Britain leaving the European Union.


In your opinion, based on what you have read in the media he seems clueless to a high degree and you think many others would share your opinion.


Based on what I read on the media??

Sure pal, he’s secretly a genius!?

These are pronouncements direct from his mouth and from his own bloody Twitter feed. … ty-8438651

Seriously, anyone who can’t see how wrong these are must have been dropped on his head as a baby

Dominic Cummins the high priest of Brexiteers described him as thick as mince, lazy as a toad


Are you really defending David Davis?!

The man who thinks Ireland is part of the UK? … nd-part-uk

Who is as “thick as mince” according to his friends? … 4196655349

The man who misunderstood the EU to this degree: … l-11597480

The man for whom the word “simples” might have been invented: … was-simple
This last one is a cracker…


@slasher @yoganmahew
Would you agree that in order to make a full objective analysis of what is happening with Brexit we would need all the relevant facts?


The EU’s ‘SECRET’ Brexit Negotiation EXPOSED

It can’t possibly be this simple can it?


That David Davis was a disaster is already a fact. I’m not sure what other facts you need about him?
Perhaps you’re looking for some ERG factoids? No, I don’t think we need more lies and half-truths from the ERG.


Yes, yes it is. The slide is earlier in this thread and was published by the EU about a year ago. Ivan Rogers has used it to demonstrate that the UK red lines = no deal. It’s not a secret (hence the quotes).


The impossible trinity…

A fun three minute summary of what the difficulty is and what the choices are.


'Tis but a flesh wound… … it-survey/

Nothing to do with Brexit though… :neutral_face:


Its probably an idea for people to remind themselves that Ireland’s primary focus in all of this is to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in accordance with the terms of the GFA. In this respect, the interests of both Ireland and the institutional EU have intersected and aligned thus far to the extent that Varadkar and co have not yet been faced with the need to make any serious judgment calls. This unified Irish and EU approach is quite clearly to hold the line as agreed on the assumption that the UK will be the first to blink.

What happens however if the UK does not blink?

Assuming all remains equal such an outcome (if allowed run its course) will result in exactly the scenario that the backstop was designed to avoid ie a hard border on the island of Ireland with the resultant seriously negative economic and political fallout for the island as a whole. Therefore, if, as B-day approaches, it becomes clear at any point that the backstop tactic is not going to achieve its aim, from that moment onwards the interests of an EU in whose interest it lies to see economic and political turmoil in a post-Brexit Britain, (with a view toward safeguarding its own future existence) and the interest of Ireland become clearly divergent.

Furthermore, much of the Irish establishment group-think that appears to have emerged around Brexit generally seems to lack any acknowledgement of the extent of the negative economic and political potentialities for Ireland should the UK be ‘made to pay’ in the manner envisaged by some. Again, from a purely selfish perspective, this would quite clearly not be in Ireland’s interest.

It might also be worth reminding ourselves that, the North aside, since independence (certainly since WW2) Irelands relations with the UK have been mostly excellent. When Irish citizens get into bother in a part of the world where there is no Irish Embassy they make straight for the nearest UK High Commission. It is also generally the UK who evacuate Irish citizens (and diplomatic staff) from disaster and war zones.

Its all quite clearly a high stakes poker game at present and more or less everything that appears in the media is propogandistic. You’d hope however that the efforts of the Irish representatives behind the scenes are focussed more on representing the interests of the people of Dundalk (or even Crossmaglen) than those of Brussels or indeed any wider political world view or ideology.


So basically you want Ireland to rejoin the UK?

because that’s where your argument is leading.


My point is that without all the relevant facts a proper analysis is impossible. Especially if we base our analysis on what we have read in sensationalized newspapers.
As a general example; consider the declassification of state papers and how it can often cause us to reappraise our previous understanding of historical events. Perhaps Brexit will be one such case.


It’s actually not.

At the minute there is just over two weeks left before B-day. Unless there is an absolutely extraordinary effort put in by a united British Parliament, we are looking at a crash out no-deal exit from the UK. We are talking about the type of extraordinary effort that has never been done throughout history.

We are long passed the point where there is just no time left for anything. Look at the options and the time available.

Option 1: Delay A50.

By force of UK law, the UK leaves the EU in two weeks time. The UK passed a law last year which mandates the leaving of the EU on the 29th. The European withdrawal Act needs to be repealed or amended by the UK government before then to extend A50. This is assuming that an extension to A50 can even be organized on the EU side. Emergency legislation can be put in place in two weeks, but it requires complete support from the house of Commons and the house of Lords to achieve this. A single amendment in either houses would derail the time line.

Option 2: Revoke A50.
A repeal of A50 needs to involve the repeal of the Withdrawal Act and a new Act to authorize the repeal of A50. Again, emergency legislation can be done in two weeks but it requires complete support of all MPs. A single amendment by the house or the Lords could derail the time line completely.

Option 3: Accepting the deal.
Accepting the ‘deal’? This looks certain to fail tomorrow. Anyway, accepting the deal just allows the government to submit a Bill to Parliament to convert the Deal into UK law. Getting a ‘deal’ bill written, voted and passed in two weeks is not possible. If there is a deal accepted, the different executives would almost certainly work to pretend that there is not a no deal exit and rush to try to clean up the mess.

Option 4: Crash out.
All roads lead here.

There is no Option 5… Does anyone really believe the following can be achieved in two weeks?

  • Get a new deal negotiated;
  • Written up and reviewed by a team of law specialists;
  • Final text agreed by negotiators;
  • Passed by the European commission;
  • Passed by the European parliament;
  • Passed by the UK House of commons;
  • Write up a UK withdrawal Bill;
  • Get the new withdrawal Bill passed by House of Commons;
  • Passed by House of Lords;
  • Signed by the Queen.


In the scenario PtG paints I might be inclined to push for a temporary backstop with the longest possible duration at the last minute and claim the credit for saving the day for everyone at the last minute. Technology improvements and/or changing political considerations on the island of Ireland would likely make the consequences entirely palatable down the road.


The facile answer is that the UK has broken the agreement by exiting it.
And that a united Ireland will surely be increasingly likely as a result.

I don’t see that the establishment is under any doubts as to the cost of a hard Brexit. The idea that the UK be ‘made to pay’ is a fiction of the UK gutter press. The same gutter press that wants to starve Ireland into submission.
It will be costly for us to be European; the question we have to ask ourselves is which course is more costly in the long-term?

This is really not true. Perhaps for much of your life, less so for much of mine.

This is also no longer true: … embassies/

‘Everything’ in the media is propaganda?
And you’d hope that notwithstanding the difficulties Brexit will pose that Irish representatives will be representing the interests of the whole country, not just one parish or one sector.


The backstop was suggested by the UK to protect the GFA in the event of the UK leaving without a deal.

Backstop is a cricket term so it certainly wasn’t the EUs or our idea.

I’ve never seen anyone question the DUPs economic argument for the UK leaving the EU, the only argument I’ve heard Arlene Foster make in defense of the DUP campaigning for a Leave vote was that some people needed reminding that there was a border.

The DUP always objected to the GFA so it’s not a stretch to imagine their reason for latching unto the Brexit vote was an attempt to supercede the GFA. No concession on our side will ever be accepted while they hold the balance of power in Westminster.

Politically the UK is gridlocked and it’s not going to unrival until there’s internal compromise… or the UK fractures and breaks apart.


Just sit tight until they have a general election where the DUP are no longer kingmaker and come looking for a trade deal.


It’s a baseball term also which is probably the origin of its use as a financial term.
But how quickly we forget! It’s only a few years ago that we dreamed of a “backstop” when we were exiting the Troika programme. That had nothing to do with the British but we quickly dropped that idea and forgot all about it because Mario was buying up all the bonds we issued. … -december/


Nothing like a straight talking ozzie

Former PM Kevin Rudd … kevin-rudd


Not at all.

In pragamatic terms, Id suggest that all this is ultimately leading toward some form of border at the Irish sea, in accordance with the democratic principles that underscore the GFA.

The win-win scenario would be to get there without a return to any form of political violence or the complete alienation of our nearest neighbour, ally and trading partner.