Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

relax carry on

Is there anyone bar crypto and the other one supporting Brexit here? I've stopped reading their nonsense days ago and can't for the life of me think of any posters supporting Brexit on this thread. Anyone out there think Brexit is a good idea and why? How will the UK benefit from Brexit and when will they see the benefits?

bob mcbob

cryptocurrency wrote: »

CBI like it.

It’s previous record on various events......

In the 1930s it supported appeasement.
In the 1940s it supported nationalisation.
In the 1950s it supported state planning.
In the 1960s it supported tripartite industrial relations.
In the 1970s it supported price controls.
In the 1980s it opposed getting tough with the USSR.
In the 1990s it supported the ERM.
In the 2000s it supported joining the Euro.
In the 2010s it supported Remain…
… and now it has declared its support for May’s draft withdrawal agreement.

CBI founded in 1965

Thargor

Ah FFS something needs to be done with the 2 that have infected this thread in the last couple of days, its a joke.

rogue-entity

theguzman wrote: »

Basically there should be another referendum until the democratic will of the people is overwritten. That is not democracy that is a diktat from a Dictatorship.

You realise it is not possible in a democracy to override the "democratic will of the people" by offering the people a vote where they express their democratic will. The only thing you can override is a previous decision which can only happen if people changed their minds (or those who did not vote in the first referendum (a silent majority) choose to vote this time one way or the other.

To make that statement, and then compare it to "a diktat from a Dictatorship", suggests you are happy with the outcome and fear it would be reversed if the people got a second chance.

theguzman wrote: »

Totally different situations with 16 years between referenda. The previous referenda sought to further tighten the restrictions on Abortion which was rejected in 2002, wheras this year the trend towards liberalisation continued. So actually the will of the people continued and strengthened from 2002 which contradicts your entire point.

Au contraire, I believe it proves his point succinctly.

Whether the UK Gov offers up a referendum on the final deal, particularly if the WA fails to pass the HoC, is up to the UK Gov but if the choice is: Stay or Crash out with no deal, I would consider it fair that the voters get to have some say in this. If I were a UK resident I would want that vote.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And then there's the voters who voted against immigration from the EU in order to get more immigration from third countries.

You could probably swing a new referendum by pointing out that Brexit won't change the amount of immigration, just where people come from.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that such a plan serves to achieve a similar objective to the much-abused H1-B in the US? Discriminate based on arbitrary 'skills' to import cheaper labour that are then shackled to an employer who can pay them below the market rate because it's take it or leave (literally).

As for May's remark, it's not only offensive it's also complete bull****. If Company A is seeking a Software Developer, the current law doesn't prevent them from hiring an Engineer from Sydney or a Developer from Delhi; it also doesn't prevent them from hiring a local from the UK or hiring someone from Estonia.

Anthracite

Thargor wrote: »

Ah FFS something needs to be done with the 2 that have infected this thread in the last couple of days, its a joke.

Report the posts. That's the best we can do. Presumably sh!tposting is not allowed here.

Anthracite

cryptocurrency wrote: »

CBI like it.

It’s previous record on various events......

In the 1930s it supported appeasement.
In the 1940s it supported nationalisation.
In the 1950s it supported state planning.
In the 1960s it supported tripartite industrial relations.
In the 1970s it supported price controls.
In the 1980s it opposed getting tough with the USSR.
In the 1990s it supported the ERM.
In the 2000s it supported joining the Euro.
In the 2010s it supported Remain…
… and now it has declared its support for May’s draft withdrawal agreement.

Ah, I see where this poster copied and pasted that crap from: https://order-order.com/2018/11/19/many-bad-calls-cbi/

Guido Fawkes. That explains a lot.

Capt'n Midnight

rogue-entity wrote: »

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that such a plan serves to achieve a similar objective to the much-abused H1-B in the US? Discriminate based on arbitrary 'skills' to import cheaper labour that are then shackled to an employer who can pay them below the market rate because it's take it or leave (literally).

This is the same crowd looking at US For Profit for some parts of the NHS, the same ones who want to get rid of EU health and welfare and European courts.

As for May's remark, it's not only offensive it's also complete bull****. If Company A is seeking a Software Developer, the current law doesn't prevent them from hiring an Engineer from Sydney or a Developer from Delhi; it also doesn't prevent them from hiring a local from the UK or hiring someone from Estonia.

Today they can offer an EU citizen a job without paperwork.

Tomorrow EU citizens will have to go through the same process as the rest of the world.
lots of different visas https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas

https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general lots of fees
And it's no longer a stepping stone to Europe.

ancapailldorcha

Cryptocurrency will be taking a break for trolling this forum. Please do not engage in future and use the report function.

Thanks.

Rjd2

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/brexit-class-labour-conservative-leave-peoples-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Talon

Jon Harris of The Guardian wrote an article calling out Corbyn on his blase Brexit approach. Harris is left wing but unlike many of his ilk actually go into leave/right wing areas when it comes to Brexit and has produced some good stuff over the years. Just a sample below like most of his work its worth a click.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/brexit-class-labour-conservative-leave-peoples-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Talon

This much we know: whatever the stories of the millions of people who ended up backing it, Brexit originated in the failure of successive Conservative leaders to adequately deal with a tribe of uncontrollable Tory ideologues, and in the ingrained tendency of post-Thatcher Conservatives to play fast and loose with the livelihoods and security of the rest of us. In an awful instance of irony, the misery and resentment sown by the deindustralisation the Tories accelerated in the 1980s and the austerity they pushed on the country 30 years later were big reasons why so many people decided to vote leave. What also helped was a surreal campaign of lies and disinformation, both during and after the referendum campaign, waged by entitled people with their eyes only on the main chance.

These things are part of a vast charge sheet not only against the modern Conservative party, but an alliance of old and new money that has set the basic terms of British politics for the past 40 years. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson were educated at the same exclusive school as the prime minister whose idiotic decision to hold a referendum gave them their opportunity. Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are archetypal examples of the kind of spivs who were given licence to do as they pleased in the 80s. For all their absurd bleating about “elites”, we all know what these people represent: the two faces of the modern English ruling class, who have long combined to be nothing but trouble.



Which brings us to the question that, for all my lingering ambivalence, I cannot shake off: if the Labour party leadership is so radical, and allied with the best leftwing traditions, where is its anger about what these people have done?

While some of us have been spitting feathers about the deceptions perpetrated by rightwing leavers, Jeremy Corbyn has seemed barely interested. Is there some kind of awful equivalence between the rightwing Brexiteers, who see national crisis as the ideal seedbed for a free-market utopia, and leftwingers who think socialism is similarly best assisted by disaster? Whatever the explanation, and whatever the levels of support for leave among Labour voters, a supposed party of opposition – and a leftwing one at that – accepting a project birthed and then sustained in the worst kind of rightwing political circles is a very odd spectacle indeed. This, surely, will also be the verdict of history.

MrMusician18

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It sadly is the politics of today. It used to be that one informed themselves, weighed the options and went with the most logical choice/candidate whose program came closest.
Nowadays it seems to be simply about winning, sticking it to the other guy, showing them who's boss, etc...
International politics has sunk to the intellectual level of six year olds for most people, hence Brexit, Trump and Neonazi politics in Eastern Europe.
The fact that thousands of people voted Brexit because of Bob Geldof very deftly underscores that point.
Wonder where they keep their noses now, but as long as they can spite their face...

This was never, ever the case in Ireland, the UK or anywhere else.

Peregrinus

theguzman wrote: »

Basically there should be another referendum until the democratic will of the people is overwritten. That is not democracy that is a diktat from a Dictatorship.

On the contrary, the dictators are those who seek to prevent another referendum, for fear that the people would express a change of mind.

It's absurd to suggest that the majority vote in the 2016 referendum was "the will of the people" but that a majority vote in a further referendum would not be. Absurd and profoundly antidemocratic. Elitists are simply arrogating to themselves the prerogative of decreeing which referendums represent the "will of the people", and which do not. Only a fool would be persuaded by this.

breatheme

I'm still scared of Leave winning a second referendum, to be honest.

Nesta99

This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers. For the sake of the discussion lets assume that the numbers will mean that the DUP will be in a position to block parlimentary endorsment of this deal. They have tonight abstained and on one budgetry vote voted with Labour. Its generally considered that Brexit is a serious potential threat to the union, Scotland making waves for another independance referendum and that Northern Ireland could end up pragmatically moving to even closer ties with the Republic. Yes abstentionism is a long help policy for Sein Fein but in the past they had a similar policy toward Dail Eireann(?). If they have an opportunity to influence things in Westminster toward their ultimate goal of a United Ireland, via the current political chaos in the UK and by neutralising the Unionist BoP then why wont they take the potential opportunity to further their goal.

Apologies if I have missed this being explained before and I get that its is likely to be a bit more complex than what Ive said above but the mischievious side of me would love to see the look on the DUP faces if SF were to rock up and take their seats and vote. It would also have the potential of building a kind of trust among the Southern Irish electorate as paragmatism overtakes principle and indeed it would gain huge publicity. Thoughts?

judeboy101

Nesta99 wrote: »

This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers. For the sake of the discussion lets assume that the numbers will mean that the DUP will be in a position to block parlimentary endorsment of this deal. They have tonight abstained and on one budgetry vote voted with Labour. Its generally considered that Brexit is a serious potential threat to the union, Scotland making waves for another independance referendum and that Northern Ireland could end up pragmatically moving to even closer ties with the Republic. Yes abstentionism is a long help policy for Sein Fein but in the past they had a similar policy toward Dail Eireann(?). If they have an opportunity to influence things in Westminster toward their ultimate goal of a United Ireland, via the current political chaos in the UK and by neutralising the Unionist BoP then why wont they take the potential opportunity to further their goal.

Apologies if I have missed this being explained before and I get that its is likely to be a bit more complex than what Ive said above but the mischievious side of me would love to see the look on the DUP faces if SF were to rock up and take their seats and vote. It would also have the potential of building a kind of trust among the Southern Irish electorate as paragmatism overtakes principle and indeed it would gain huge publicity. Thoughts?

Simple arithmetic. Dup have more seats than SF so they wouldn't negate them.

fash

Nesta99 wrote: »

This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers.

Because the unprecedented sight of Sinn Fein coming to vote for "X" is quite likely to make a lot of on-the-fence MPs vote the other way - so all for nothing.

demfad

Nesta99 wrote: »

This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers.

Sinn Fein don't have a mandate among their membership to do this. THis would be a massive deal for them. They wont do it without that mandate. It wont happen.

ancapailldorcha

Twitter dump deleted.

ARNOLD J RIMMER

Might be interesting

This is Live

David Davis and Jaocb Rees-Mogg appear on Brexit panel

demfad

Just to state that with DUPs abstention last night Labour had the numbers to win an amendment that was tabled in Jeremy Corbyns name. Bizarrely many more Labour MPs than Tories didnt turn up to vote and it failed. One of the MPs who didnt turn up....? (he has a white beard)

Deputy Leader Keir Starmer is tabling an amendment to make no-deal impossible. If successful that would put the choices between May's Deal, Referendum, parliament deciding to remain or Labour somehow getting time to renegotiate.

From my reading of Corbyns cryptic interview on Sunday I suspect his plan will be to back May's deal with assurances from EU that CU/SM situation still on the table for future relationship. This position will be harder with the no-deal threat is gone. At this point Starmer might be in a position to force Corbyn into a referendum or to challenge him.

Hurrache

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

Might be interesting

This is Live

David Davis and Jaocb Rees-Mogg appear on Brexit panel

Still claiming there's existing systems that can be used on the border, without going into any detail of what these existing systems are, or where.

And if Parliament turn down the current agreement, they expect to go back to the one that was offered in March and ask the EU can they have that one and work around it. They're still saying it won't take long, 10 minutes mentioned for something in particular.

If that doesn't happen, they'll go to WTO terms and they'll be then in a much stronger position to negotiate with the EU for a free trade agreement.

They're nuts.

cml387

Really?

Corbyn's sole aim is to have a general election and get into power.

I don't see how backing the deal will achieve that.

Inquitus

cml387 wrote: »

Really?

Corbyn's sole aim is to have a general election and get into power.

I don't see how backing the deal will achieve that.

Indeed, Labour won't support the deal, if May gets the deal through the Tories will be in power until 2022 when parliaments term is up.

Shelga

Inquitus wrote: »

Indeed, Labour won't support the deal, if May gets the deal through the Tories will be in power until 2022 when parliaments term is up.

But what if the DUP withdraw their support for May’s government, as looks likely? She won’t have a majority in the HoC then.

Inquitus

Shelga wrote: »

But what if the DUP withdraw their support for May’s government, as looks likely? She won’t have a majority in the HoC then.

They might support the Government in a No Confidence vote while voting against the deal, essentially keeping the confidence and supply going and continuing to get their 1bn bribe, we'll see. They could pull the plug but that's probably against their best interests.

Nesta99

fash wrote: »

Because the unprecedented sight of Sinn Fein coming to vote for "X" is quite likely to make a lot of on-the-fence MPs vote the other way - so all for nothing.

Thats a fair point! But assume that MPs would not vote to spite SF isnt it time that the party seek a mandate from members to influence any Irish question in Westminster. Not just specific to Brexit but using direct rule to table motions on eg an Irish language act, liberalisation of laws to move in to line with the rest of the UK. While I know that the number of SF MPs do not equal DUP it would (potentially narrow the gap and certainly provide a platform that would be so dispicable to NI Unionists that a functioning Stormont is the lesser of two evils.

badtoro

Nesta99 wrote: »

fash wrote: »

Because the unprecedented sight of Sinn Fein coming to vote for "X" is quite likely to make a lot of on-the-fence MPs vote the other way - so all for nothing.

Thats a fair point! But assume that MPs would not vote to spite SF isnt it time that the party seek a mandate from members to influence any Irish question in Westminster. Not just specific to Brexit but using direct rule to table motions on eg an Irish language act, liberalisation of laws to move in to line with the rest of the UK. While I know that the number of SF MPs do not equal DUP it would (potentially narrow the gap and certainly provide a platform that would be so dispicable to NI Unionists that a functioning Stormont is the lesser of two evils.

No offense meant to you but SF sitting in London ain't happening, and while I don't share their politics that's their platform and they're right to stick to their guns on it - ahem.

Mp's certainly would vote to spite the political wing of the IRA who bombed their cities and murdered their people. Bit like a Vinnie Jones line, things would get emotional.

sink

Nesta99 wrote: »

Thats a fair point! But assume that MPs would not vote to spite SF isnt it time that the party seek a mandate from members to influence any Irish question in Westminster. Not just specific to Brexit but using direct rule to table motions on eg an Irish language act, liberalisation of laws to move in to line with the rest of the UK. While I know that the number of SF MPs do not equal DUP it would (potentially narrow the gap and certainly provide a platform that would be so dispicable to NI Unionists that a functioning Stormont is the lesser of two evils.

They don't recognize the right of the Parliament of Westminster to rule over any part of Ireland. In taking up their seats they would be disregarding the entire principle on which their party was founded. It's not going to happen. If people want to vote for a nationalist party that does sit in Westminster they can vote for the SDLP.

josip

It looks like Spain are taking the DUP role on the EU side.


https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1120/1012072-brexit-europe/

Inquitus

josip wrote: »

It looks like Spain are taking the DUP role on the EU side.


https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1120/1012072-brexit-europe/

Nice spanner in the works, obviously they planned this all along for maximum effect. Wonder if the EU can talk them down.

robinph

sink wrote: »

They don't recognize the right of the Parliament of Westminster to rule over any part of Ireland. In taking up their seats they would be disregarding the entire principle on which their party was founded. It's not going to happen. If people want to vote for a nationalist party that does sit in Westminster they can vote for the SDLP.

Wouldn't be massively different from UKIP taking their seats as MEP's.

The SF MP's have paid their £500 deposits and taken part in the election so it's not as if they don't recognise the process taking place. They just refuse to then do the job they get voted into.