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

An Ciarraioch

Tell me how wrote: »

That is a much wider conundrum than simply the Labour/Tories question in the UK.
Look at politics in the US.
PEople give out here about our parties but we have had 6 parties play a significant role in politics in the last 25 years (my frame of focus) FF, FG, Labour, SF, Greens and the PD's (who no longer exist).

The strength of the party name carries a lot of weight. It is actually very interesting. We saw what happened with Renua, it will be interesting to see how Peadar Tóibín gets on with his yet to be named party.

I think Politics suffers too much at this point from 'the role of opposition'. The sitting government could solve world peace and they'd be blamed because the buses don't run on time. Genuine complaints from opposition are lost in the rabble of consistent negativity. Brexit was one such time when the countries interest should have been prioritised. It is very clear that it wasn't.

Especially as Tóibín's party already appears to be gaining some traction in terms of securing councillors North of the Border.

LeinsterDub

Tell me how wrote: »

That is a much wider conundrum than simply the Labour/Tories question in the UK.
Look at politics in the US.
PEople give out here about our parties but we have had 5 parties play a significant role in politics in the last 25 years (my frame of focus) FF, FG, Labour, SF and the PD's (who no longer exist).

The strength of the party name carries a lot of weight. It is actually very interesting. We saw what happened with Renua, it will be interesting to see how Peadar Tóibín gets on with his yet to be named party.

I think Politics suffers too much at this point from 'the role of opposition'. The sitting government could solve world peace and they'd be blamed because the buses don't run on time. Genuine complaints from opposition are lost in the rabble of consistent negativity. Brexit was one such time when the countries interest should have been prioritised. It is very clear that it wasn't.

Don't forget the Greens too.

Hurrache

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

This was so disturbing I deleted my previous posts.

Thank you for reminding us about how disastrous a border in the North would be.

When you either click on each person who died, or delve into each border crossing, you starkly see the amount of mindless violence involved.

Metroid diorteM

Hurrache wrote: »

An excellent website on the border, with a great interactive map to each border crossing and associated terrorist incidents that occurred at each one.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/keeping-peace
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/the-border

This was so disturbing I deleted my previous posts.

Thank you for reminding us about how disastrous a border in the North would be.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why the likes of Lammy, Soubry etc have not moved to a different party.

It is clear that there is now a split along Eu lines, rather than the traditional party lines. People like Hoey are quite happy to vote with the Tories on the EU rather than their 'own' party.

If what you believe in is on longer represented by your party, then is it really your party anymore?

That is a much wider conundrum than simply the Labour/Tories question in the UK.
Look at politics in the US.
PEople give out here about our parties but we have had 6 parties play a significant role in politics in the last 25 years (my frame of focus) FF, FG, Labour, SF, Greens and the PD's (who no longer exist).

The strength of the party name carries a lot of weight. It is actually very interesting. We saw what happened with Renua, it will be interesting to see how Peadar Tóibín gets on with his yet to be named party.

I think Politics suffers too much at this point from 'the role of opposition'. The sitting government could solve world peace and they'd be blamed because the buses don't run on time. Genuine complaints from opposition are lost in the rabble of consistent negativity. Brexit was one such time when the countries interest should have been prioritised. It is very clear that it wasn't.

An Ciarraioch

May rules out a customs union, which suggests the plan is simply to carry on the same course:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/16/no-10-rules-out-customs-union-before-cross-party-talks-begin

LeinsterDub

demfad wrote: »

[
If Corbyn supports Brexit Labour's support will fall to 19% just 2 ahead of the Lib Dems.

But where do the displaced voters go. Liberals? Maybe but they don't run in every constituency I believe. I can see the SNP and the Welsh party making gains.

Leroy42

What I don't understand is why the likes of Lammy, Soubry etc have not moved to a different party.

It is clear that there is now a split along Eu lines, rather than the traditional party lines. People like Hoey are quite happy to vote with the Tories on the EU rather than their 'own' party.

If what you believe in is on longer represented by your party, then is it really your party anymore?

Hurrache

I think someone may have suggested at some point last night that France may step in to help Britain.

This firmly knocks that thought into touch. Macron certainty doesn't try to pretty up the picture as to what he thinks Britain will do

https://twitter.com/euronews/status/1085548829217341440?s=19

micosoft

jem wrote: »

The UK is in a mess everyone knows this.
A major part of this is that May and Corbyn are leavers while the actual majority of MP's are remainers.

Actually May was a remainer.

jem wrote: »

The gas part is that the hard right and the hard left are on the same side - anti EU and always were.

Little difference between hard right and hard left in the horseshoe of politics.

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem by overreaching with the commission trying hard to turn the EU into an actual state/country simular to the USA. There is a huge amount of people against this.

No it didn't. Every development of the EU has been put forward by members. Define huge because it seems to be restricted to a bunch of simpltons following populists who create EU strawmen and bogeymen.

jem wrote: »

How do the UK get out of this mess is the big question.

Question that only the UK can answer.

jem wrote: »

First thing I would do is look for an extension.

And why would the EU give it unless there is a meaningful change or offer from the UK.

jem wrote: »

Repeal the leave legislitation (if they dont and no agreement made before 27/3 they crash out)

A meaningful alternative has to be put forward.

jem wrote: »

Put to parliment a number of questions and vote on each indivudaly:
1. rule in or out hard brexit
2. vote on labour's common market.
3 vote on new referendum.
With this there would be at least clarity of what the MP's want or dont want.
Would have to be a free vote no whips.

for the new referendum there would need to be PR on the vote:
Mays deal
No deal
or stay
with transferable vote

Have they the common sense to do the above I totally doubt it.

Seems unlikely at the moment.

Tell me how

lawred2 wrote: »

Well I'd argue that it's because they ultimately offer nothing different.

The Tories are a Brexit party.
Labour are a Brexit party.

It was 52% to 48% (probably reversed now) yet circa 90% of parliament supports Brexit. So about 10% of parliament represents the wishes of at least 48% of UK voters.

There is no other show in town. All the other stuff is day to day Westminster micro politics - a position on Brexit that opposes a Tory Brexit is macro politics.

If you're a remainer (for idealogical reasons or pragmatic reasons) who do you turn to?

Neither of them.

They'd both disgust you.

They may have been a breixt party given the trend for working class areas to vote to leave but these areas, I think, were sold a pup and the impact of leaving is largely going to hit them more.

The likes of David Lammy, Keir Starmer and Jess Philips have reacted to the realities since the referendum but have had no luck in changing policy.
They are being hamstrung by an idealist base which is living in dreamland because the words of their leader sounds good when they are left unexamined.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/19/labour-finished-if-it-backs-brexit-in-a-snap-election-says-adonis?CMP=share_btn_tw

If Corbyn supports Brexit Labour's support will fall to 19% just 2 ahead of the Lib Dems.

lawred2

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree.

The conservatives have been an unmitigated disaster in every. single. respect. since Cameron announced the referendum.
The entire world is looking at the UK through their fingers, cringing, because they are so inept.
Theresa May's government suffered the biggest defeat in the house of commons since records began.
The Tories still lead Labour in many polls.
Corbyn is responsible for this.

Well I'd argue that it's because they ultimately offer nothing different.

The Tories are a Brexit party.
Labour are a Brexit party.

It was 52% to 48% (probably reversed now) yet circa 90% of parliament supports Brexit. So about 10% of parliament represents the wishes of at least 48% of UK voters.

There is no other show in town. All the other stuff is day to day Westminster micro politics - a position on Brexit that opposes a Tory Brexit is macro politics.

If you're a remainer (for idealogical reasons or pragmatic reasons) who do you turn to?

Neither of them.

They'd both disgust you. Both trying to fall over each other in proving their Brexit credentials.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

So for me, its not his support of Brexit that is the issue, it is his complete lack of ability to paint the current government in the light they should be or indeed to give any credible alternative to the, frankly, sh1tshow that is happening.

I agree.

The conservatives have been an unmitigated disaster in every. single. respect. since Cameron announced the referendum.
The entire world is looking at the UK through their fingers, cringing, because they are so inept.
Theresa May's government suffered the biggest defeat in the house of commons since records began.
The Tories still lead Labour in many polls.
Corbyn is responsible for this.

Tacitus Kilgore

Hurrache wrote: »

Aren't we talking Brexit here?

No, we are deflecting it seems.

Remember the global recession from 2008? the EU caused it.

Remember the London riots? - yep, the EU caused them.

Remember the Norman invasion of England? - you guessed it - the EU was behind it.

The EU has been the bogeyman for all their problems for the last 40 years, any disagreement with this you will be told to look at the current unrest in France, and you will be told it's the EUs fault.

Your attention will then be directed to Belgium, where they had no government for a while - again apparently the EUs fault - but you'd better not point out anything about Stormont.

The whole problem with Brexit is that noone is being called out on their bullshit, even Arlene Foster can go on international news and deny that there was ever a hard border in Northern Ireland - and not get called out on it.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

How is he supposed to avert Brexit when he doesn't want to avert Brexit?

Well I suppose one needs to ask the question of why it is not legitimate that he supports Brexit? He believes in Brexit, 52% of the voters backed it, so it is not unusual for him to follow that path.

We need, IMO, to separate the difference between being disappointed with Corbyn because he supports Brexit, and thus isn't in line with what many of us on there would like, and the actual performance as the leader of the opposition regardless of that position.

I tend to feel that he is a very poor leader of the opposition. Take todays PMQ's and the no confidence vote for example. He needed to hammer TM on the single, indeed one could argue only, biggest issue of the day namely her complete failure in relation to the deal she brought before the HoC. He should be putting it to the likes of the ERG and the DUP that they cannot, in all honesty with the will of the people, continue to support this governemnt when they and so many of their colleagues have just completely humiliated her and told her, and the country, that her deal, which she claimed is the best she can do, is not only unacceptable, but historically the most unacceptable ever presented to the house.

Instead, he wanders off into lots of different topics, which by themselves may well be liegitimate issues (the current government has basically stopped governing for anything other than Brexit) but all it does is dilute the argument.

Has a leader of the opposition ever before been presented with such a weak and powerless PM? And yet and again Corbyn at best, at best, comes out evens. Tony Blair, for all his faults afterwards, was able to consistently paint the tory government at the time as inept, out of touch, at war with itself. He thus romped home in the next election.

Corbyn is failing miserably to hold TM and the rest of the government to account and any of their failings.

So for me, its not his support of Brexit that is the issue, it is his complete lack of ability to paint the current government in the light they should be or indeed to give any credible alternative to the, frankly, sh1tshow that is happening.

Hurrache

thecretinhop wrote: »

ah so social unrest in greece,italy,france,spain,holland,belgium,uk just happened eh?

Aren't we talking Brexit here, voluntarily entered into by the British?

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not quite - the GFA says that if there is to be a Border poll, then it has to be held both North and South simultaneously:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

I have never found the part in the GFA where it says we have to have a vote simultaneously. It's consistently trotted out.

Yes, in order to reunify we would have to have a vote, however the timing of that vote will likely come a couple of weeks/months after the north vote positively.

It makes no logistical sense for us to do it at the same time. If the north vote no then we've wasted our time not to mention the psychological impact on the State of such a thing.

https://peacemaker.un.org/uk-ireland-good-friday98

thecretinhop

Hurrache wrote: »

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem

Eh, no.

ah so social unrest in greece,italy,france,spain,holland,belgium,uk just happened eh?

Amirani

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem by overreaching with the commission trying hard to turn the EU into an actual state/country simular to the USA. There is a huge amount of people against this

The UK (as well as other constituent members) ARE the EU. Any direction taken with the EU was supported along the way by the British Government and the MEPs that were elected by the British people. Each treaty that changed the nature of the relationship between EU countries or changed the devolution of powers was passed by Westminister.

So the EU itself didn't do anything. Successive British Governments had veto power on any treaty. They didn't use it, rather they actually supported and proposed elements of each of the treaties. So any growing union was by the choice of the British.

PeadarCo

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

Labour won't get into power unless they provide an alternative to the tories. Looking from the outside why bother vote Labour when on the biggest issue for years Labour and the tories may as well be the same party.

robinph

jem wrote: »

for the new referendum there would need to be PR on the vote:
Mays deal
No deal
or stay
with transferable vote

Have they the common sense to do the above I totally doubt it.

Don't think that transferable votes would make things any clearer in this case. If there were enough people who supported Mays deal to make it come second in the first count then it might work, but would just mean that Mays deal is the one that get through.

What you'd actually have is one bunch of people vote 1 - no deal, 2- mays deal, the other bunch have 1-stay, 2- mays deal and instead of reaching a compromise it just becomes one of the extreme options.

Of course I'd be delighted if the "extreme" option of remain was the winner, but that's only going to piss off more people whichever way it goes.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

How is he supposed to avert Brexit when he doesn't want to avert Brexit?

Hurrache

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

So what's the point of a general election anyway, Labour lead by Corbyn won't go with this deal, and he's pro Brexit.

Hurrache

jem wrote: »

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem

Eh, no.

MrMusician18

demfad wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/labour-mps-join-peoples-vote-campaign-for-new-brexit-referendum-pressure-jeremy-corbyn-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

This is almost Trumpian.

Corbyn will not back a 2nd Referendum.

Even though there was overwhelming support for it at the Labour Conference it was a huge fight to get it included.

When May brought her deal to Parliament he dis not even question her on it.
Corbyn wants Brexit and any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.

The only way for Corbyn to back a second referendum is to make him choose between the prizes, back the second vote or split the party.

My guess is that even though he is a eurosceptic, he would rather be PM of a member of the EU rather than a mere leader of a small party outside of it.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The constant flimflamming to avoid saying anything definitive so as to try and keep all of the Labour voters on side simply to win a GE instead of averting Brexit which will decimate the economy and especially the working classes.

Oh for goodness sake! How EXACTLY is the leader of the opposition supposed to avert Brexit without first defeating the Government?

And he just did it by 230 votes!

Remainers would apparently prefer him to label Labour the Remain party even if that costs him votes next time and leaves the Tories in power.

BonnieSituation

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They are talking about education and food banks in the HoC now! Jesus wept.

They ended with a discussion on "the prohibition of low-level letter boxes".

They're for the birds.

jem

The UK is in a mess everyone knows this.
A major part of this is that May and Corbyn are leavers while the actual majority of MP's are remainers.
The gas part is that the hard right and the hard left are on the same side - anti EU and always were.

At the same time the EU largly caused this problem by overreaching with the commission trying hard to turn the EU into an actual state/country simular to the USA. There is a huge amount of people against this.

How do the UK get out of this mess is the big question.

First thing I would do is look for an extension.
Repeal the leave legislitation (if they dont and no agreement made before 27/3 they crash out)
Put to parliment a number of questions and vote on each indivudaly:
1. rule in or out hard brexit
2. vote on labour's common market.
3 vote on new referendum.
With this there would be at least clarity of what the MP's want or dont want.
Would have to be a free vote no whips.

for the new referendum there would need to be PR on the vote:
Mays deal
No deal
or stay
with transferable vote

Have they the common sense to do the above I totally doubt it.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In what way? Please be specific.

In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.

Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.

And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.

And suddenly no-one believes that because Corbyn bad humbug humbug.

https://www.businessinsider.com/labour-mps-join-peoples-vote-campaign-for-new-brexit-referendum-pressure-jeremy-corbyn-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

However, May is expected to survive the no confidence vote. A spokesperson for Corbyn suggested on Tuesday that he could table multiple no confidence votes, as "it will go on being the case that the best outcome is a general election."

This is almost Trumpian.

Corbyn will not back a 2nd Referendum.

Even though there was overwhelming support for it at the Labour Conference it was a huge fight to get it included.

When May brought her deal to Parliament he dis not even question her on it.
Corbyn wants Brexit and any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.