nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FreudianSlippers

intellectual dosser wrote: »

This ones really a disaster for May, she's clearly been running down the clock until MPs have to accept there is no other option than her deal. This vote and result keeps alive the delusion that another option will be made available three days after the vote.

The reality is that Plan B is an A50 postponement.

To what end? The deal is the best deal that the EU are willing to accept. Postponing Art 50 to watch these guys faff about in Parliament as to what kind of a deal they want is pointless - they've had 2 years to sort this out, they didn't... deal, no deal, no brexit; those should be the choices on the table.

Taxburden carrier

SNIP. Please refrain from posting quips. This is a forum for serious discussion.

FreudianSlippers

MP on BBC News at the moment talking absolute sense - if the deal is blocked next week, TM needs to go back to the people and say "this is the deal - is this what you wanted, or would you prefer we stay with the deal we have, or crash out?" It's not a new referendum... it's informed consent by the people as to the deal/no deal scenario to clarify if this is actually what people want. If the people want the deal then Parliament should take the deal, etc.

demfad

Grieve amendment passed. Government has now only 3 days to come back with a plan on the process for leaving EU via A50 if May's deal is defeated. No more timewasting it seems. Good development.
I assume parliament is now free to apply other amendments to this process now.

J Mysterio

Tell me how wrote: »

The Brexiteers would argue that Alistair Campbell should not be advocating for a Peoples Vote for exactly the same reason.

It is down to the person opposing the likes of O'Neill to call him on his nonsense. Too often we get single contributors from one side at a time whereas I think two contributors actually debating over 8-12 minutes is much better.

Only if they are arguing in good faith. Someone like Brendan ONeill does not argue in good faith: he is a lying bullshìt artist. That is why I say he should not be given a platform.

It is not correct to say that equal time should be given to two positions when one is patently wrong. This is one of the traps the BBC fell into and one of the reasons there is so much misinformation and confusion RE Brexit, the EU etc. etc.

Tell me how

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

MP on BBC News at the moment talking absolute sense - if the deal is blocked next week, TM needs to go back to the people and say "this is the deal - is this what you wanted, or would you prefer we stay with the deal we have, or crash out?" It's not a new referendum... it's informed consent by the people as to the deal/no deal scenario to clarify if this is actually what people want. If the people want the deal then Parliament should take the deal, etc.

There's no time for this without an extension is there?

I suspect accusations would fly that this was why she negotiated a bad deal and why she and Olly Robbins sideline Davis and Raab just so ultimately she could overturn the will of the people.

If it does move in this direction, it will be hands down the dirtiest political campaign in our life time before the 2nd vote is held.

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It isn't gas.

English liberal philosophy is very clear on the importance of checks and balances on executive power. What we have seen over the last few years is a forceful and concerted attempt by Brexiteers and their backers to undermine these checks and balances at any point their use has become necessary. So far we've had the media, Judges, the House of Lords and now the speaker of the House of Commons. If we had an opposition, I'd add that to the list. The Queen has stayed neutral which explains why she hasn't been in the firing line.

These checks are supposed to prevent executive power being abused by despots. For the most part, they work well which seems to be the reason why the Conservative party is trying to consistently undermine them.

You say the Brexiteers are undermining the checks and balances, and I agree, but the UK government is at it also themselves, hence being found in contempt.

Tell me how

J Mysterio wrote: »

Only if they are arguing in good faith. Someone like Brendan ONeill does not argue in good faith: he is a lying bullshìt artist. That is why I say he should not be given a platform.

It is not correct to say that equal time should be given to two positions when one is patently wrong. This is one of the traps the BBC fell into and one of the reasons there is so much misinformation and confusion RE Brexit, the EU etc. etc.

But, who is the arbiter of who is lying and who is speaking in good faith?

I don't disagree with your perception of O'Neill but the media determining truth and falsehoods will lead us to Fox News versus MSNBC such as they have in America.

FreudianSlippers

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no time for this without an extension is there?

There is now that the Grieve amendment has passed.

I suspect accusations would fly that this was why she negotiated a bad deal and why she and Olly Robbins sideline Davis and Raab just so ultimately she could overturn the will of the people.

If it does move in this direction, it will be hands down the dirtiest political campaign in our life time before the 2nd vote is held.

I don't disagree, but it's disingenuous for people to claim this is a second referendum - it's a clarification of what people voted for when they voted for Brexit. If the people still want Brexit, they should at least be afforded the opportunity to indicate whether they want the deal or no deal.

Accusations of purposive bad negotiation would undoubtedly fly but the EU has been crystal clear that there is no better deal.

josip

intellectual dosser wrote: »

This ones really a disaster for May, she's clearly been running down the clock until MPs have to accept there is no other option than her deal. This vote and result keeps alive the delusion that another option will be made available three days after the vote.

The reality is that Plan B is an A50 postponement.

But they can't postpone without EU agreement.
And the EU will only agree if another referendum will be held.
But there isn't enough time for another referendum.
I don't expect a GE would be reason enough for the EU to agree since the opposition under JC have shown by their inaction over the last number of years/months that the end result would be the same.
It's nailed on, crash out, hard Brexit at this stage.

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

You say the Brexiteers are undermining the checks and balances, and I agree, but the UK government is at it also themselves, hence being found in contempt.

I count the government as Brexiteers but that's a fair point.

Christy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

The Brexiteers would argue that Alistair Campbell should not be advocating for a Peoples Vote for exactly the same reason.

It is down to the person opposing the likes of O'Neill to call him on his nonsense. Too often we get single contributors from one side at a time whereas I think two contributors actually debating over 8-12 minutes is much better.

Only if they are arguing in good faith. Someone like Brendan ONeill does not argue in good faith: he is a lying bullshìt artist. That is why I say he should not be given a platform.

It is not correct to say that equal time should be given to two positions when one is patently wrong. This is one of the traps the BBC fell into and one of the reasons there is so much misinformation and confusion RE Brexit, the EU etc. etc.

Indeed. In a story about pension advice most programmes are not going to bother with someone from a doomsday cult screaming the end is high and don't bother saving. We don't complain about balance then even though one position is not being represented.

It just results in shouting louder gets more airtime which gets more money and more interest as opposed to a serious debate.

Certainly they need a brexiter viewpoint on these but maybe a few too many lies and you get blacklisted? Terrible for views though.

hill16bhoy

Tell me how wrote: »

The Brexiteers would argue that Alistair Campbell should not be advocating for a Peoples Vote for exactly the same reason.

It is down to the person opposing the likes of O'Neill to call him on his nonsense. Too often we get single contributors from one side at a time whereas I think two contributors actually debating over 8-12 minutes is much better.

But Alastair Campbell can debate honestly and rationally.

He can make actual points and back them up with solid, fact-based reasoning.

That these points tend to wind up Brexiteers no end because his style is that of an aggressive rationalist is by the by.

What does O'Neill offer besides the same turgid, nonsensical alt-right (far right) cliche playbook and a load of Gish galloping?

I've read some of his articles to annoy myself, and on each occasion come to the conclusion that the time spent I reading them would have been better spent staring at a wall.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It isn't gas.

English liberal philosophy is very clear on the importance of checks and balances on executive power. What we have seen over the last few years is a forceful and concerted attempt by Brexiteers and their backers to undermine these checks and balances at any point their use has become necessary. So far we've had the media, Judges, the House of Lords and now the speaker of the House of Commons. If we had an opposition, I'd add that to the list. The Queen has stayed neutral which explains why she hasn't been in the firing line.

These checks are supposed to prevent executive power being abused by despots. For the most part, they work well which seems to be the reason why the Conservative party is trying to consistently undermine them.

I completely agree.

I still think it's gas that these people who take themselves so extremely seriously and think that leaving the EU will give back control to the House of Commons are now complaining that the House of Commons are against them as well.

It's funny in an emperors got no clothes kinda way.

It's also funny that loads of people voted to leave the EU because they're opposed to 'red tape' and it was obvious from the before the vote that it is much much less red tape to have a single market with a single set of rules as well as an open and frictionless border compared to all the paperwork required to import, export and travel across international borders.

J Mysterio

Tell me how wrote: »

But, who is the arbiter of who is lying and who is speaking in good faith?

I don't disagree with your perception of O'Neill but the media determining truth and falsehoods will lead us to Fox News versus MSNBC such as they have in America.

There are people called fact checkers. A fact is a fact is a fact.

FreudianSlippers

josip wrote: »

But they can't postpone without EU agreement.
And the EU will only agree if another referendum will be held.
But there isn't enough time for another referendum.
I don't expect a GE would be reason enough for the EU to agree since the opposition under JC have shown by their inaction over the last number of years/months that the end result would be the same.
It's nailed on, crash out, hard Brexit at this stage.

There will be around 70 days once the deal is struck down and the 3-day period elapses. That's plenty of time to hold another referendum, although probably not enough for GE.

intellectual dosser

josip wrote: »

But they can't postpone without EU agreement.
And the EU will only agree if another referendum will be held.
But there isn't enough time for another referendum.
I don't expect a GE would be reason enough for the EU to agree since the opposition under JC have shown by their inaction over the last number of years/months that the end result would be the same.
It's nailed on, crash out, hard Brexit at this stage.

The EU cannot be in the business of predicting outcomes of democratic elections. If the UK government wanted to have a GE I'd expect the EU to allow an extension of A50 to cater for it.

Three months, plus the two between the MV and Brexit would be more than enough time to hold a second referendum and pass the immediate legislation for the result (eg. resubmit A50, revoke etc).

FreudianSlippers

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The EU cannot be in the business of predicting outcomes of democratic elections. If the UK government wanted to have a GE I'd expect the EU to allow an extension of A50 to cater for it.

The UK has had two years to sort this out. Why would the EU facilitate an extension of Art 50 to allow for the UK to have a GE?

I can see the logic in an extension for a referendum (which isn't necessary) - but not in the slightest for a GE. There should be no extension to Article 50.

Leroy42

hill16bhoy wrote: »

But Alastair Campbell can debate honestly and rationally.

He can make actual points and back them up with solid, fact-based reasoning.

That these points tend to wind up Brexiteers no end because his style is that of an aggressive rationalist is by the by.

What does O'Neill offer besides the same turgid, nonsensical alt-right (far right) cliche playbook and a load of Gish galloping?

I've read some of his articles to annoy myself, and on each occasion come to the conclusion that the time spent I reading them would have been better spent staring at a wall.

I agree that all sides should be given the right to be heard. However, when a person has be shown to be spouting nonsense repeatedly then their credibility should be shot and they should lose that right. All well and good to get someone else, but bringing Boris on, for example, when he has shown repeatedly that he has neither a grasp of the facts or a desire to adhere to the truth is pointless.

Whilst they may complain about bias, without the MSM these people will not make much of an impression. Tony Robinson, for example, has no support (materially) in the UK.

Trump was given massive airtime by the MSM in the US prior to his election, and prior to that he was given massive access to the media by dint of his name.

Johnson, JRM and the likes are the main people because they are given such airtime. There ar plenty of other MPs that are pro-Brexit but they don't get the same guaranteed airtime. JRM should be refused all interviews following the disaster of the push against TM and he declaration afterwards that despite the result she should resign.

intellectual dosser

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The UK has had two years to sort this out. Why would the EU facilitate an extension of Art 50 to allow for the UK to have a GE?

I can see the logic in an extension for a referendum (which isn't necessary) - but not in the slightest for a GE. There should be no extension to Article 50.

I'll have to disagree with you there. The EU would surely prefer an extension of A50 for a general election over a No Deal Brexit.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that all sides should be given the right to be heard.

I fundamentally disagree with this - we shouldn't give the right to be heard to people who want to engage in opinion debate against factual debate (for example, why should we listen to flat-Earthers?)

FreudianSlippers

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I'll have to disagree with you there. The EU would surely prefer an extension of A50 for a general election over a No Deal Brexit.

Why? Can you back this up because I can't think of a single good reason from the EU27 perspective.

intellectual dosser

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why? Can you back this up because I can't think of a single good reason from the EU27 perspective.

The EU are going to prefer deal over no deal. I think we can all accept this as a fact right? No deal is worst for the UK, but still bad for everyone.

And so, why accept no deal, when a GE might give a new government a mandate to accept the EU deal? The worst case would be a mandate for a no deal Brexit, which is where we would be headed if A50 is not extended.

Leroy42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with this - we shouldn't give the right to be heard to people who want to engage in opinion debate against factual debate (for example, why should we listen to flat-Earthers?)

Well, you don't have to listen to them but they shouldn't be silenced. How do you know what they are going to say if you don't first listen to them.

I agree that before, for example, a flat earther, is allowed on they should be asked what new information they have, where they sourced it from and how has it been verified. They shouldn't simply be allowed to drag up the old, already refuted, talking points.

For example with regards to the interview this morning, Coleman should have pointed out that the UK being bullied by the EU was simply his (Brendans) opinion. It is not a fact, it hasn't been stated by anybody involved in the negotiations. But Brendan, Johnson, JRM etc are allowed too often to simply state opinions as facts. IDS continuously says that their is nothing to fear from a No Deal...and the interveiwer should clarify that that is his opinion. He cannot possibly guarantee that. And they should ask him what he would do if the problems do happen, would he vote to rejoin?

Akrasia

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no time for this without an extension is there?

I suspect accusations would fly that this was why she negotiated a bad deal and why she and Olly Robbins sideline Davis and Raab just so ultimately she could overturn the will of the people.

If it does move in this direction, it will be hands down the dirtiest political campaign in our life time before the 2nd vote is held.

For any prominent remain campaigners in a 2nd referendum, It must be terrifying looking at the kinds of scenes we've seen outside Parliament this week. There is a genuine threat of a repeat of Jo Cox's murder in the first campaign. Some extremely unsavory characters are getting more militant as this mess rolls on day by day.

Christy42

Not putting someone on primetime TV is not silencing them. That doesn't follow at all.

We don't have flat earthers on TV very often because we know they have nothing knew. I fail to see why the principle shouldn't extend.

Giving more air time to people who talk louder will never encourage debate and that is all that is happening here.

Leroy42

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The EU are going to prefer deal over no deal. I think we can all accept this as a fact right? No deal is worst for the UK, but still bad for everyone.

And so, why accept no deal, when a GE might give a new government a mandate to accept the EU deal? The worst case would be a mandate for a no deal Brexit, which is where we would be headed if A50 is not extended.

Yes, but the EU have been doing everything they can for 2 years to avoid a No Deal. They have given plenty in the negotiations. What will an extension achieve?

The last two years have shown, and it is TM strategy, that the only time anything happen is when a deadline approaches. Even the UK leading Brexiteers rely on the idea that the EU will cave on 29th. So any extension will simply see TM kick the can down the road a few more weeks and nothing will actually change.

There is a deal on the table. A deal agreed by both sides in the negotiations. TM can either get the deal through or she can't. IF she can't now, then what will change in an extension? The only thing that could change is the EU position, so why would the EU agree to that?

FreudianSlippers

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The EU are going to prefer deal over no deal. I think we can all accept this as a fact right? No deal is worst for the UK, but still bad for everyone.

And so, why accept no deal, when a GE might give a new government a mandate to accept the EU deal? The worst case would be a mandate for a no deal Brexit, which is where we would be headed if A50 is not extended.

The EU has no clue what the UK are asking for and I don't see any reason why the Commission would agree to extend Article 50 (presumably indefinitely) to wait for a new government to form to discuss again the same proposals which were rejected by the EU and end up in the same place.

There is no point to an extension of Article 50, as we will always end up in the same place. The deal is the deal.

Yes, no deal would have negative impacts - mainly on Ireland - but an indefinite extension to Art 50 would have significant implications on the fundamental nature of the 2-year period for Art 50. It would allow all Member States to threaten to leave and work out new independent deals with the EU and keep kicking the can down the road. The EC will be well aware of this and unless there is going to be a real prospect of a deal / no brexit scenario, I don't see the 27 Commission members voting unanimously to extend Art 50 for a GE (all moot since UK hasn't even asked for an extension yet).

FreudianSlippers

I'm selectively quoting you here as I agree with the rest.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, you don't have to listen to them but they shouldn't be silenced. How do you know what they are going to say if you don't first listen to them.

Because these people are vetted before they come on. They are specifically chosen to come on shows to provide "balance" but sometimes there is no balance - particularly when it's facts vs opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but the EU have been doing everything they can for 2 years to avoid a No Deal. They have given plenty in the negotiations. What will an extension achieve?

The last two years have shown, and it is TM strategy, that the only time anything happen is when a deadline approaches. Even the UK leading Brexiteers rely on the idea that the EU will cave on 29th. So any extension will simply see TM kick the can down the road a few more weeks and nothing will actually change.

There is a deal on the table. A deal agreed by both sides in the negotiations. TM can either get the deal through or she can't. IF she can't now, then what will change in an extension? The only thing that could change is the EU position, so why would the EU agree to that?

+1

The only thing achieved by a GE is (presumably but certainly not a certainty) a new Government with a perceived new mandate to re-negotiate with the EU. We've been through this already - will they want another 2 years to hash out what has already been confined to the dustbin?!