Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

jimmycrackcorm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The UK will leave. The EU will last a few years longer but I think ultimately it is a failed experiment.

We will go back to sovereignty over our affairs and the EU will be the much looser economic community we first joined. Transitioning from the euro will be difficult but Ireland is pretty well placed as is Germany. Other countries it will hit them a little harder but they'll survive. We all move on.

Have you any non imaginary basis to suggest that the EU will fail? If anything Brexit will demonatrate that countries are better off in the EU than out.

Britain has been on a downhill spiral since the days of the empire in terms of global influence through to manufacturing prowess. There will be as much of a gain for Britain post brexit as the rust belt will see in the US after voting for trumps MAGA on a not very dissimilar basis.

MrMusician18

Tea Shock wrote: »

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

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

Has Laura K (interesting language here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/29/laura-kuenssberg-profile-bbc-titan-die-for-impartiality-abuse )or Peston responded to the accusations leveled by Peter Oborne.

Danzy

lawred2 wrote: »

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.

Self destruction.

A no Deal Brexit would be destruction for all parties, a negotiated deal will not be.

A no Deal Brexit is a fantasy, a negotiation tactic, both sides knew it was and acted accordingly.

The trade deal when done will mirror on going business.

Little us are a bigger trading partner than giant economy Japan for The Brits.

Proximity matters.

devnull

A Number 10 source has now claimed

If the EU offers a Brexit delay the Government can change the date of departure through secondary legislation, known as a statutory instrument.

If the opposition are stating that they are not going to call for a general election until the threat of a No Deal Brexit is taken off the table, thn they're certainly not going to vote for a general election if they think that the whole reason for it is so the government can pass legislation which they are unable to stop.

Cummings really isn't very good at this, is he.

prawnsambo

devnull wrote: »

A Number 10 source has now claimed


If the opposition are stating that they are not going to call for a general election until the threat of a No Deal Brexit is taken off the table, thn they're certainly not going to vote for a general election if they think that the whole reason for it is so the government can pass legislation which they are unable to stop.

Cummings really isn't very good at this, is he.

That's complete nonsense. Membership of the EU isn't decided unilaterally. Do they think all this negotiation over A50 was window dressing? How do they even think this could get any traction?

An Ciarraioch

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Most reportage suggests that France is the only holdout, pushing for November 15th, while the other 26 are prepared to accept the 31st of January.

prawnsambo

Danzy wrote: »

Self destruction.

A no Deal Brexit would be destruction for all parties, a negotiated deal will not be.

A no Deal Brexit is a fantasy, a negotiation tactic, both sides knew it was and acted accordingly.

The trade deal when done will mirror on going business.

Little us are a bigger trading partner than giant economy Japan for The Brits.

Proximity matters.

Not true. The hit to UK GDP on Johnson's deal and future relationship is higher than May's deal. Quite considerably higher. And this will hit at the end of the TP. And the FTA (if agreed) will not eliminate NTBs which are significantly more damaging to trade than tariffs.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

A Number 10 source has now claimed


If the opposition are stating that they are not going to call for a general election until the threat of a No Deal Brexit is taken off the table, thn they're certainly not going to vote for a general election if they think that the whole reason for it is so the government can pass legislation which they are unable to stop.

Cummings really isn't very good at this, is he.

Is there anything in that? Wouldnt they need to bring a SI to change UK law to reflect what they'd agreed with the EU? It would simoly be the same date as agreed.

Strazdas

murphaph wrote: »

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!

Also, Britain has never been an isolationist nation at any point (unlike the USA in WW1 and WW2 for example). It has traditionally had numerous political, military and trading alliances with European nations going back many centuries.

English nationalist Leave voters are trying to reinvent the wheel by attempting to cut off the UK from Europe at a political level.

hotmail.com

murphaph wrote: »

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!

Is this a separate point? I don't see the relevance to what I said about the UK.

MrMusician18

devnull wrote: »

A Number 10 source has now claimed


If the opposition are stating that they are not going to call for a general election until the threat of a No Deal Brexit is taken off the table, thn they're certainly not going to vote for a general election if they think that the whole reason for it is so the government can pass legislation which they are unable to stop.

Cummings really isn't very good at this, is he.

This is exactly what Oborne was talking about. Johnson gives assurance that no deal is off the table, yet No. 10 briefs (anonymously, of course) the exact opposite. So Johnson can maintain two diametrically opposed positions at the same time.

The British press, and particularly those that consider them at the forefront of reporting should be ashamed of themselves for facilitating this duplicity.

RobMc59

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is that the argument you are going to use when England erupts? The remain side need to think long and hard about the consequences of overturning the referendum.

The situation will be very volatile.

Democracy only works if everyone believes their vote is equal and counted.

You are telling half the population - "your vote doesn't count". "Yes you voted leave, you won - but you don't understand the issues like we do so for your own good we are going to turn this around".

This is playing with fire and it will end in tears.

You know full well how people feel on both sides of this issue (not just the leave side). This is dangerous.

Johnson was a prominent leaver and lied through his teeth from day one-those of us who voted remain believe the electorate was duped by him and his cohorts.You know Johnson is a charlatan so why would you back his perfidious campaign by saying it's the will of the people?
As far as I'm concerned the UK public were lied to and as the shortcomings of the political system didn't allow for a measured referendum approach (as in Ireland)a 2nd referendum with the true facts is a must imo.

WomanSkirtFan8

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Have you any non imaginary basis to suggest that the EU will fail? If anything Brexit will demonatrate that countries are better off in the EU than out.

Britain has been on a downhill spiral since the days of the empire in terms of global influence through to manufacturing prowess. There will be as much of a gain for Britain post brexit as the rust belt will see in the US after voting for trumps MAGA on a not very dissimilar basis.

Absolutely 100% correct. The end of WWII was the death of the British Empire. The EU has managed to keep the peace in europe for the most part for over 70 years. I wouldn't call that a failure or failing project.
:cool:

robinph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Johnson was a prominent leaver and lied through his teeth from day one-those of us who voted remain believe the electorate was duped by him and his cohorts.You know Johnson is a charlatan so why would you back his perfidious campaign by saying it's the will of the people?
As far as I'm concerned the UK public were lied to and as the shortcomings of the political system didn't allow for a measured referendum approach (as in Ireland)a 2nd referendum with the true facts is a must imo.

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

You say "at fault" but that is not it at all. The media here is concentrated in the hands of a few anti-EU oligarchs. They're not "at fault", they are aiding and abetting the government.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You say "at fault" but that is not it at all. The media here is concentrated in the hands of a few anti-EU oligarchs. They're not "at fault", they are aiding and abetting the government.

That is true of the print media certainly.

The bias is less clear from the TV media, as shown by both sides being convinced that they are biased against them.

Joe_ Public

Nothing at all wrong or in anyway undemocratic about a second vote. Only question is does political will exist to orchestrate it and answer right now is no. Boris Johnson is certainly never going to facilitate it as it would simply be political suicide for him to do so.

Strazdas

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

They keep banging on about "democracy" but a process can only be truly deemed democratic if everyone who voted in it believes it was democratic.

A bitterly contested and controversial referendum process, shrouded in arguments and ill feeling, can hardly be described as a democratic event at all. They cannot admit to this though, as it is literally their only ever chance to get out of the hated EU.

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

That is true of the print media certainly.

The bias is less clear from the TV media, as shown by both sides being convinced that they are biased against them.

This is because TV channels are legally bound to be objective and impartial. The print media, well.... That became a lost cause when Murdoch gained traction.

hotmail.com

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But this isn't the way a large chunk of Britons see it. They want to be out of the European Union even if their position is hypocritical or contradictory.

The Irish government has accepted this position and are trying to move on.

Leroy42

The difference between a 2nd Ref and holding a GE, in the context of the democratic legitimacy of either, is that the last GE did end up being followed through on, i.e. the Tories formed a minority government.

The Ref decision has not actually been carried out yet. Of course the big issue is that anyone that has studied it with any degree of reality can see that leaving the EU is massively complicated and there are very few, if any, advantages to it. And the cost of doing it, just to see how it works, would be even greater since the cost to rejoin, possible Euro, loss of rebate etc, is simply too high.

It is simply a gamble not worth taking. If a new government is formed after a GE and turns out to be terrible, whilst harder now under FTPA, it can still be removed without causing too much damage. Leaving the EU is the exact opposite.

So, I get the idea that anti 2nd Ref talk about, but the reality is that the cost of not checking again is simply too high.

Sam Russell

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But this isn't the way a large chunk of Britons see it. They want to be out of the European Union even if their position is hypocritical or contradictory.

The Irish government has accepted this position and are trying to move on.

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

hotmail.com

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

Sam Russell

hotmail.com wrote: »

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

You might be right but I am loath to see such an amount of foolhardy self harm.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

Seth Brundle

Sam Russell wrote: »

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

To be honest, I can't actually see that happening to any large extent.
Both sides will make various claims but who should the people trust?
The government there has shown itself to be massively impartial against the EU.
The media are to a very large extent an absolute disgrace with even the once reputable BBC now just a mouthpiece for the government's "fake news".
There were no repurcussions for lying to the public. There were no repurcussions from the last referendum towards those who used underhanded and illegal data mining and large scale profiling techniques to change the minds of the undecided voters.
There's no independent source of information for UK voters to listen to.
What will be different now?

joe40

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

100% agree. It is actually worse than ill-informed, large swathes of the electorate were blatantly mis-informed

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

I assume the question would be along the lines of:

'Do you wish to shoot yourself in -

1: The head?

2: The foot?

Please select one or the other.

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

I assume the question would be along the lines of:

'Do you wish to shoot yourself in -

1: The head?

2: The foot?

Please select one or the other.

Would be more realistic if it was two doors and there was somebody outside them ready to carry out your choice for you.

McFly85

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

Which would really be utterly pointless. The idea of a second ref isn’t to steal Brexit away, but to acknowledge that the question asked in 2016 was to vague to provide parliment with an irrefutable mandate.

So what happens if you have a confirmatory referendum without an option to remain? Most likely you end up with the UK voting for a deal, but with a very low turnout. And if the turnout is low, opposition/remain parties will be quite rightly able to argue that it was due to a large amount of the population wanting to remain.

So we’re right back in the House of Commons getting deals rejected, and the UK govt will have asked the public once again for an inconclusive answer to the question of Brexit.