Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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