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 X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SeaBreezes

Do we have mitigation plans for Brexit published anywhere?

Just wondering what preps our gov have ready cause it looks like no matter what happens it will be a hard Brexit.

BonnieSituation

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EU offers Northern Ireland-only backstop - a deal they pedalled from the very start...

Pedalled?

Shocking stuff, an alleged newspaper verging on actual illiteracy on the front page.

Well, the UK have been trying to take the EU for a ride tbf.

Zubeneschamali

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Just wondering what preps our gov have ready cause it looks like no matter what happens it will be a hard Brexit.

Actually I think the chances of hard brexit have dropped considerably since Johnson arrived in Parliament, and the chances of No Brexit at all have increased a lot.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Infini wrote: »

To be fair PR would mean the nutters like BP would only be able to have a more accurate amount of representation: ie small amount. It would not be able to do what the conservatives have done in the past and be able to have a majority with less than 40% of the vote.

The UK system is badly in need of a reform their media needs to be held to account for publishing blatently false or misleading headlines and articles, they need a written constitution at this point to modernise their system and purge archaic and irrelevant law from their statues and of course FPTP needs to be chucked in the bin as it's distorting the representation as well as disenfranchising voters in "safe seat" areas.

The UK overwhelmingly voted against changing the First Past The Post system recently enough. (2011)

A bit like Cork City rejecting the idea of a directly elected mayor in their recent plebiscite. (With less than a thousand votes making the difference)

If the people democratically vote against having more democracy, then that's the democratic decision. (Unfortunately)

SeaBreezes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually I think the chances of hard brexit have dropped considerably since Johnson arrived in Parliament, and the chances of No Brexit at all have increased a lot.

I don't know.

The UK main stream media is managing to ignore all the detail and still pushing for no deal. We know what's going on here, but if you rely on mainstream news in the UK your clueless.
And it seems the true power still lies with those who will profit most from a crash..

Still, just wondering what preps we have in place? We've had three years, surely we are not oil/petrol dependent on UK by now?
Have ferries been increased? What have we done to 'uncouple gracefully' from the UK? Just curious.

bobmalooka

trellheim wrote: »

HERE WE GO FOLKS

Trust the express to spin it like this as the EU caving... lads its a fking intervention to what you wanted originally.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177064/brexit-news-irish-border-backstop-EU-deal-boris-johnson

This is good though.

All they seem to actually want is to claim some sort of victory over Jonny Foreigner - substance matters very little.

While a small part of me wants to see them see through their self inflicted implosion just so they see the folly of their arrogance, the reality is the fallout isn’t worth it.

So let them call it whatever they want, the worst of the damage will be avoided on EU terms and some sort of normality is restored

Panrich

bobmalooka wrote: »

This is good though.

All they seem to actually want is to claim some sort of victory over Jonny Foreigner - substance matters very little.

While a small part of me wants to see them see through their self inflicted implosion just so they see the folly of their arrogance, the reality is the fallout isn’t worth it.

So let them call it whatever they want, the worst of the damage will be avoided on EU terms and some sort of normality is restored

Exactly. I was just about to post something similar. The spin is beginning to accumulate around a NI backstop and when the Express is on board, there will be acceptance from the multitudes.

Strazdas

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The UK overwhelmingly voted against changing the First Past The Post system recently enough. (2011)

A bit like Cork City rejecting the idea of a directly elected mayor in their recent plebiscite. (With less than a thousand votes making the difference)

If the people democratically vote against having more democracy, then that's the democratic decision. (Unfortunately)

One wonders what the result would be now. I suspect FPTP would be ditched by a heavy margin.

trellheim

But

(as we said above)

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

so unless I am missing something

serfboard

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The UK overwhelmingly voted against changing the First Past The Post system recently enough. (2011)

The result was 68% to 32% against, and on the face of it, that seems overwhelming enough.

Until you see the turnout, and particularly in England. 40%. Therefore England voted overwhelmingly not to bother voting.

And they wonder why they're in bother.

VinLieger

Strazdas wrote: »

One wonders what the result would be now. I suspect FPTP would be ditched by a heavy margin.

The problem is explaining the differences going from FPTP to STV.

I think that was a key reason the previous ref on voting failed because the average person doesn't really care enough to try to understand why AV is a far better choice than FPTP, trying to get them to understand STV is a whole different beast

Water John

Can Parliament change the voting system without a Ref? I would presume so as it is the supreme governing body.

One could also have a federation with each of the 4 parts having its domestic parliament. HOC would be separate and deal with matters like security and external affairs. Might satisfy SNP.

Yellowhammer was never a worst case scenario and any politician saying so is lying. It's either the most likely or a fairly glum but reasonable prospect.

Inquitus

Water John wrote: »

Can Parliament change the voting system without a Ref? I would presume so as it is the supreme governing body.

Yes they can, there is no written constitution in the UK, so never a requirement to have a referendum like we have.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

The problem is explaining the differences going from FPTP to STV.

I think that was a key reason the previous ref on voting failed because the average person doesn't really care enough to try to understand why AV is a far better choice than FPTP, trying to get them to understand STV is a whole different beast

As far as I understand it, the AV system was just another name for STV. In fact (quelle surprise), the 'No' campaign were arguing that it meant that some people would get more than one vote* and used "one person, one vote" as a campaign slogan. Which of course is a gross distortion (quelle surprise encore) of what STV means.

*The 'logic' here being that the longer your vote stayed alive through first and subsequent counts, meant the more votes you got.

You'd think that this would have been a lesson for those in government that referendums need to be well thought out in advance and lies strictly policed.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

Yes, this could only have worked if Johnson could believably have pitched the WA+NI backstop deal as the only thing which could prevent No Deal crashout.

He needed 31st October Brexit guillotine to force MPs to give in, it was never about making the EU give in.

This is why he is still using dangerous language saying he won't ask for an extension, he wants to maintain the bluff so that MPs will agree on the WA.

But all the opposition need to do is reject his deal until the 19th October to force him to quit or request an extension, setting up a Nov election where they beat the Tories. They'd much rather have that election than the WA, which is a terrible deal for the UK.

So Johnson's bluff is pointless - no-one is falling for it.

Jizique

lawred2 wrote: »

most people reading that have no interest in detail whatsoever - so remembering details from a few years ago which would probably have been misreported at the time is an unreal expectation.

that this was agreed but for the charge of the DUP brigade won't even have registered with most readers of that rag..

Clicking on that link hurt, but at least i now know that the EU fears it is being played by Johnson - according to Katya Adler

An Ciarraioch

Apparently, Jolyon Maugham has been interviewed for a significant breaking Brexit news story that will be revealed at 4 p.m.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1172020016801374208

trellheim

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

It's not a court judgement : it must be something else

Cork Boy 53

trellheim wrote: »

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

The NI court already gave its judgement earlier today. There is no Welsh court hearing as far as I know.

prawnsambo

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

The NI court already gave its judgement earlier today. There is no Welsh court case as far as I know.

The NI judgment was on the brexit process effect on the GFA.

Edit: Sorry, there were two judgments today. Including the prorogation case.
Edit again: Scratch that. Stupid headline writers got it wrong and I fell for it.

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

But

(as we said above)

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

so unless I am missing something

Well, there's still the EUlephant in the room!

To a large extent, the Johnson-Cummings coup has (again) backfired spectacularly: the EU has seen that all of Boris' efforts are directed towards a no-deal, but that the majority of MPs want something else. The anti-prorogation movment coupled with recent polling means that the EU now knows that there's a possibility of having a grown-up conversation with a different negotiating team in the very near future, and recent statements (and leaks) from EU spokespersons serve to remind the incoming government at to what's potentially re-negotiable and what's absolutely not up for discussion.

While Johnson is backed into the corner of his own making, and is obliged to reinforce his "do or die [in a ditch]" position in order to keep the Brexit Party at bay, Corbyn has the luxury of being able to sit down with the LibDems and the SNP and quietly figure out a compromise position between themselves that is likely to be acceptable to the EU. Once they have agreed a reasonable plan of action, they can plead for an extension on the grounds of being the Britain's common-sense coalition and a promise to behave sensibly when they get into power ... if the EU would just give them enough time to have that election.

trellheim

As always Peter Foster says what I try to, far better than I ever could . Brilliant analysis of current EU position and deal possibilities

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1172151802206326786

lawred2

I'm a bit saturated where 'big news' is concerned at this stage. None of this news really seems to make a difference to the end goal. Just seems to be all dismissed as inconveniences.

Lost in the next 'big news' cycle

josip

Have Grieve et al given up on trying to obtain personal communications between government advisors?
Are they going to settle for just a summary of Yellowhammer?
Seems a bit underwhelming compared with what they originally asked for.

trellheim

Ref Jolyon Maugham

I'd say its something to do with the prorog being invalid and a court case taken to open the doors of the Commons because the Supremes have not ruled, so therefore the Scots case takes precedence.

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

Ref Jolyon Maugham

I'd say its something to do with the prorog being invalid and a court case taken to open the doors of the Commons because the Supremes have not ruled, so therefore the Scots case takes precedence.

Yes, I'd guess it's along the lines of a new legal challenge or something.

Textra_vision

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

lawred2

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

yeah that's what's known as a gouger

J Mysterio

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

What shop was that? Sounds illegitimate.
Post the link, just break it up. E.g. www. Link. Com