Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Danzy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Another referendum will at the very least legitimise the leave result. It also means we can end this nonsense instead of pretending that signing the deal is anything other than a protraction of it.

The EU does not want to shrink. It wants the deal but it wants Britain to stay even more. The EU's leaders have never been anything short of conciliatory when discussing Brexit. They will act in the best interests of the project and the departure of a major power in securities and services is in nobody’s interest, least of all that of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The deal means we will just be back to this same point next year with another Benn act compelling the government of the day to seek an extension to the transition period which the EU will grant every single time because the UK will be completely neutralised as a threat as it will have lost its many privileges as an EU member, mainly its veto.

A referendum means politicians can either drop this or push for a hard Brexit as soon as possible with a mandate from the public.

Problems with a Referendum is it is unlikely to get voted through in Westminster.

It'll take 6 months to have.

It will lead to more political instability, easy to see a lot of Working Class people walk away from Labour over that.

Tories could be hit as well.

In an ideal world the EU would love if Britain stayed. While politicians like Thatcher and Major played massive roles in making the EU what it is, greatly beyond their country's considerable stature, it has often been half in, half out.

Whatever happens, in a Remain scenario, you'd be looking at most Meps being extremely hostile to the EU. Another on going boil.

The EU want a solution and they want this deal passed.

We are probably looking at a global slowdown in the next 18 months, well overdue, that is a much bigger issue for the EU than Brexit. There is talk of interest rates in the Euirozone going down to minus 3. That is the issue that keeps the EU leaders and central banks globally restless at night not Brexit.

Due to us being so linked trade wise etc, Brexit is a major news story.

Across Europe it isn't anymore. It's viewed as done and they have largely moved on.

hotmail.com

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Calls grow for public inquiry into Brexit

6 months old.

prawnsambo

eagle eye wrote: »

No need for another referendum. Their European elections result tells us that.

European election results in the UK are no indication of anything really. The turnout was less than 40%.

Zubeneschamali

hotmail.com wrote: »

6 months old.

The Iraq War started in March 2003. The Chilcot inquiry started in 2009. Brexit hasn't even happened yet, and 6 months is nothing.

If Brexit happens, it will be being discussed in 2035 as a scandal the way Iraq is today, and will be hanging around Boris Johnson's neck the way Iraq hangs around Blair's.

Iraq discredited New Labour and the Blairites and the current civil war over Corbynism is a direct result. Likewise Brexit (if it ever happens) will split and discredit the Tory party.

It won't be worth it, though.

Danzy

prawnsambo wrote: »

European election results in the UK are no indication of anything really. The turnout was less than 40%.

There turnout is low and in time would return to low and the Brexit party would dominate.

MrMusician18

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, but not so much the question of whether it is right or wrong for the UK to leave the EU.

Most Brexit critics believe the holding of the referendum and the referendum campaign was an utter shambles and those public figures defending the process as 100% legitimate are either liars or crooks.

The real issue is motivation. No one believes that the questioning of how the referendum was run was out of high mindedness and concern for the democratic process.

In fact, it is quite obvious that those who are questioning the result would question it in any circumstance that leave won. They would be critics anyway and would be looking for any chink to give legitimacy to their desire to overturn the result. Had remain won the conduct of the referendum would have been long forgotten and it would be wall to wall Trump impeachment that would be filling media.

I don't personally have a problem with a second referendum and my preference would be for the UK to remain (though the longer this has gone on, I'm questioning the wisdom of that preference).

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

6 months old.

And still almost three years after the vote, but six months is irrelevant according to you.



This one is a lot newer.

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They would be critics anyway and would be looking for any chink to give legitimacy to their desire to overturn the result.

Of course Remainers are motivated to look for evidence, that doesn't change the fact that when they looked, they found evidence of illegality.

We still don't know where Arron Banks got the millions he pumped into the Leave campaign.

Varta

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Brexit happens, it will destabilize the North after 20 years of peace.

If Brexit happens, it will hit me (and you!) right in our wallets.

If Brexit happens, it will weaken the EU, just when we need the EU to stand up against Russia in security terms, and the US and China in trade terms.

So, I want this to go on until the UK sees sense and revokes A50, and agrees to never say the word Brexit again.

And if Brexit doesn't happen the dysfunctional UK will destabilise the EU to the extent that everything you mention above may still come to pass. Out with them and the sooner the better.

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The real issue is motivation. No one believes that the questioning of how the referendum was run was out of high mindedness and concern for the democratic process.

In fact, it is quite obvious that those who are questioning the result would question it in any circumstance that leave won. They would be critics anyway and would be looking for any chink to give legitimacy to their desire to overturn the result. Had remain won the conduct of the referendum would have been long forgotten and it would be wall to wall Trump impeachment that would be filling media.

Belief does not come into it. If there are factual grounds for concern about the vote, then whether there's a questionable motivation or not on the part of those questioning the result is irrelevant.

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

No need for another referendum. Their European elections result tells us that.

No, it doesn’t. In the UK European and local elections have always served as abysmal barometers.

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes its a horrible situation especially for us in the Republic and those in NI. It's not good for Europe as a whole either.
I'd love to see a change of heart in the UK but I don't see it happening anytime soon sadly.

I see it happening. We saw a million people take to the streets last weekend. I think if the likes of Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg thought they could win a referendum for their disaster capitalist plan then we’d have one. They don’t so we get the usual lines about 17.4 million people and democracy.

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see any way this lasts another year. I think we'll see an exit sooner than that and the break up of the UK will flow pretty quickly.

Once the UK ceases to be a member, the EU can painlessly extend the transition period knowing that it will prevent the UK from exercising any sort of influence over the EU ever again without their consent.

eagle eye wrote: »

No, another referendum is pointless. I realise people like to hold out hope that the Brits will change their mind but that's not happening anytime soon. I think the best case is to let it happen now, watch as Scotland first and then NI leave the UK and at some stage in the next ten years they'll all be back in the EU.

So if businesses in Ireland or Northern Ireland go bust to say nothing of violence breaking out in NI again then so be it? Johnson is 45 MP’s short of a majority. With the way politics here are now, I do not consider polls to be of much use. I think Johnson is aware of his limited ability to sway people which is why he wants to ratify his deal before calling for an election. The worst thing is another hung Parliament but that might actually turn out to be a blessing as it might increase the likelihood of a People’s Vote being used as the only way to properly resolve this mess.

Varta

Danzy wrote: »

Problems with a Referendum is it is unlikely to get voted through in Westminster.

It'll take 6 months to have.

It will lead to more political instability, easy to see a lot of Working Class people walk away from Labour over that.

Tories could be hit as well.

In an ideal world the EU would love if Britain stayed. While politicians like Thatcher and Major played massive roles in making the EU what it is, greatly beyond their country's considerable stature, it has often been half in, half out.

Whatever happens, in a Remain scenario, you'd be looking at most Meps being extremely hostile to the EU. Another on going boil.

The EU want a solution and they want this deal passed.

We are probably looking at a global slowdown in the next 18 months, well overdue, that is a much bigger issue for the EU than Brexit. There is talk of interest rates in the Euirozone going down to minus 3. That is the issue that keeps the EU leaders and central banks globally restless at night not Brexit.

Due to us being so linked trade wise etc, Brexit is a major news story.

Across Europe it isn't anymore. It's viewed as done and they have largely moved on.

This. One of my offspring has just returned from France and tells me that few people over there are aware of what the British are up to and even less care. If only they knew that Britain is the centre of the world and the sun never sets, blah de blah.

hotmail.com

prawnsambo wrote: »

And still almost three years after the vote, but six months is irrelevant according to you.



This one is a lot newer.

I've just moved on from this. Most others have as well.

This decision about a decision seems in itself to be turning into a bit of brinkmanship. Just when you thought Brexit couldn't get anymore troublesome.


https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1187668859026919425?s=20

Tea Shock

Certain people (eg Farage) get all outraged when told people who voted 'Leave' in 2016 didn't know what they were voting for, they say leavers are being spoken to like they are stupid.

These same people...eg farage.... have also said the widely proposed 2-tier ballot paper idea (a choice between Leave and Remain followed by a second question on what type of leave that would only get counted in the event of the leave side winning again) is too complicated for voters...go figure!

In any case, it's too late for the UK. The Tory's have fuked the country up. The genie is out of the bottle. Apart from the division it has sewed, Brexit has already cost the UK economy £77 Billion and even if a new referendum was held tomorrow and remain won, that cost would continue to grow for at least another decade.

murphaph

hotmail.com wrote: »

Wait, do people dispute the anti European Union/ anti Europe feeling in Britain - it's all a myth?

Of course not. It's your attempt to convince us that the UK has been anti-Europe for centuries that is a myth.

If I tell porky pies in most national newspapers (and they were mostly lies) for 45 years then it has an effect.

If the truth about the EU had been reported (mostly mundane but useful stuff) it would have sold far fewer papers.

The PM is a proven liar for heaven's sake. He was fired for it in a previous job.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

I've just moved on from this. Most others have as well.

You can't 'move on' from electoral fraud. If it isn't dealt with and proper preventative measures instituted, it will happen again.

Sam Russell

'Getting Brexit done!' is a nonsense in terms of passing the current deal and it is all over. It is just a basic lie. The 'deal' is only the withdrawal agreement (WA) and leads onto the next step - a future relationship agreement - a trade agreement.

A GE is a particularly bad option because it is quite likely that the 'winner' will not get much more than 35% of the popular vote, and it is quite likely that it will result in a hung parliament.

Now if the WA has taken three years and still not agreed, and passed HoC, then it bodes ill for the TA that is to follow.

A 2nd referendum with this WA vs Revoke has the possibility that one or other will win out. If it is Revoke, then they can move on and never speak of Brexit again, particularly if the result is decisive. It it is to leave with the WA, then so be it - at least they know that is what is decided and they will have to live with it.

Without a 2nd ref, then Brexit will continue to be a cancer in the UK body politic for generations, particularly if 'project fear' turns out to be prescient, and the experts were in fact correct.

Tea Shock

Our old friend Laura Kuenssberg is making herself busy winding up the opposition on behalf of the government yet again

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1187624385206722561

As if the opposition need number 10's permission to debate something!

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Without a 2nd ref, then Brexit will continue to be a cancer in the UK body politic for generations, particularly if 'project fear' turns out to be prescient, and the experts were in fact correct.

Oh, I think it will be a cancer for 50 years no matter what.

But everyone would be better off if the English Patient was in the EU rather than outside.

hotmail.com

murphaph wrote: »

Of course not. It's your attempt to convince us that the UK has been anti-Europe for centuries that is a myth.

If I tell porky pies in most national newspapers (and they were mostly lies) for 45 years then it has an effect.

If the truth about the EU had been reported (mostly mundane but useful stuff) it would have sold far fewer papers.

The PM is a proven liar for heaven's sake. He was fired for it in a previous job.

I disagree. Britain has been at odds with her European neighbours. The Brexit vote was a culmination of that feeling.

hotmail.com

murphaph wrote: »

Of course not. It's your attempt to convince us that the UK has been anti-Europe for centuries that is a myth.

If I tell porky pies in most national newspapers (and they were mostly lies) for 45 years then it has an effect.

If the truth about the EU had been reported (mostly mundane but useful stuff) it would have sold far fewer papers.

The PM is a proven liar for heaven's sake. He was fired for it in a previous job.

I disagree. Britain has been at odds with her European neighbours. The Brexit vote was a culmination of that feeling.

Why are you saying for heavens sake about Boris being a proven liar?

Did I say otherwise?

Zubeneschamali

Tea Shock wrote: »

Our old friend Laura Kuenssberg is making herself busy winding up the opposition on behalf of the government yet again

Yes, very pro-government talking points.

Two possibilities she does not mention: Labour back Johnson's election, and then Johnson sets the date for after No Deal Brexit happens.

...or Labour back the election, Johnson let's them debate the WAB, they amend it all to hell with a referendum and Custom's Union, but then the Government dissolves Parliament for the election before the final vote, and the bill lapses.

murphaph

hotmail.com wrote: »

I disagree. Britain has been at odds with her European neighbours. The Brexit vote was a culmination of that feeling.

ALL European countries have been "at odds" (literally at war) with their neighbours for centuries. That's why most have the common sense to see the benefit of the EU!

Danzy

hotmail.com wrote: »

I disagree. Britain has been at odds with her European neighbours. The Brexit vote was a culmination of that feeling.

Easier to see the last 40 years as the best of Britain's relationship with the continent rather than a downward trend.

Tea Shock

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, very pro-government talking points.

Two possibilities she does not mention: Labour back Johnson's election, and then Johnson sets the date for after No Deal Brexit happens.

...or Labour back the election, Johnson let's them debate the WAB, they amend it all to hell with a referendum and Custom's Union, but then the Government dissolves Parliament for the election before the final vote, and the bill lapses.

They won't say it out loud, but I am pretty sure this is why the EU are delaying naming an extension to date today. If an election is coming, it'll be a longer one that Johnson cannot reasonably set the election date to after. If there is no election, it will be a November 29th extension!

CelticRambler

hotmail.com wrote: »

It seems that you want to pinpoint the loss of the referendum squarely on the illegal practices of the Leave side during the campaign.

My point as I've said already, that this is nonsense. There was a long standing anti European attitude in Britain.

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Brits want out.. that's what they voted for.

In the two posts above, we have the perfect explanation of why Brexit is a mess: The Brits most certainly do not want out of Europe. Their problem is they - and posters who argue this point - is that there is no single definition of what the "Europe" is that they want out of. To take a very recent example: Thomas Cook. Tens of thousands of Brits were quite happy to spend their GBPs on airlines benefiting from EASA regulation of their aircraft, flying through European Air Traffic Control, benefiting from EU-directed consumer protection regulation, to visit another EU country, visa-free, where they could use their mobile phones under EU-directed "at home" tariffs, protected by at least an EHIC in case of injury, but possibly also travel insurance subject to the same guarantees in "Europe" as GB, and eating food prepared in catering establishments that had been certified safe according to the same standards as any eatery in their local High Street. If they were unfortunate enough to be the victim of crime, they could have counted on the mutual recognition of security protocols and legal decisions. And at the end of their trip, they were free to bring back to the UK just about anything they'd bought, borrowed or found without fear of prosecution.

Which part of all that so angers the British that they want to trash their relationship with 27 other countries on the European continent?

It is utterly pointless arguing in favour of anything Brexity on the grounds that "the people voted to leave" until you've answered the question "Leave what?" ... and if there's even one Leaver who says "this is not what I voted for in 2016" then it calls into question the whole vote.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The poll doesn't ask if pensioners are going to attack MPs or remainers, it just asks if they think violence would be a price worth paying for Brexit

Following myself up to note that Kim Warren on Twitter checked the actual survey, and the headline is misleading.

The actual question asks about the risk of violence (without asking how big people think the risk is), not actual violence, and doesn't allow the answer that it is not a risk at all, only:

I want it to happen
Worth the risk
Not worth it.

https://twitter.com/Fellwolf/status/1187613973824397312

Varta

Varta wrote: »

This. One of my offspring has just returned from France and tells me that few people over there are aware of what the British are up to and even less care. If only they knew that Britain is the centre of the world and the sun never sets, blah de blah.

Most people in the UK have also switched off, a quick look at the BBC news site and the top most read story was about a TV star.

lawred2

Danzy wrote: »

The problem with a referendum is the dragging out of this.

There already was one.

Why would anyone want this to go on.

3 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Being bored of a mind numbingly stupid process where the end result is self destruction is no reason to unnecessarily conclude that process of self destruction.