kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Sam Russell wrote: » There is only one time limited extension available in the WA. I would think the maximum transition could be 4 years.
Firblog wrote: » Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » At the end of the day, if a People's Vote is achieved and the electorate votes to Remain in the EU it only serves to restore the status quo which is what lead to Brexit to begin with. While I am still in favor of remaining with or without a new plebiscite, at best it will be a first step to fixing the problems the UK faces and, in some instances has created for itself; namely appalling economic inequality, deep divisions in society with a widespread and not terribly off the mark feeling that the system is rigged in favor of elites, the impact of austerity cuts which have left some local public services shocking under-resourced (just one example) and an utterly broken democracy where membership of the upper house can be bought and is wholly unelected while the lower house can be won with little over a third of the popular vote and don't even start me on this foodbank business.
listermint wrote: » Which leaves an opening for a new political party to address this. There is clearly appetite for it. Scapegoating the EU has not worked, a reversal will restore the market access but provide an opening for a political solution to those internal issues
Tell me how wrote: » I wondered the same, if anyone in UK actively was considering if there's appetite for a new party. The Lib Dems have said that they're against Brexit but they seen to have gained zero traction for having such a position. What platform could a new party hold now without uniting all incumbents against them. The performance of the elected representatives (opposition included) should be worrying to the general population. Every facet of their system of government is coming out of this looking bad. No one has provided any element of leadership since the referendum was announced. The UK should be worried that it is their performance which has the rest of the world looking at them pitifully as opposed to any sense of psychotic glee at the state of affairs.
RobMc59 wrote: » It's to be hoped that if brexit is cancelled the UK realises the benefits of being in the EU and makes a go of it instead of all the self delusional clap trap and moaning-the advantages of membership is clear to see-strength in unity being the main one imo.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » At the end of the day, if a People's Vote is achieved and the electorate votes to Remain in the EU it only serves to restore the status quo which is what lead to Brexit to begin with.
briany wrote: » On a side note, I don't think "People's Vote" should be a term that's used as Brexiteers seem to regard it as an attempt to rebrand a second referendum and make it an easier pill to swallow, and I think they're certainly right that it is a rebrand. It would be a referendum. Might as well call a spade a spade on that.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition.
seamus wrote: » Subsequent votes where there was a big concern about further right-wing shifts, didn't materialise because the majority mobilised themselves to get out and vote. This was illustrated in the perfectly-timed French presidential election, where Le Pen was polling as the front-runner around the time that Brexit happened and Trump got elected. ... She got flattened. Because people came out in large numbers to cast their vote, after seeing just how easy it was for a single vote to change the course of a country.
CelticRambler wrote: » ancapailldorcha wrote: » A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition. Not as absurd as all that. You only have to look across the English Channel to see how it was done by the French. Emmanuel Macron came from "nowhere" during a single campaign to not only win the presidency for himself, but also to take control of the lower house of parliament with a new "third way" party made up of centrists and people who'd never before held political office. BUT - and I think this is a critical difference - most people in France consider themselves firstly as "of their province" (the well-known rebellious Bretons from Brittany and Corsicans from Corsica; but others self-identifying from the less notorious Berry, Gascogne, Limousin, Ardèche, etc); and then French and European in equal measure. The Irish are similar in that respect: since 1973, Europe has been an increasingly accessible extension of our home turf. For many English, though, Europe is somewhere as familiar but foreign as the US or Australia. The fact that one can stand on the cliffs at Dover and see France across the water doesn't make it any closer emotionally if you've been reared in a tradition of believing that it's a strange and dangerous place.(*) I'm not sure the depth of that disconnect is really appreciated by the Irish in Ireland, because we just don't have the same sort of mental block about the outside world. We have our island to call home, but whole world is our playground.(*) As was the case for MrsCR, about 25 years ago on her first visit to Germany, who was literally pale and shaking as we drove across the border. seamus wrote: » Subsequent votes where there was a big concern about further right-wing shifts, didn't materialise because the majority mobilised themselves to get out and vote. This was illustrated in the perfectly-timed French presidential election, where Le Pen was polling as the front-runner around the time that Brexit happened and Trump got elected. ... She got flattened. Because people came out in large numbers to cast their vote, after seeing just how easy it was for a single vote to change the course of a country. In the interests of accuracy, the people abstained in record numbers in that election. I would not be too optimistic about the motivation of any electorate while voters continue to live in their social media bubbles.
CelticRambler wrote: » In the interests of accuracy, the people abstained in record numbers in that election. I would not be too optimistic about the motivation of any electorate while voters continue to live in their social media bubbles.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » It does and it doesn't. A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition. If it were at all possible, I would say that disaffected Labour and Conservative centrists would have done so by now but they know that they would have Britain's dysfunctional and propagandist media on both left and right to hammer them much as the Liberal Democrats do now.
Anthracite wrote: » Yes, and they have been so scrupulously honest at all stages, the anti-Brexit side should do the same...
listermint wrote: » Lib Dems are not a serious party. Just drastically poor leadership.
listermint wrote: » There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them. People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.
briany wrote: » I don't think one side acting disingenuously gives license to the other side to do the same. I mean you could take it that way, but it'll just lead ever deepening polarisation and suspicion of the other side.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Nicola Sturgeon appears to have the most coherent Brexit policy - push to stay in the EEA and CU if that can get through Parliament, and only aim for a second vote if that proves impossible:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/britain-deserves-better-brexit-may-peoples-vote
serfboard wrote: » Justine Greening was on Channel 4 News last night and said that, as regards Parliament: - There is no majority for the Deal - There is no majority for No Deal, and - There is no majority for Remain. So Parliament is stuck. Her solution? A second referendum/People's Vote. In a way the public has to bail out the politicians who are afraid to move one way or the other.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What constitutes a serious party? They were in government from 2010-2015.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that FPTP makes that all but impossible. All such a party would do now is split the anti-Tory vote and hand them more seats on a silver platter than they'd win otherwise.
listermint wrote: » Lib Dems are not a serious party. Just drastically poor leadership. There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them. People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The EU, along with the leaders of multiple member states have said on numerous occasions that Brexit can be reversed. Brexit isn't good for anyone save for Putin and the moneymen behind Farage & co. I believe that member states would only be too happy for this fell project to be binned for good. It's bad for Europeans, bad for the British and bad for EU members though the UK most of all and Ireland second. Lord Kerr, the British architect of Article 50 thinks that not only can its triggering be withdrawn but that it can be done so unilaterally. A European Court will be deciding this on the 27th November.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1065369738853916672 These TDs voted against Ireland's national interest tonight.
prawnsambo wrote: » Did they have any rationale for doing this? Or was it just so they could be contrarian.
