Brexit

Where no two people are likely to agree.
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Brexit

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: A little bit of cross posting going on.........which is good, all comes out in the wash.
Answer my direct question.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Direct Question to Matt: No 1: What does that have to do with Assange?
Assange is a tool of the Russian GRU.
No Matt. That is non-responsive. Your knee jerk inflexible response to any direct question. What does Assange handing off a usb drive to Farage got to do with anything inappropriate? You post as if providing THE TRUTH is inappropriate if the TRUTH is against your own interests? Is that what bothers you Matt?

Direct Question to Matt No 2: What is wrong with Assange giving info to Farage if what is given in "the truth."

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am
That's he is fighting extradition to the USA.
Well, at least that is an accurate "truth." Direct Question to Matt No 3: Who in their right mind would not fight extradition to anywhere else on charges of publishing the truth?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am
Did you forget?
This is a very common meme you use Matt. Direct question to Matt No 4: Why do you challenge people that they have forgotten anything when they are clearly DISAGREEING WITH YOU. Have you failed to notice this Matt?.......have you................forgotten? You do seem to be somewhat drug addled.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am
Now answer my direct question. Where did the £8,000,000 pounds funding for UKIP's "leave the EU" come from and why is the UK National Crime Authority launching a prosecution? [/color] :lol: :lol:
Ain't that sumthin? I did answer your question cross post wise.......you see Matt: I am better than you because I do routinely answer direct and indirect questions. It makes me a better interlocutor. Observe and learn. ...............and...........please correct my pure guess if the $$ did not come from Putin. Now, why is the UK National Crime Authority launching a prosecution?=======> Ummmmmm, I'm kinda guessing again, but could it be because the action of taking money from foreign gubments is against the Law?................feeding right back to Direct Question: what does that have to do with Assange????
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am
....but Bobbo.... I thought you hated people who didn't tell the truth. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hate? I probably have said so on several occasions. Most liars though are just pitiful excuses for hooman beings..........until they have POWER to implement their stupidity on others. Hate would be appropriate, but I don't need to go there. Too consuming.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:55 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: A little bit of cross posting going on.........which is good, all comes out in the wash.
Answer my direct question.
I think/assume I did as that is MY pattern. Hmmmmm.........and you have answered NONE of my direction questions. THAT is YOUR pattern.

Quite telling............you do know what that tells ........right? I'm make that a rhetorical, as I've answered it for you multiple times. I know: still a mystery to you. ...............bwahahahahahaha.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:24 am

So, the Flash Food appears to have trickled out. Lets add them up.

Direct questions Answered by bobbo without prompting: 100%

Direct questions Answered by Matt with requests to do so: ZERO.

Here they are:

1. Matthew Ellard wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:40 pm
2) The UK Electoral Office has referred the matter to prosecution to the National Crime Authority, in November 2018 for UKIP's funding source lying to parliament.

Direct Question to Matt: No 1: What does that have to do with Assange?

2. Direct Question to Matt No 2: What is wrong with Assange giving info to Farage if what is given in "the truth."

3. Direct Question to Matt No 3: Who in their right mind would not fight extradition to anywhere else on charges of publishing the truth?

This will be a running list showing Matts..............character. Knowing myself, I won't keep it up for long.......but who knows? Each nefarious red herring/distraction by Matt is motivating. Like Assange: I'm all about the truth, especially those that hit close to the bone.

Know what I mean?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:30 am

Ha, ha................and Yes..........oh so very YES: I'd be happy to accept all funding from Putin: given I'll post what I post anyway.

See how that works? The Truth: lots of enemies will support it. Its still the Truth. Ain't that a bitch?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:59 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:14 am
Poodle wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:40 pm
I have never hidden the fact that I'm a leaver, but I've attempted to comment on events in a neutral manner. I have neither exaggerated nor diminished any of the actions taken by the people involved.
I'd have to parse your comments to confirm that, nothing otherwise comes immediately to mind EXCEPT FOR your position not to allow another Referendum. Time has passed........2 years? The public is MORE EDUCATED as to the real world consequences of any Brexit. The salve of making a protest vote that was assumed would not make a difference is OVER.

Most telling as a partisan: you have given NO SUBSTANTIVE reason why Brexit.

What on balance benefit(s) do you see to yourself or to UK in this action? I am honestly curious. To me: its all emotions overriding facts......emotions can be valid.....just how much money are they worth?
Your response reflects the fact that you haven't read much of what I've said here about Brexit, bobbo. It was on this forum that I stated that my referendum vote was to stay in the EU. I've also explained on this forum that my democratic inclinations mean that I accepted the result of the referendum, which was not in agreement with my personal vote. Those same democratic inclinations also fuel my opposition to referendum Part 2, as the result of the first referendum has not yet been implemented.
Substantive ... having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable. Brexit should happen because a referendum was held which said that Brexit should happen. That is why I support Brexit. It's called democracy in action, bobbo. Argue the toss, then vote, then bring the result of the vote into reality. The UK has pretty regular general elections - so, in your world, does that mean that the winning party should not enter government until we've had another general election?
My stance is straightforward and unequivocal, although I allow myself a little cynicism and a shitload of skepticism. Which bit do you not understand?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:24 am

Poodle: you write admirably well. But its all.............evasive.

You still have not answered why you ..............oh........ok...............you are personally against Brexit BUT you ignore your SUBSTANTIVE REASONS for the PRETEXT of the Brexit vote otherwise?............................ JUST NOT CREDIBLE. And if actually true.....truly: BAD THINKING.

My view, which really is in a vacuum: the REF was a vote about attitude and emotions: "Do you like Brussels telling you what kind of vacuum cleaners you can buy?"==========>who wouldn't vote NO?

But, the finally STARKLY revealed truth: Do you want a Brexit with all the attendant and consequential effects?.....I don't know, my gut says: No.

I'm sad to say: I don't believe you Poodle. If you want to negate your own thinking on the matter in favor of the REF.........there is absolutely no reason at all not to support holding another REF. Your position as presented is too thin.

buck up: whats really going on?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am

Interesting noises coming from today's newspapers ...
EU elections are coming up in May (no - the month rather than the politician). Apparently, there have been murmurings in France and Germany about the increasing usurpation of executive power by the EU Commission and, it is thought, if the elections go the way they're expected to, there will be a strong movement to curtail the activities of the Commission and remove it as the mouthpiece of the EU, making the European Parliament rather than its civil service the ultimate and everyday ruling body. That would probably change the attitudes of lots of Brexit supporters but, unfortunately, comes two months after the Brexit deadline. Such a thing would be welcomed by most members of the EU (although not, it was thought until now, France and Germany - it just shows how wrong thought can be).
If this is true and not simply newspaper chatter, watch for the UK asking for an extension to the consultation period so that we're still there if the revolution comes to pass. Brexit, if all this is true, may not happen after all.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:52 am

I thought EU offerred an extension period.........that was I ASSUME reject........I ASSUME by May?

Its always amusing how often broad generally phrased questions are answered opposite of the detailed consequential ones.

there was NO REF on "Do you want Brexit with the May plan as the result outcome"........nor I assume: Do you want a Hard Brexit defaulting to WTO rules? My impression the answer to both more detailed propositions would be NO....AND SINCE that is the reality: was there any conceptually valid Brexit vote at all?

..........................I say No.

.............................................Happy to be shown why this thinking is wrong.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:06 am

For crying out loud, bobbo - do some reading! The extension period was never 'offered' - it is implicit in the exit process.
As for the wording of the referendum conditions, it was as simple as it could possibly be, as suited to the demands at that time - it asked whether you wanted to stay in or come out, with no ifs and buts at all. A bit like a general election, really, which asks who you want to vote for with no mention of policies.
What was on the ballot paper in the last US Presidential election?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:14 am

Poodle: I accept I can be wrong on every "detailed" point raised. ........but.....just reading the dictionary: whats the difference between "offered" and "implicit"? I don't have a clue. I was just tagging along posts made in this very thread. Offers of extension made..........and not picked up on by "the UK" for reasons that weren't clear at all. Ha, ha.......my hazy memory is that you supported no extension "because of the REF".....a ruse/PRETEXT on its face.
it was as simple as it could possibly be, as suited to the demands at that time
WOW, MOM, WOW: Poodle. Please read and understand and "contextualize" what you have written yourself. IT THE VERY HEART AND SOUL of why REF #2 is virtually SCREAMED OUT! The demands of 'TODAY" are different.

Gotta be a partisan thinking throwing up (sic...exactly correct wording) "the people have spoken with REF #1." I mean........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ just {!#%@} look.

Partisans refuse to look.

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:33 am

Bobbo - the EU Commission pointed out that a delay was permissible - they made no offer. It's already written into law. The UK has never rejected an extension - it has simply not called for an extension. The UK may or may not call for an extension between now and the end of the month of May. The fact that it is already written into law makes it implicit (or even explicit if you happen to be reading EU law at the moment).
A referendum is couched in the simplest possible terms to avoid possible interpretation difficulties. Here's what was actually on the ballot paper ...

Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?

And there were two tick boxes on the paper which were identified in a similar manner. Given that you had to have enough intelligence to get to the polling station in the first place, it was impossible to be confused. However, feel free to point out how the insidious wording could have misled anyone.
The referendum result is legally binding because it was followed by an Act of Parliament to leave the EU. It would take another Act of Parliament to repeal that which, in turn, would involve gaining a majority in Parliament to stay in the EU. There is no majority in Parliament to stay in the EU, as we have seen several times over the past week or so. Parliament is haggling over the method, not the fact.
Now can you see the problems inherent in a second referendum?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:16 am

Good info re delay. Seems like anyone should?

The issue is not whether a clear simple statement is confusing or not but rather what information is being called for BASED ON WHAT ASSUMPTIONS? As the assumptions are a blank slate, you are missing the import. On purpose I assume?

WOW, MOM, WOW: For the first time, I looked up the wording of the REF. Here it is, as always from the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... m_question :
"Referendum question
Sample referendum ballot paper

Research by the Electoral Commission confirmed that its recommended question "was clear and straightforward for voters, and was the most neutral wording from the range of options ... considered and tested", citing responses to its consultation by a diverse range of consultees.[62] The proposed question was accepted by the government in September 2015, shortly before the bill's third reading.[63] The question that appeared on ballot papers in the referendum under the Act was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Was that really it?

I mean: defective on its face. In California REF''s there is supporting material about the probable consequences one way or the other.

Ha, ha...........I really admire my guts. So right...so often. You need a REF just to get peoples attention to study up on the issue and KNOW what they are voting on. The REF you guys used look more like those idiot interviews in the street.

Why not ask: "Would you like your taxes to be zero?"

Would you like a pony????

completely retarded.....................no wonder you are in trouble. You deserve it.

Now, onward and upward as your mistake was SO OBVIOUS at the beginning. NOW, that people have had the Reality Check of some of the pros and cons of what a hard, soft, Brexit means AND the reality of the Gubment being totally inca[pable of negotiating anything other than a hard Brexit: TELL ME SUBSTANTIVELY WHY: a second REF should not be held?

The wiki says the REF is non-binding. You post that it is. Hardly matters....the news clips I see is that given the disfunction on display of Parliament, a second REF appears to be the best political play. So.....if your objection is purely procedural (a thin pretext)....why not go ahead and let Parliament vote the authority for a second binding REF? \

Ha, ha: ITS ONLY PARTISANS who want to stop history at the date they approve of. Isn't that obvious???????????????????????????????????????

Do you deny that the electorate is NOW more informed about what "Do you want to Brexit" means than they were two years ago? Why not act on that REALITY?????????

NO...........I see no problems AT ALL in a second REF. A continued Brexit would confirm what you say you think you are bound by ((((BS)))))). A vote to stay in shows the public has educated itself and doesn't want to be a victim of Putins Grand RISK playing. Note: its not that Putin wants this or that.............but WHY Putins wants this or that. On balance.......if the voters are basically 50/50 in a vacuum, should Putin's thumb point in the right direction, even if you don't know why?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11975
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Brexit

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:01 pm

Poodle wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:59 am
- so, in your world, does that mean that the winning party should not enter government until we've had another general election?
In the US, in 2016, that would have been a loud 'YES".
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:37 pm

I'm sorry, bobbo - I assumed it was the $5 argument you wanted, but I now see it's the $10 one you wanted. Please remit another $5.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:06 pm

Actually..............Poodle.............I do feel like I'm pushing you not "too hard" but in an area you don't want to go. In my world, I'm only asking for a reason/explanation/statement that can be and is supported. Not simply made, finished, and assumed. My terminology. I'm pragmatic, not monetary. Arguments/positions either work or they don't. Doesn't matter what the charge is......................kinda like Brexit??

Gee, if my interest maintains, I will look up what the Norwegian Example is, and maybe even why there can't be a "casual" border between Ireland and N. Ireland...........and then even why the UK didn't conquer the entire Island? Must be a good reason for that....that every good UK'er knows? Usually, its because the invader has used up its supplies and continuing on isn't seen as worth the cost?..........but then they come back 30 years later when another crop of cannon fodder is ripe.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:38 pm

That's a good idea, bobbo - look a few things up. One point, though - the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland IS open at this very moment. The history of Ireland is openly available on the net. Yes, I recommend that you look up the Norway situation, and you can ask Dan (OutOfBreath) all about it, as he is Norwegian. For the same reasons, you should look up the deal Canada has with the EU. There are plenty of Canadians to choose from if you need clarification.
But a question from me ... Why do you think that the British colonies in America took up arms to throw Britain out?
Oh - re-read the last few posts. I very clearly told you how the outcome of the referendum is legally binding. You must have missed it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:13 pm

Poodle: we really are passing each other by. Of course the border between NI and I is open at this moment. Its the REF that supposedly will change that and my question was "does it really need to?" Thats the Back Stop issue if I'm not mistaken that somehow any rational solution supposedly keeps the UK in the EU?.....I think my MSNBC feeds feature nothing but advocates skewing the news for one result or the other?

Likewise, Norway has nothing to do with the REF issues....I just keep hearing it mentioned as "another way to go" that no one is considering? Haven't heard Canada dragged into any discussion as yet.

Lots of History (disputed) about why the colonies revolted. Taxation without representation supposedly: the colonials acting like Englishmen? Does that have anything to do with Brexit?..................OH.............I get it: we can't have a Second REF to rejoin the UK? I assume that is your point?
► Show Spoiler
My memory of the last few posts has NO analysis of why the REF is "legally binding" so as to prevent holding a second REF. If I'm wrong on that point, please confirm. Its just plain silly to take the position that what was done any amount of time ago is somehow binding today. Thats the dead hand of history violating any free people's autonomy. Only a partisan would make such a statement.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:32 pm

The referendum was quickly followed up by an Act of Parliament on Brexit saying that the UK was committed to leaving. So - the result of the referendum is enshrined in law. A second referendum cannot override that unless the original Act is repealed and replaced by another. As the majority of MPs do not support any such thing, the position of the UK leaving the EU cannot be overridden by another referendum.
As to the Irish border, the UK's position is that it does NOT need to be physical. Both the UK and Irish governments have stated that they are not going to put up a hard border. The EU Commission has taken advantage of that to invent the backstop arrangement meaning that the UK can be tied into the EU forever and a day whether they like it or not. However, Sweden and Norway have a mutually open border with only occasional physical checks. Sweden is an EU member, Norway is not, although it does have a border agreement with the EU. So, an open border between EU and non-EU states is shown to be possible. The backstop arrangement is therefore unnecessary.
Both Norway and Canada have trade deals with the EU and are used as possible models to emulate but with other additions (hence Norway+, Canada+, and Canada++.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:56 pm

At last - some genuine news.
Michel Barnier, chief EU negotiator, having consistently delivered the "It's the Chequers deal or nothing and time has run out" message, has now said that further negotiations are possible as long as the Brits soften their demands (or, as the UK's Brexiteers would have it, as long as the UK capitulates on staying within the Customs Union). This will, of course, be interpreted more liberally in UK circles - i.e. if you can negotiate at all, then anything is up for discussion.
It's the first blink.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Brexit

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:17 pm

There's a problem with walls, however. How do you negotiate a compromise between having a wall and not having a wall (US) or between having an open border and not having an open border (UK)? If that's all that's on the table, so to speak, then the No-Deal Exit is certain.

I can't help remembering what happened when Groucho Marx was told he couldn't join an athletic club because he was Jewish. He said, "Well, can my son go into the pool up to his waist? He's only half Jewish." Now THAT'S how you deal! (And please spare me any snarky remarks to the effect that the Jewish half would be under water.)
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Brexit

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Direct Question to Matt No 2: What is wrong with Assange giving info to Farage if what is given in "the truth."
1) The information came from the Russian GRU.
2) Farange then lied and said he didn't get information from Assange
3) Assange works for Wikipedia which is controlled by the Russian GRU.


Matthew Ellard wrote: That's he is fighting extradition to the USA.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Well, at least that is an accurate "truth."
Assange also skipped bail in the UK. He is a criminal and will probably do 2-6 months in Reading Gaol upon his release from the USA
Matthew Ellard wrote: Now answer my direct question. Where did the £8,000,000 pounds funding for UKIP's "leave the EU" come from and why is the UK National Crime Authority launching a prosecution? :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ain't that sumthin?
Yes. It is illegal for foreign governments to pay for propaganda in UK and USA elections. Are you are pretending you didn't know this.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I am better than you because I do routinely answer direct and indirect questions.
No you are not. You are a senile old man who claimed he fought in the Yom Kippur War for the USA. . When I directly asked you to list all the characteristics that you claimed made me a neoconservative, you ran away. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Brexit

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:42 pm

Poodle wrote: For crying out loud, bobbo - do some reading!
That will never happen.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Brexit

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Direct Question to Matt: No 1: What does that have to do with Assange?
Manafort, director of the Trump campaign secretly meets with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Trump's campaign promises removal the USA from Europe and winds back sanctions against Russia. Wikileaks releases documents timed to give trump the maximum advantage. DoJ and FBI launches investigation into Trump and Assange

Farage , director of the UKIP campaign secretly meets with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy. UKIP's campaign promises removal the UK from Europe and winds back sanctions against Russia. Wikileaks releases documents timed to give UKIP the maximum advantage. UK National Crime Authority launches investigation against UKIP and Assange

Assange promoted right wing candidates for Russia's advantage and is supported by the Russian GRU controlled Wikileaks.


Tell me if I need to draw you cartoons to explain this again. You still seem to forget the basics when convenient for you.

My Turn
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: "I fought in the Yom Kippur War"
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The Yom Kippur War was an opportunity for the military industrial complex
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I delivered shells to Israel
Well Bobbo. As the USA didn't fight in the Yom Kippur War, why are you claiming this nonsense. Secondly. if you claim you were delivering shells aren;t you simply the delivery boy for the military industrial complex?

My point is, you seem to forget what you posted.....what other people posted.....and what the facts are ....every time you make a post.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:54 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:17 pm
There's a problem with walls, however. How do you negotiate a compromise between having a wall and not having a wall (US) or between having an open border and not having an open border (UK)? If that's all that's on the table, so to speak, then the No-Deal Exit is certain.
Yes, indeed, UoG. Although there's actually a good model for an Ireland/UK border and that's the Ireland/UK border. It was opened for people in 1923, and people are the most important things if you're stopping a war. It was opened for goods in 1973, when both countries joined the EEC (now the EU). It's worked well (with an obvious period of hiccups) for almost a century. Lots of people who are now alive would not have existed had this not happened. The deal predates the EU by a long way.
But now it's a closed border or the 'backstop' according to the EU Commissioners. I call that blackmail, in that it forces a situation in which the entire UK is asked to enter into the backstop arrangement rather than solely Northern Ireland. It is NEVER going to be acceptable and appears to be a ploy to paint the UK as intransigent.
In that respect, they're right. The UK will never accept it. The DUP will never accept a backstop limited to Northern Ireland, as such a situation isolates N. Ireland from the rest of the UK. The EU Commission, unless they are completely stupid, know this. So ... ... why are they insisting on it? It's a problem they have invented all by themselves.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:41 am

Poodle, we still aren't connecting as the tone/substance of your response is explaining to me what is pretty much the basis on which I form my own position. Only small dithering details make any difference but without import. On the main point, "to me" you have confirmed a Second REF can be held if the desire to do so among those with the power/interest to do so want to. IE: just like it always is, nothing "binding" as you throw up.

To your detriment, I think you have failed to address the "main" justification for a second REF: its two years later and "the people" have had time to actually study the issues and effects with much of the validity campaign rhetoric for and against being established. The validity of any vote being based on being INFORMED. With the UK gubment unable to strike a soft Brexit it seems to me the reasonableness of a 2nd REF is more than apparent.

Do you want Brexit now?

I don't know.........seems to me inherently unavoidable that to vote for Brexit initially includied the notion that a HARD exit was very much in the cards? To the degree that was true, I don't see why there is any dispute/controversy over it now. iow: Yes....I vote for a Hard Brexit but of course if you can finesse better terms, go ahead and do so. Too simple? This very much goes to the neutral wording of the initial REF AND the justification for a second one.

Are you for a Hard Brexit?.........or only one where we keep all the benefits of Union but reject all the obligations? What should the REF have really asked?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:54 am

Whats the matter Matt: no one to play with?

When I flew my cargo airplane into Tel Aviv with two F-16 fighters shadowing me one mile behind me and I was delivering artillery shells while the newspapers were full of reports about Israel fighting for its life on all fronts and YOU pull up the link confirming this was all part of the USAF operation known as Nickle Grass..........what would you call it? Did you forget how a cargo pilot "fights" in a military operation? Of personal reflection, I still take some pride in that on landing one of the oil pressure gauges showed zero oil pressure. On any regular mission, the plane would be grounded until that got fixed.....99.99% of the time, a gauge issue. But....given the situation, I didn't even ask.......I just waited the 60 minutes for the plane to be off loaded and I flew the airplane to Sicily for repairs. Also of note, the Israels had a nice touch: they had good looking stewardesses from El Al give each crew member a red or white rose AND a "Campaign Medallion" for us to pin on our uniforms. I even got a kiss on the cheek and a warm thank you. Much better than the scowls I got the day before in Lebanon for delivering medical supplies....in my USAF plane that had been painted all white while wearing civilian clothes. "That'll fool 'em" is what all we pilots thought. Its worked on you Matt. Ha, ha.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Brexit

Post by OutOfBreath » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:01 am

Poodle wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:32 pm
However, Sweden and Norway have a mutually open border with only occasional physical checks. Sweden is an EU member, Norway is not, although it does have a border agreement with the EU. So, an open border between EU and non-EU states is shown to be possible. The backstop arrangement is therefore unnecessary.
Both Norway and Canada have trade deals with the EU and are used as possible models to emulate but with other additions (hence Norway+, Canada+, and Canada++.
It must be noted here that we are part of Schengen and have free movement of people as well as goods over the border. We also accept all regulations on goods in the eu.
That's not what uk wants i think. If you want to stop free movement (reasserting sovereignty or whatever) then it gets more difficult. For all practical purposes we are inside the eu market. Necessarily since internal borders are completely open, the outer border of the market needs much tighter control. If the uk wants to be outside, that is the rather inevitable consequence i think. Unless you want to adhere to most eu regulations anyway like we do... ( but that would be within limits of "leaving the eu" as formulated i think)

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Brexit

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:Whats the matter Matt: no one to play with?
No Bobbo. I have heaps of people to play with. I read their manifestos and check facts, remember, and you don't) :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:When I flew my cargo airplane into Tel Aviv with two F-16 fighters shadowing me one mile behind me and I was delivering artillery shells while the newspapers were full of reports about Israel fighting for its life on all fronts and YOU pull up the link confirming this was all part of the USAF operation known as Nickle Grass
....but Bobbo, you were claiming the Yom Kippur war was an opportunity for the military industrial complex......does that mean you were a "delivery boy" for the military industrial complex? Are you now changing tunes and saying this was normal USAF activities? Answer the question.

By the way the USA wasn't at war with Syria and Egypt, so why are you claiming you fought in the Yom Kippur war? Did you get out of the plane and beat up some Egyptians? :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote: Did you forget how a cargo pilot "fights" in a military operation?
No Bobbo. Dad was Group Captain in the RAAF and I lived on bases. Delivering ammunition to a buyer doesn't mean you are fighting does it? Is the USA at war with Russia for delivering weapons to the Ukraine last month?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:22 am

Ok Matt..........for some reason, I agree. I did not fight in the Yom Kippur War. I only participated. Happy now?

Was I a delivery boy for the MIC?//// Command might disagree, but I thought so along with Joseph Heller.

I don't understand what your question you demand I answer is. Was/Is it normal USAF activities to fly airplanes?==Yes. For Cargo Planes to deliver Cargo?==Yes. Too many pork tacos???
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:23 am

OutOfBreath wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:01 am
Poodle wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:32 pm
However, Sweden and Norway have a mutually open border with only occasional physical checks. Sweden is an EU member, Norway is not, although it does have a border agreement with the EU. So, an open border between EU and non-EU states is shown to be possible. The backstop arrangement is therefore unnecessary.
Both Norway and Canada have trade deals with the EU and are used as possible models to emulate but with other additions (hence Norway+, Canada+, and Canada++.
It must be noted here that we are part of Schengen and have free movement of people as well as goods over the border. We also accept all regulations on goods in the eu.
That's not what uk wants i think. If you want to stop free movement (reasserting sovereignty or whatever) then it gets more difficult. For all practical purposes we are inside the eu market. Necessarily since internal borders are completely open, the outer border of the market needs much tighter control. If the uk wants to be outside, that is the rather inevitable consequence i think. Unless you want to adhere to most eu regulations anyway like we do... ( but that would be within limits of "leaving the eu" as formulated i think)

Peace
Dan
You make a good point, Dan. I was, rather than using Norway/Sweden as an example to follow, showing that there are multiple solutions to trading with the EU without actually being a member, and that it's possible to have an open border between independent states if there's good reason and good will.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Brexit

Post by Nessie » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:37 am

Norway and Sweden have not been involved in any sort of conflict like NI and the Republic have, with The Troubles. Despite it not making the news much, there are still troubles (the small t is deliberate). The result is a fragile border situation totally unlike the Norway, Sweden border (or Poland, Belarus etc).
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:41 am
Poodle, we still aren't connecting as the tone/substance of your response is explaining to me what is pretty much the basis on which I form my own position. Only small dithering details make any difference but without import. On the main point, "to me" you have confirmed a Second REF can be held if the desire to do so among those with the power/interest to do so want to. IE: just like it always is, nothing "binding" as you throw up.

To your detriment, I think you have failed to address the "main" justification for a second REF: its two years later and "the people" have had time to actually study the issues and effects with much of the validity campaign rhetoric for and against being established. The validity of any vote being based on being INFORMED. With the UK gubment unable to strike a soft Brexit it seems to me the reasonableness of a 2nd REF is more than apparent.

Do you want Brexit now?

I don't know.........seems to me inherently unavoidable that to vote for Brexit initially includied the notion that a HARD exit was very much in the cards? To the degree that was true, I don't see why there is any dispute/controversy over it now. iow: Yes....I vote for a Hard Brexit but of course if you can finesse better terms, go ahead and do so. Too simple? This very much goes to the neutral wording of the initial REF AND the justification for a second one.

Are you for a Hard Brexit?.........or only one where we keep all the benefits of Union but reject all the obligations? What should the REF have really asked?
Bobbo - it's not 'we', it's 'you' who is missing the connection. You are insisting upon stating that the outcome of the referendum is ignorable despite my repeatedly telling you that it isn't. Once again, the outcome of the referendum was passed into law by an Act of Parliament (that's how things are passed into law in the UK). The UK government is therefore legally obliged to take the UK out of the EU. As things stand, they cannot do anything BUT leave the EU. It was passed into law quickly so that shitloads of time would not be wasted upon demands for a whole string of referenda until the Remainers won one.
To remain in the EU, another Act of Parliament repealing the first Act would have to be passed by Members of Parliament voting (in Parliament, you understand). This is because the UK is a Parliamentary democracy, and Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, and once it passes something into law, it is the only body which can rescind that law. Got that?
It is not a matter of what my personal opinion is, or what I want, or which 'side' I support - Brexit is going to happen unless Parliament changes its mind and changes the law. There is a large majority of MPs who support Brexit, so there's no chance of such a change of mind becoming anything like effective before we hit the already-agreed date upon which the UK leaves the EU.
So, forget argument and opposition and personal opinion - it is written IN LAW that the UK will leave the EU at the end of March. No ifs, no buts, and the time for wailing and pulling of hair is over.
In another attempt to stop you descending into the realms of personal attack, I will reiterate that I voted to stay in the EU in the referendum, but I happen to believe that the principles of democracy are far and away more important than my personal political opinion, and therefore support the clearly demonstrated will of the majority of voters at that time. I would rather we hadn't voted to leave, but that's irrelevant now. We are leaving.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:10 am

Nessie wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:37 am
Norway and Sweden have not been involved in any sort of conflict like NI and the Republic have, with The Troubles. Despite it not making the news much, there are still troubles (the small t is deliberate). The result is a fragile border situation totally unlike the Norway, Sweden border (or Poland, Belarus etc).
That's not just a small 't', Nessie - it's microscopic. I cannot agree with your 'fragile border' comment, as there is no border at all at present except as a line drawn on a map and a couple of signposts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19035
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Brexit

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:59 am

Poodle wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:58 am
Bobbo - it's not 'we', it's 'you' who is missing the connection. You are insisting upon stating that the outcome of the referendum is ignorable despite my repeatedly telling you that it isn't.
I also agree its you. My proof: I never said, implied, meant, or would want: "ignore." Yet that is what you come up with after at least 3 clear explanations otherwise. I give up.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Brexit

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:24 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:01 am
Poodle wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:32 pm
However, Sweden and Norway have a mutually open border with only occasional physical checks. Sweden is an EU member, Norway is not, although it does have a border agreement with the EU. So, an open border between EU and non-EU states is shown to be possible. The backstop arrangement is therefore unnecessary.
Both Norway and Canada have trade deals with the EU and are used as possible models to emulate but with other additions (hence Norway+, Canada+, and Canada++.
It must be noted here that we are part of Schengen and have free movement of people as well as goods over the border. We also accept all regulations on goods in the eu.
That's not what uk wants i think. If you want to stop free movement (reasserting sovereignty or whatever) then it gets more difficult. For all practical purposes we are inside the eu market. Necessarily since internal borders are completely open, the outer border of the market needs much tighter control. If the uk wants to be outside, that is the rather inevitable consequence i think. Unless you want to adhere to most eu regulations anyway like we do... ( but that would be within limits of "leaving the eu" as formulated i think)

Peace
Dan
And for a long time, perhaps ever since Norway became independent over a century ago? I vividly remember driving from Stockholm to Oslo at the end of May 1981. Being used to borders, I stopped when I crossed into Norway to show my passport and was told that this was a free border, so I could just be on my way. (So, why was there even a customs station there? I couldn't figure that out.)
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Brexit

Post by OutOfBreath » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:11 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:24 pm
And for a long time, perhaps ever since Norway became independent over a century ago? I vividly remember driving from Stockholm to Oslo at the end of May 1981. Being used to borders, I stopped when I crossed into Norway to show my passport and was told that this was a free border, so I could just be on my way. (So, why was there even a customs station there? I couldn't figure that out.)
The nordic countries have long cooperated in many ways. Back in the day, it was suggested that the countries should band together, but they never really did. But we did have free travel between the countries long before the EU (since 50s i think), and usually consider our neighbours as (distant) family or something. The languages are similar enough so that we can understand eachother.

For the pan-scandinavism if the 1800s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism

For the close cooperation since WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Brexit

Post by OutOfBreath » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:21 pm

Poodle wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:23 am
You make a good point, Dan. I was, rather than using Norway/Sweden as an example to follow, showing that there are multiple solutions to trading with the EU without actually being a member, and that it's possible to have an open border between independent states if there's good reason and good will.
Indeed. But there IS a real tradeoff to be made between "sovereignty" (whatever that really means in the age of globalized economy), and comprehensive trade agreements. The brits (some of you anyway) seems to have banked on being able to keep all the pros of membership (trade/economy/international clout) while losing all the cons (membership fee, having to submit to EU-level majority decisions, free flow of labour). The realistic approach is either to go for the sovereignty (while taking an economic hit from the increased barrier to the EU market), or to "save the economy" while toning down the need for losing all the rules. (Which is what en economically amicable deal must roughly look like.)

How Britain has wasted 2 years not figuring that one out, is not looking good on your politicians. Still now, May seems more worried about keeping the conservatives together, than finding a deal that CAN pass parliament regardless of party affiliations.

(edit) it's really about in or out of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
the EEA Agreement, an international agreement which allows for the extension of the EU's single market to non-EU member parties... rules aim to enable free movement of labour, goods, services and capital within the European Single Market, including the freedom to choose residence in any country within this area.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:12 pm

I fear that it's all going to come to a clean break. More and more politicians are leaning towards a no-deal Brexit, and its proponents are getting more and more TV time. Not only that, but more and more businesses are installing non-EU systems. Frankly, I don't believe for a second that the generally popular (if misled) belief that no-deal is the way to Nirvana is going to go away. Nor, though, do I believe that it means economic disaster. It may be tough (in terms of increased prices and shortages of the favourite brands of spaghetti) for a while, but it cannot be argued that the UK would be helpless trading with the world on an unrestricted basis. Time is a wonderful rebalancer. So that's my prognosis. We'll know in a few weeks.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10798
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Brexit

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:54 am

Today's news (well, yesterday from where I'm sitting) ...
Mrs May spent the afternoon in Brussels with EU officials, discussing how it may be possible to remove the proposed Irish backstop from the Brexit arrangements - or, at least, insert a time limit for its existence into the agreement. This is, of course, in the belief that the backstop was the only factor in her Commons defeat - she may actually be correct. The fact of the discussions makes clear that the recent 'no further alterations or discussions' statement by the EU negotiators was fairy dust.
At precisely the same time, Leo Varadkar (the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland) has been issuing the message that the backstop is an absolute necessity in the event of Brexit and should not be time-limited. Ireland, of course, makes huge exports to the UK so I don't blame him too much. But I will point out that any difficulties in making those exports in the future would be because of EU export regulations rather than UK import regulations.
The UK and Belgium reached an agreement on mutual post-Brexit residency rights (Belgians will be able to continue living in the UK and vice versa). Guy Verhofstadt is said to be pleased. The same arrangement will, naturally, be offered to all EU states as long as it is reciprocated.
A large number of large UK exporting companies are issuing statements that they will be able to continue in operation seamlessly even in the case of a no-deal Brexit. Some of those are going so far as to say they'd do better under WTO terms than under EU terms. You can believe that or not as the fancy strikes you. Other companies are not so keen, admittedly, but they tend to be smaller outfits.
Boris Johnson gave a rousing no-deal speech which, as usual, he managed to cock up. He'd make a great PM if only he'd learn to engage his brain before opening his mouth.
March 29th gets ever nearer - the day the UK will crash out of the EU in the absence of any exit agreement with the EU.