Jenny1

I think it's really interesting how complacent we are as a country about preserving the credibility of our electoral system and the sanctity of the separation of powers. On the whole we're very passive, aren't we? It's interesting to speculate as to why that is. I think FPTP has got something to do with it. And as I was saying earlier in the conversation, because views on Brexit cut across party lines the Westminster structure, and the traditional BBC political reporting model, aren't really able to deal with it. Hence the impasse we have now. Personalities have something to do with it too of course. May and Corbyn seem very similar in many ways, particularly in their instinct to isolate themselves. But if we had a different political tradition based on some form of PR, and hence the habit of coalition forming and compromise, then we would have sorted this out a long time ago. Edited to add some more commas!

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But given that it was discussed (and dismissed) > why do you think that was? > > A genuine, palpable, close to home threat, with > serious bloodshed in living memory - not taken > onboard by voters (including people like you who > were paying close attention - but the two high > profile articles I linked to made no impression) > > Versus > > Turkey!!! Joining!!!! Man the lifeboats!!!! > > That?s just weird to me. But that was then. Here > in 2019, we know more - so anyone who is still, > yknow, shruggy, about the consequences of > leaving, instead of saying ?this is madness. Press > pause. Rethink? is simply not to be trusted > > Maybe they aren?t all racists, stupid or naive. > But they are still wreckless and wrong > > Britain will be worse off. And will have > endangered lives. Simple solution is to not do > it. Every serious problem solved I believe it still can be stopped in terms of timing. The politics of course is another matter. A General Election is in many ways the cowards way out - in that it doesn't, ostensibly, allow the grasping of any nettles. We'd be presented with the two major party leaders both unable/unwilling to articulate the 'Remain' view which now predominates in polls. But a GE would at least shake things up a bit. And that might be enough to open the discussion up to saner options.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Up to now it?s been presented by the EU as > Britain?s problem. If there?s a no-deal EU rules > require a border to protect its (customs) > integrity. It becomes the EU?s (particularly the > Irish Republic?s) problem. > But here again you seem to be viewing everything through 'zero sum' glasses K77. It's the UK's problem AND Ireland's problem AND the EU's problem.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I listened to the country's Prime Minister and > took account of the UK's formal public support for > Turkey's application to join the EU, as well as > the prevailing circumstances. But taken in the context of the way this issue has played out over the past 30 years Cameron's statement on Turkey was pretty meaningless. I suspect the problem is that - as referenced above - not even the BBC has given proper coverage to the internal politics of the EU (in which we've played a prominent part over the past 40 years). So people weren't aware of the history of the EU/Turkey issue, or any other, unless they were specialists in the area. Without context it's almost impossible to make an informed judgement. > > The 'negotiations' since Art 50 was > triggered (which in my view was way too soon to > set the clock ticking) have in my opinion been > even worse - as has the hopeless response from > opposition parties. As someone who is trained in > and conducts negotiations regularly, I wince every > time I think about how incompetently or > disingenuously it has been handled thus far. I doubt anyone could disagree with that.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > given the number of people happy saying things > like "ireland is just a pawn", you'll forgive me > if I don't believe any of those people saying they > have Ireland's interests at heart > I think this insistence on seeing Ireland as some kind of helpless 'pawn' is revealing. It usually means that people haven't seen, or don't want to acknowledge, that a country, however small, is much more powerful as part of the EU than out of it. The reality is of course that Ireland's interests will continue to have the weight of the EU to back them up whereas the UK will be greatly diminished on the international stage, if we do end up leaving.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sephiroth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > given the number of people happy saying things > > like "ireland is just a pawn", you'll forgive > me > > if I don't believe any of those people saying > they > > have Ireland's interests at heart > > > > And that's the nicest thing leave-leaning > English > > people say - it's usually much more insulting > and > > often racist than that > > > > You may not be totally objective on this point > Sephiroth But K77. Would you see the suggestions from Brexit-promoting MPs that Ireland might like to leave the EU and re-join the UK as being in some way objective? What do you think that says both about their respect for the views of the Irish people and their knowledge of the history of Ireland and the UK? Aren't you concerned that some of the most prominent voices in our political life are so disregarding of the bloody recent past?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m sure we both agree Jenny1 that we want the > best for the UK and Ireland, we just disagree how > best to achieve that. I would also hope that we are both wanting the best for our European neighbours, and indeed the whole world. Always worth remembering that 'No Man is an Island....' - even if he's living on one.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree, Keano. I chuckled when I read that about > the EU wanting to protect the peace in Ireland! If > that is even slightly true, it will soon become > clear because if the EU refuse to do any deal > other than the now defunct backstop in the now > defunct WA there will be a border of sorts put in > place. > > For the EU to say that there MUST be a WA with a > backstop that avoids a hard border, otherwise no > deal, when the effect of no deal is to introduce a > border belies their position - their true position > is to use Ireland as a pawn in negotiations. The > EU would 'drop' Ireland the moment it suited them > to do so - Ireland are minnows in this (which is > why their economy would take a battering far > beyond anything we would suffer in the UK in the > event of a disorderly no deal scenario). The > self-contradictory position of the Irish > government suffers from the same basic flaw and > now the reality of that has dawned on them. I don't see your logic there at all Robbin. Working through this bit by bit, let's start with the 'defunct backstop', as you call it. The UK government were happy to sign up to this. Why would any sane person object to it?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two things will happen > > 1) we leave the EU - with or without a deal. It > will be either hideous or so hideous as to be > untenable. Either way, we will, without any shadow > of a doubt, be applying to join the EU at some > point in the future. And of course we won't have > any of the opt outs we have now# > > 2) We revoke A50 and cancel Brexit and save > everyone a lot of pain, worry and time. I don't > really care how - I tried to be nice and support > another referendum but too late for that now > > SO my advice to Leavers would be ditch the ego, > and the fevered dreams and do this sooner rather > than later > > Of course, the reaction to this will be "you are > arrogant, attitudes like that etc etc" - I > literally don't care. What I DO care about is the > state of the country - you are not taking a > responsible attitude towards it. You are taking a > highly dangerous attitude towards it - that's on > you and has nothing to do with what I say or how I > say it Agreed. Personally I don't think it's too late to manage the extension to Article 50 and a 'People's Vote'. But it suits May and Corbyn to pretend otherwise. Corbyn's 'tactics' I don't pretend to understand (I strongly suspect he doesn't himself), but I guess May is just ploughing on in the mis-placed belief that the brinkmanship that served her well when she was at the Home Office and dealing with internal UK or EU issues will work when the UK has deliberately given itself 'third party status'. Massive mis-judgement. She seems to perceive herself as merely some kind of negotiator between the extreme right of her own party and the EU. She's taking no ownership for the consequences of her actions.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > keano77 Wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Hope that?s answered your question. I'm afraid not Keano77, no. We're never going to agree on this, are we? Probably best not to try. I would just say that once more your comments suggest you perceive all of this as a 'zero sum' game. And as I said before, it's that view of international relations that got us into this mess in the first place.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tusk has realised how screwed we are, now that > there's unequivocal evidence of Corbyn's desire > for Brexit, so he's not pretending any more. > > He is 100% accurate. > > The BBC's misreporting of this is very telling > indeed. Sadly, yes. To be honest I've seen the failure of BBC Domestic News and Current Affairs programmes to properly report the issue of the UK's place in Europe as being a major weakness for a long time. The World Service has been better at this - though by no means flawless. In the last two-three years I'd see a couple of factors at play in undermining the BBC's capacity to report properly. Political coverage across domestic TV and radio has long been comfortable with simply following the 'theatre' of Labour v Conservative in the Commons. When an issue cuts across parties and doesn't fit that simple model they don't really know what to do. Also there's been great anxiety about falling audiences for News and current affairs - so baked into programme-planning is the idea that the main task is to attract a larger audience. It's perceived that the best way to do that is to set up dramatic confrontations - which usually convey no information, or are actively misleading. It seems to be considered very boring to interview anyone who can simply offer informed fact rather than contribute to the 'drama' of a story.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s a bit like the scene from the Good (UK), the > Bad (EU) and the Ugly (EU again) > > Trigger fingers getting itchy, who?s going to draw > first. Sorry Keano77. What do you mean? On the face of it your jokey statement looks like the very definition of the 'zero sum' view of international relations that got us into this mess in the first place. You seem to be implying that the EU's attempts to preserve peace in Northern Ireland are some kind of dastardly plot, and that good old Blighty shouldn't let them get away with it. But I don't think you can mean that really, can you?

Full text of Tusk statement here. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/06/remarks-by-president-donald-tusk-after-his-meeting-with-taoiseach-leo-varadkar/ He doesn't mention newspapers - but simply says 'I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan to carry it out safely.' To my mind that refers to politicians, although of course plenty of newspapers could be included in that definition. Also noteworthy, and unsurprising, that his view is that with May and Corbyn both uninterested in 'Remain' the only task left is the prevention of 'No Deal'.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tusk isn't talking about voters by the way he's > talking about Farage, Johnson, Gove etc. Exactly. And he's right.

...I should add for balance that you also don't have to be expecting the Zombie Apocalypse in order to be furious at this excuse for an opposition.

Hi robbin I made the reference to your view on people with low incomes because earlier up in the thread you acknowledged that your own perspective came from a position of relative security and prosperity when thinking about potential food price rises, and that you could appreciate that people on low incomes might not feel the same. Such price rises (hopefully small and hopefully temporary) may well occur in the event of a No-Deal Brexit as a result of a weaker pound as much as any unreliability in supply. And as I said above I quite believe that HMRC would adopt a 'no checks' policy to try to prevent shortages in the event of No-Deal. My argument was that such a policy, while advertised as 'temporary', was likely to be 'semi-permanent', since it would be hard to envisage the change in circumstances needed to stop it once implemented. It would then have undesirable knock-ons for UK manufacturing, farming and our ability to do trade deals. Also - if there is absolutely no risk to supply chains - why would HMRC be considering such a policy? So yes - to some extent we have been given a choice between A) food shortages and B) adopting an unsustainable 'no checks' policy. I don't think I've been taken in by anything. I'm not a person who's prone to panic. But as I said before, there's very little that my compromised insides allow me to digest - so it would be odd if I wasn't focused on making sure I had reliable access to the food I am able to eat. I, and others like me, shouldn't even have to be thinking about this stuff. You don't have to be expecting the Zombie Apocalypse in order to be furious at this excuse of a government. I don't think you should rule out hopping down the South Bank.... it's always good to have options.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if there is some slight risk of limited > disruption and shortages, people should not be > such snowflakes about it. I think on reflection, Robbin, you'll see that that's not really fair. You've already acknowledged that people on low incomes and with health conditions might well be worried about this. Why wouldn't we be? Does being vulnerable either financially or physically at a time when the machinations of politicians cause collective insecurity make you a 'snowflake'?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL said > > ?...If perhaps the EU could just organise a > passport for those of us that wanted dual > nationality but had no connections to do so it > would solve things for us.? > > I?m sure if you volunteer for the proposed EU army > they?d give you a right of residency at least. Sadly I don't think I, for one, would be eligible. Since the proposals are simply for greater co-operation between national armies one would first have to meet entry requirements to join the British army. My age and health issues would preclude that.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's talking about a different scenario where > checks are permanently (or semi-permanently) > halted. That's not what HMRC said it would do > yesterday. Sky News had a lengthy article on it > yesterday if you are interested. > Thanks Robbin. I'll make sure I read the Sky News article. But as I said above I'm very sceptical about what 'temporary' would mean in this context. What factors would need to come into play before such a policy, once implemented, could be stopped? I suspect it would become semi-permanent, and therefore would have serious negative knock-on effects on UK farming, manufacturing and our capacity to do trade deals. As to stocking up the cupboards, I'm sure you'd agree we really shouldn't be put in a position where anyone (with or without medical conditions) even has to give it a passing thought.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, I don't follow. How does HMRC carrying out > no checks for a temporary period of time (or any > period) make other trade deals more unlikely? I > may be missing something, but I don't at the > moment follow your logic - in fact I can't see how > the two are related. I'd thought the article made it pretty clear - but if not I'm very happy to go into the detail. Have a read first and then let me know the areas you dispute. As to 'temporary'.....what would be the factors that meant this policy, once implemented, could stop? As to your next post, making the case for the 'no checks' policy being a good idea because it would stop people starving. Surely we shouldn't be in the position where a choice is presented of A) Starve or B)Adopt a policy which scuppers our trade and manufacturing..... Edited to add ....and of course farming industry.

I believe Grayling first articulated the 'no checks' plan in March last year. It may well have been said earlier given that it's the kind of thing that Patrick Minford is keen on. I'm happy to be corrected. It's not a good idea. It will make these fantasy 'trade deals' that Brexiters talk about even more unlikely (although I know that seems hardly possible...) and our farming and manufacturing industry will pay a heavy price. http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/03/23/grayling-s-fantasy-brexit-plan-would-make-trade-deals-imposs

Robbin - you've already pointed out that any rise in food prices (even if fairly small, and hopefully temporary) will affect those on small incomes. Therefore it's sensible, if you have cash available, to stock up on non-perishable items you use regularly. Do also remember that there are people - like myself - who already have a limited diet for medical reasons. Some substantial surgery a few years back means there are a lot of foods I can't digest. So it's sensible to make sure I have some supplies of the non-freah foods that I can eat, in case they're suddenly less available than normal. My view is that our politicians are showing great irresponsibility. They should not have placed us in a position where these issues are even being discussed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how > thin the veneer of order actually is. Police > numbers have significantly reduced since then. If > there are delays to supply chains and shortages in > the shops, I don't think it would take much / long > for people to kick off. That's the logical conclusion, sadly.

....although this government shows few signs of sanity. They may well not be interested in the views of those army insiders. What would happen if the PM and her 'advisers' 'ordered' the army to take action?

malumbu Wrote: ----------------------------------- It would be surprising if > COBR was even being used at this moment seeing as > we are not yet in crisis. Yes. But the reference was to potential future action. As to the specific role of the armed forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent saying the army doesn't have the training to quell domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long since they were active on the streets of Northern Ireland. This means army and defence insiders she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about the idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it would likely be the job of the police to deal with any civil unrest post No-Deal.