Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Hapag Lloyd]

I admit that I am largely ignorant to the economics involved in debates about leaving the European Union, so - in many ways - my opinion on whether we should or shouldn't leave is redundant... However, since the referendum of 2016, I've been appalled by the treatment of my friends, neighbours and respected colleagues who happen to either have different coloured skin, a slightly "funny" accent, a disability, or another sexuality or gender identity.

Decent, lovely (often British) friends, neighbours and respected colleagues, who make major contributions to society, have been intimidated, physically attacked and verbally abused and made to feel extremely unwelcome and frightened - not just by other members of the public - but increasingly by legislation that threatens to separate them from their partners and children.

Brexit being used as blanket justification for prejudice and persecution by individuals, groups (and even political parties) who - prior to 2016 - didn't feel empowered to behave in the way they do now, makes me very sad indeed.

I am - of course - aware that "fear of the unknown" has always led to mistrust and persecution of minority groups; and equally that being a member of a minority group does not make one any more of a "good" (or "bad") person than anyone else... but the sudden rise in extremist behaviour - inspired by the referendum result - is something that terrifies me and something I never expected to experience.

For this reason alone (and there are others - including my own business collapsing as a direct result of "Brexit-fear"), I wish that the original referendum had never taken place, but now that it has, I certainly can't bring myself to back or trust the self-appointed champions of "thug culture".

As a consequence, I simply can't support Brexit - even though I recognise that many who do often have valid and benign reasons for their beliefs. Sadly, I see these people as inadvertently (or blindly) bolstering those who would promote the kinds of prejudice and persecution that lead to hate crimes.

What a crock of schite.

[dsr]

Evening Lancs.

I’m not too sure where to go with this one:

1. Nobody thinks there WILL be an EU army, people think some of the EU top brass WANT an EU army. Irrefutable.
2. That then leads us to question why we would ever choose to be led by people with those aspirations that are so far out of tune with our own thinking (then add to that the Euro)
3. Our enemies may not be EU countries, but apart from the occasional exception, every enemy we have ever had has been a current EU country. Maintaining the integrity of our borders while remaining allies of these countries would seem to be the minimum we need to do.

Point 3 - the EU, the former EU, even membership or otherwise of NATO, are all red herrings when it comes to European wars. When it comes down to it, democracies don't go to war with each other. That's why we are no in danger of war with any of the EU countries, and that will not change as long as all 28 remain democracies.

Pakistan may (God forbid!) prove me wrong.

[Lowbankclaret]

I'm astonished that anyone thinks there is going to be an EU Army.

I'm even more astonished that they think such an EU Army (if ever created) would be independent of NATO.

Whether people like it or not, we are part of Europe and European defence is in our best interests.

Our enemies are NOT EU countries.

Your level of denial is astonishing.

However it’s not going to change.

[martin_p]

Martin was guaranteeing the vote against by MEP's not MP's I believe, I would have to say he is probably right, they would seem to be the only one's who would be voting against the deal in the EU parliament

I would think the majority of uk MEPs will vote against. The Lib Dems have the second biggest representation and they don’t want to leave. Similarly the Labour, SNP and Plaid Cymru MEPs will probably vote against. It may only be the 7 or so Tories that vote for. It also possible that Farage may have some influence in the euro right wing group the BP are part of and garner more votes against.

Now I don’t doubt for one moment that the deal will get through the European Parliament, but I don’t think you’ll find any overwhelming solidarity there.

[dsr]

... my own business collapsing as a direct result of "Brexit-fear"...

That's (to me) the most interesting part of the post. There has been a lot of talk about Brexit fear, and of course there are many politicians who are actively encouraging business uncertainty because they think it's better than the alternative, but I don't know of anyone specifically who has gone bust because of the uncertainty.

What line of business were you in? Who were the fearful people - management, suppliers, customers? What were they afraid of and how did Brexit affect them so much that it affected you?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Point 3 - the EU, the former EU, even membership or otherwise of NATO, are all red herrings when it comes to European wars. When it comes down to it, democracies don't go to war with each other. That's why we are no in danger of war with any of the EU countries, and that will not change as long as all 28 remain democracies.

Pakistan may (God forbid!) prove me wrong.

I would love to agree, but sadly I do recall a few (well, I’m not that old, but I recall my history books ).

The Balkan conflicts (the one I do remember). All were democracies.
The First World War (the Central Powers had elected parliaments I think).
The Boer Wars.
(Going back even further) the famous war between Sparta and Athens.

I’ll give one example where things could go belly up. Last year I went to the Balkans on holiday, and Montenegro people (I went to every corner of the country including the Kosovo border) were hugely pro-Russia, and Russia was pouring money in, even though the country is entering the EU. Not hard to imagine things going sour in that geographical area and us being on the other side of it.

[dsr]

I would love to agree, but sadly I do recall a few (well, I’m not that old, but I recall my history books ).

The Balkan conflicts (the one I do remember). All were democracies.
The First World War (the Central Powers had elected parliaments I think).
The Boer Wars.
(Going back even further) the famous war between Sparta and Athens.

I’ll give one example where things could go belly up. Last year I went to the Balkans on holiday, and Montenegro people (I went to every corner of the country including the Kosovo border) were hugely pro-Russia, and Russia was pouring money in, even though the country is entering the EU. Not hard to imagine things going sour in that geographical area and us being on the other side of it.

The Balkan conflicts were a civil war (or series of civil wars) within one country, Yugoslavia. It was only afterwards that they became distinct democracies.

You have a point with WW! in that Italy was a democracy, but a chaotic one, and I think that Austria and Hungary were at least partly democratic, but not where foreign policy was concerned - the emperor took charge. Ditto Germany, where whatever democratic process they had was very much subordinate to Kaiser Bill.

Boer War? Even then it was the dying embers of colonialism. It won't be repeated in that form.

I stand by the claim that modern democracies, by which I mean stable and fair democracies, don't go to war with each other.

[willsclarets]

Your level of denial is astonishing.

However it’s not going to change.

What doesn't appear to be changing is your denial of the facts. Facts i gave to you and you promptly ignored in favour of a projection of the future, based on absolutely nothing. As Lancs said, these people are not our enemies (which I can't believe I've had to type) Any contribution we make to joint EU security is subject to our approval and more to the point, beneficial to the safety of EU citizens. You're confusing 'army' with collaborative defence strategy. Aren't you? What is it you're scared of? What's the worst case scenario in this context, for staying in the EU.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The Balkan conflicts were a civil war (or series of civil wars) within one country, Yugoslavia. It was only afterwards that they became distinct democracies.

You have a point with WW! in that Italy was a democracy, but a chaotic one, and I think that Austria and Hungary were at least partly democratic, but not where foreign policy was concerned - the emperor took charge. Ditto Germany, where whatever democratic process they had was very much subordinate to Kaiser Bill.

Boer War? Even then it was the dying embers of colonialism. It won't be repeated in that form.

I stand by the claim that modern democracies, by which I mean stable and fair democracies, don't go to war with each other.

I don’t disagree.

My general point is, **** happens. It is hard to predict until it does. I hope those days are over, but history tells us they probably are not.

[Jakubclaret]

What doesn't appear to be changing is your denial of the facts. Facts i gave to you and you promptly ignored in favour of a projection of the future, based on absolutely nothing. As Lancs said, these people are not our enemies (which I can't believe I've had to type) Any contribution we make to joint EU security is subject to our approval and more to the point, beneficial to the safety of EU citizens. You're confusing 'army' with collaborative defence strategy. Aren't you? What is it you're scared of? What's the worst case scenario in this context, for staying in the EU.

Nobody starts off as an enemy, they become enemies, it's very short sighted to have the view just because people are friends now doesn't mean it will stay that way, it's naive to think any different, you seem intent on thinking about now without a thought for the future.

[Jakubclaret]

It doesn't take that long to read "I saw brown people on a billboard and it scared me".

Bore off.

[martin_p]

Bore off.

Glad you’re back Jakub, you were just about to tell me what your pre referendum research had turned up that led you to vote leave.

[Jakubclaret]

Glad you’re back Jakub, you were just about to tell me what your pre referendum research had turned up that led you to vote leave.

I purposely ignored the question it's been done to death previously, I'd rather concentrate on the future with a open mind & in a common sense manner.

[martin_p]

I purposely ignored the question it's been done to death previously, I'd rather concentrate on the future with a open mind & in a common sense manner.

That’s the response I was expecting, thanks for confirming my suspicions.

[dsr]

I don’t disagree.

My general point is, **** happens. It is hard to predict until it does. I hope those days are over, but history tells us they probably are not.

True.

[Imploding Turtle]

Does anyone else remember this guy telling us what research he did that led him to vote Leave?

I purposely ignored the question it's been done to death previously, I'd rather concentrate on the future with a open mind & in a common sense manner.

Anyone?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

[Jakubclaret]

That’s the response I was expecting, thanks for confirming my suspicions.

In fairness I'm not sure if you are the particular poster who asked this before, but I'm pretty sure I've answered the same question more than once, I think it was greenmile & that had to be repeated. Sorry if I'm coming across as arsey I just can't be bothered going into it again.

[If it be your will]

The Balkan conflicts were a civil war (or series of civil wars) within one country, Yugoslavia. It was only afterwards that they became distinct democracies.

You have a point with WW! in that Italy was a democracy, but a chaotic one, and I think that Austria and Hungary were at least partly democratic, but not where foreign policy was concerned - the emperor took charge. Ditto Germany, where whatever democratic process they had was very much subordinate to Kaiser Bill.

Boer War? Even then it was the dying embers of colonialism. It won't be repeated in that form.

I stand by the claim that modern democracies, by which I mean stable and fair democracies, don't go to war with each other.

The problem with the claim 'democracies don't go to war with each other' is largely one of definitions - and time. By the strictest definition of democracy, there are no democracies; by the loosest definition or war, all countries are perpetually at war. There's lots to play with.

The other thing to consider is that democracies are largely a very modern thing. UK universal suffrage is only 91 years old, for instance. There hasn't actually been much time for 'wars between democracies' to happen. Then there is cause and association to untangle: do struggling countries sliding towards conflict also slide away from democracy for the same underlying reason? Do countries already on a peaceful trajectory also generally adopt democracy? Before you know it, even the question of 'wars between democracies?' starts to lose any meaning.

Anyway, a list to look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... emocracies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

In fairness I'm not sure if you are the particular poster who asked this before, but I'm pretty sure I've answered the same question more than once, I think it was greenmile & that had to be repeated. Sorry if I'm coming across as arsey I just can't be bothered going into it again.

Then just link the post.

[Jakubclaret]

Then just link the post.

Are you on a wind up again, I know for a fact I’ve been asked a very similar question maybe phrased slightly differently & my answer would be a very similar answer differently phrased.
You should just believe people when they say they have done something as there is no reason to lie.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you on a wind up again, I know for a fact I’ve been asked a very similar question maybe phrased slightly differently & my answer would be a very similar answer differently phrased.
You should just believe people when they say they have done something as there is no reason to lie.

I wasn't accusing you of lying, i was pointing out a solution for answering the question without repeating yourself.

[Jakubclaret]

I wasn't accusing you of lying, i was pointing out a solution for answering the question without repeating yourself.

I’m about to microwave a quick supper snack up as I’ve been working the back shift, no way on God’s green earth, I’m willing to trawl thru every single post on every single thread to prove a petty point, night I’m hungry. The solution isn’t important to me I’ve nothing to prove, the supper snack is the immediate priority.

[Imploding Turtle]

I’m about to microwave a quick supper snack up as I’ve been working the back shift, no way on God’s green earth, I’m willing to trawl thru every single post on every single thread to prove a petty point, night I’m hungry. The solution isn’t important to me I’ve nothing to prove, the supper snack is the immediate priority.

It's not about proving anything. It's about answering a simple question to further the dialogue between two people.

[Jakubclaret]

It's not about proving anything. It's about answering a simple question to further the dialogue between two people.

Fair enough, the point should be reached now though talking about the exit, why we did or didn’t vote leave or remain that’s past the point or at least it should be, I’m pretty sure every single forum member who’ve contributed to this thread or the other political threads have stated the reasons. Martin hasn’t pressed probably realising this for himself. To enhance “dialogue” we should really be talking about now & further on, you can’t keep looking back & reflecting when something’s happening it’s irreversible & counter productive.

[Lancasterclaret]

Your level of denial is astonishing.

However it’s not going to change.

Well, no

That's because I know what an army is and how it's supplied, maintained and run.

[Imploding Turtle]

Well, no

That's because I know what an army is and how it's supplied, maintained and run.

Is he still trying to claim that an alliance of nations is an army?

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyway, back to reality

Asking people to read and understand every single ramification of a 110 page document in three days that will cause massive generationial change in an entire county is beyond silly.

This casual lack of interest in mere details is why we are in this mess.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I agree with Lancs. it is silly to expect MPs to read this in 3 days, even if most of it has been discussed over the last year without any change.

But MPs have forced the PM’s hand on this by making it obvious they are out to stop Brexit. He cannot risk an extension which may lead to a vote of no confidence or other manoeuvre. That is why it is 3 days - Remain MPs only have themselves to blame, again.

Today’s manoeuvre is about the Custom’s Union. This article (Possible paywall) by MP Greg Hands explains quite perfectly why it is a terrible idea. The best line - “if you do not have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why- ... -3m70bvz7t

[AndyClaret]

The people who are complaining about not having enough time to scrutinize the bill, are exactly the same people who will vote against it regardless. Who knew ?

[Billy Balfour]

DUP 'achievements'

Same sex marriage legalised

Abortion decriminalised

Border about to be introduced in the Irish Sea

Prospect of a united Ireland closer than ever

[martin_p]

I agree with Lancs. it is silly to expect MPs to read this in 3 days, even if most of it has been discussed over the last year without any change.

But MPs have forced the PM’s hand on this by making it obvious they are out to stop Brexit. He cannot risk an extension which may lead to a vote of no confidence or other manoeuvre. That is why it is 3 days - Remain MPs only have themselves to blame, again.

Today’s manoeuvre is about the Custom’s Union. This article (Possible paywall) by MP Greg Hands explains quite perfectly why it is a terrible idea. The best line - “if you do not have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why- ... -3m70bvz7t

Was it MPs who only secured a deal last week? Was it MPs that only published the bill yesterday? Is it MPs insisting we leave by 31st ‘do or die’ rather than ask for a short technical extension to get the deal over the line?

The timing on this is down to one man and one man alone.

[martin_p]

Martin hasn’t pressed probably realising this for himself.

Or more likely prefers to be in bed at 2.00am.

More than happy to read what your research turned up, I’m interested.

[TheFamilyCat]

The people who are complaining about not having enough time to scrutinize the bill, are exactly the same people who will vote against it regardless. Who knew ?

Some of them are but there are plenty of others who have said they will support the bill, providing the details are acceptable. The numbers, indicativeky, are there.

So why is Boris in such a strop? Is it purely because his "do or die" 31st August will be missed or is the bill really that bad that he doesn't want it scrutinised?

[bfcjg]

Some of them are but there are plenty of others who have said they will support the bill, providing the details are acceptable. The numbers, indicativeky, are there.

So why is Boris in such a strop? Is it purely because his "do or die" 31st August will be missed or is the bill really that bad that he doesn't want it scrutinised?

He's missed it already then.

[summitclaret]

Lisa Nandy is going to vote for the deal at the first vote, which surely means it will pass. This lady from a strong leave area with lots of manufacturing talks a lot of pragmatic sense.

Labour has no mandate for a ref and needs to win a GE to get one.

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/lisa-nan ... d-reading/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

So why is Boris in such a strop? Is it purely because his "do or die" 31st August will be missed or is the bill really that bad that he doesn't want it scrutinised?

Surely it's both.
He knows that if it's given proper scrutiny he's going to end up "in a ditch" at the end of the month.

[Spijed]

Sounds like he's threatening to pull everything if he loses the timetable bill, and it's also been suggested that if he loses any vote from here on in he's going to pull it and push for a General election.

[Imploding Turtle]

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/statu ... 13474?s=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

Lisa Nandy is going to vote for the deal at the first vote, which surely means it will pass. This lady from a strong leave area with lots of manufacturing talks a lot of pragmatic sense.

Labour has no mandate for a ref and needs to win a GE to get one.

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/lisa-nan ... d-reading/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have you actually read what she has written?. The way I read it is that she will vote for it at it's 2nd reading but will then during the process that follows support an amendment that keeps us in the CU. I think that this will be the position of many MPs, and maybe even a majority.
From the link you posted;

"That means engaging with the deal in front of us. Not accepting it wholesale, or nodding it through, but scrutinising and debating something real – the legislation that will enact our exit from the EU, which we pledged to uphold in 2016, and 2017 when this parliament was elected, and to work across parliament to see if there is any prospect of agreeing a way forward.

I want to ensure our future relationship is on the basis of a customs union because most of our businesses trade with the EU and the current direction of travel will put many out of business altogether. No country has ever done a trade deal with the EU in just 14 months as the government proposes, so we have a responsibility to make sure there is a bridge to our new trading relationship or risk all the consequences of a no deal Brexit later on.

[martin_p]

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/statu ... 13474?s=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That should be significant for the anti no dealers. There’s little chance of a trade deal in 14 months, especially if an election holds things up. That means all this bill is effectively doing is giving us another 14 months to prepare for no deal.

[dsr]

Sounds like he's threatening to pull everything if he loses the timetable bill, and it's also been suggested that if he loses any vote from here on in he's going to pull it and push for a General election.

That makes sense. Parliament can't negotiate a deal but they can reject any deal that comes along. So if no deal isn't acceptable to Parliament, and neither of the negotiated deals are acceptable to Parliament, then Parliament as it stands has either decided to do nothing or has proved incapable of doing anything. Hence we need a new Parliament. This is the way it has always worked and it's only the Fixed Term Parliament Act that stops it.

The problem is that Labour won't go for it, I reckon. Corbyn might, but he isn't leading the Parliamentary Labour party. McDonnell and his MPs are frightened of an election because they think they will lose, and they're quite happy to let the current stalemate roll on for as long as the EU has patience. If it wasn't that the EU is pretty anxious to keep free trade running, they wouldn't consider an extension.

Labour said they wanted an extension past 31st October so that "no deal" was off the table. Why has that position changed? Won't they want an extension in January because "no deal" isn't off the table at a January departure?

[Jakubclaret]

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/statu ... 13474?s=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's exactly what some people have been saying for days, the government have been set to trigger operation yellowhammer as a contingency dependant on the outcome of the talks, whilst some posters have been insistent a no deal is off the table, I admit it's unlikely but not impossible. When it's possible a situation could change it's wise to keep a open mind it's difficult debating with people with fixed minds & when people are adamant on what will develop before the facts have been established. Quite refreshing to be talking about now & the future, that's what enhances dialogue.

[martin_p]

That makes sense. Parliament can't negotiate a deal but they can reject any deal that comes along. So if no deal isn't acceptable to Parliament, and neither of the negotiated deals are acceptable to Parliament, then Parliament as it stands has either decided to do nothing or has proved incapable of doing anything. Hence we need a new Parliament. This is the way it has always worked and it's only the Fixed Term Parliament Act that stops it.

The problem is that Labour won't go for it, I reckon. Corbyn might, but he isn't leading the Parliamentary Labour party. McDonnell and his MPs are frightened of an election because they think they will lose, and they're quite happy to let the current stalemate roll on for as long as the EU has patience. If it wasn't that the EU is pretty anxious to keep free trade running, they wouldn't consider an extension.

Labour said they wanted an extension past 31st October so that "no deal" was off the table. Why has that position changed? Won't they want an extension in January because "no deal" isn't off the table at a January departure?

It doesn’t make sense. The biggest risk to his deal getting through seems to be the rushed timetable. A short extension with proper scrutiny would see it pass.

[Devils_Advocate]

The problem is the Tory's have completely ignored Labour in this whole process for the last 3 years but due to their own incompetence now need to rely on them to support the deal and you're getting upset at Labour for suddenly not doing what you want them to

[Mala591]

That should be significant for the anti no dealers. There’s little chance of a trade deal in 14 months, especially if an election holds things up. That means all this bill is effectively doing is giving us another 14 months to prepare for no deal.

14 months might be challenging but both the EU and UK appear to be genuinely interested in moving forward at pace. A major advantage is that we start off from having the same trade/employment laws as the EU which most other international trade deals don't have so comparisons are not really valid.

[martin_p]

14 months might be challenging but both the EU and UK appear to be genuinely interested in moving forward at pace. A major advantage is that we start off from having the same trade/employment laws as the EU which most other international trade deals don't have so comparisons are not really valid.

It’s not the starting point that’s the issue, it’s the future. Will the EU want us to stay aligned for an FTA? What if we don’t want to? The Irish border hasn’t gone away, there will still need to be thought on how that works when NI wants to come out of the arrangement in the WA (or avoid moving to it in the first place).

Most commentators agree that the last three years has been what was considered ‘the easy bit’.

[dsr]

Most commentators agree that the last three years has been what was considered ‘the easy bit’.

I supose that's why the parliamentary opposition is so anxious not to move on. They like an easy life and don't want to have to make any hard decisions.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I can see an amendment changing the transition agreement extension bit, but if we were way down the path to a free trade deal can any of us sane in mind really see Boris jumping over the cliff into no deal during that process? All he would do is alienate the EU and upset a large swathe of the country.

I do agree though it isn’t impossible - free trade deals have collapsed before, TTIP being one.

That does pose the question though - this was originally a 2 year transition put in by May as a compromise to Remainers. It wasn’t meant to be indefinite. If no free trade deal is possible, what then? We will have our other new trade deals lined up to kick in. Surely we won’t vote to remain in limbo? But yes, having a vote is probably something the HoC need to ultimately do in 2021.

[martin_p]

I can see an amendment changing the transition agreement extension bit, but if we were way down the path to a free trade deal can any of us sane in mind really see Boris jumping over the cliff into no deal during that process? All he would do is alienate the EU and upset a large swathe of the country.

I do agree though it isn’t impossible - free trade deals have collapsed before, TTIP being one.

That does pose the question though - this was originally a 2 year transition put in by May as a compromise to Remainers. It wasn’t meant to be indefinite. If no free trade deal is possible, what then? We will have our other new trade deals lined up to kick in. Surely we won’t vote to remain in limbo? But yes, having a vote is probably something the HoC need to ultimately do in 2021.

It’s not indefinite. There’s a facility to extend by up to two years (Dec 2022) but that’s it.

And why can’t you see Johnson plunging us into no deal if we’re close to a trade deal. He was more than prepared to plunge us into no deal when we were close to a WA and is still threatening it if the WA isn’t passed by Thursday.

[martin_p]

By the way, as I posted a few days ago, we have to request the extension by 1st July 2020. So in reality we only have eight months to be in a position where we’re confident we’ll have a trade deal by the end of next year. Factor in a delay for an election and Xmas and you’re probably looking at less than six months to tie up a major international trade deal. That’s just not going to happen.