.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Corbyn tables no confidence motion in Theresa May as meaningful vote date confirmed - follow live

Wow. =

Raising a point of order in the Commons, Mr Corbyn said: "It's very clear that it's bad, unacceptable, that we should be waiting almost a month before we have a meaningful vote on the crucial issue facing the future of this country. The Prime Minister has obdurately refused to ensure a vote took place on the date she agreed, she refuses to allow a vote to take place this week and is now, I assume, thinking the vote will be on January 14 - almost a month away. This is unacceptable in any way whatsoever.

So, as the only way I can think of ensuring a vote takes place this week, I'm about to table a motion which says the following: 'That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the Withdrawal Agreement and framework for future relationships between the UK and European Union.'

That will be tabled immediately, Mr Speaker."

 

[Tigger]

Looks like May walked out of the commons at that point.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Ahhhhh.. okay, it's a much less significant step than I'd been thinking. Same page, earlier in time:

Defeat in a no confidence motion would increase pressure on the prime minister. But unlike a no-confidence motion in the government, a vote on Ms May as an individual has no power to topple the government and force an election.

Is this merely theatrical, then?

 

[Tigger]

 

[Spirit Lapis]

TBH I'm shocked that May survived the no-confidence voting. She needs to fuck off all ready. I'd much rather have Mr Bean running country then Her. Our government are idiots. Brexit should have been over long ago. Instead it just keeps getting dragged out more and more. I voted to leave. *shrugs* At this point I highly doubt we're even going to get a Brexit.

 

[Tigger]

TBH I'm shocked that May survived the no-confidence voting. She needs to fuck off all ready. I'd much rather have Mr Bean running country then Her. Our government are idiots. Brexit should have been over long ago. Instead it just keeps getting dragged out more and more. I voted to leave. *shrugs* At this point I highly doubt we're even going to get a Brexit.

What do you mean it should have been over long ago? You understand that the withdrawl process takes 2 years, yes? You understand that after 40 years of unifying ourselves with the EU that even 2 years is a ridiculously short period of time?

 

[Beebo Brink]

What do you mean it should have been over long ago? You understand that the withdrawl process takes 2 years, yes? You understand that after 40 years of unifying ourselves with the EU that even 2 years is a ridiculously short period of time?

If Brexit actually happens, ya'll will be leaving for the next decade.

 

[Casey Pelous]

TBH I'm shocked that May survived the no-confidence voting. She needs to fuck off all ready. I'd much rather have Mr Bean running country then Her. Our government are idiots. Brexit should have been over long ago. Instead it just keeps getting dragged out more and more. I voted to leave. *shrugs* At this point I highly doubt we're even going to get a Brexit.

It's a little more complicated than flouncing from an online forum, and the aftermath is clearly going to be catastrophically worse, though you certainly seem to have bought the marketing jive that says it isn't.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]