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 XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

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

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Queen is speaking now. It's so odd. https://www.parliamentlive.tv/
I feel bad for her for some reason.

Very anticlimactic really. Anachronistic too.

Harry Palmr

That rendition of GSTQ sounded positively mournful.

Enzokk

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Had the same thing chatting to man from uk with houses in Ireland and uk.
Obviously pro Brexit, looking forward to making trade deals independently.
For example oz. I mentioned Julia gillard at Tory party interview where she places uk way down list of importance with aus trade deals. Well, we get millions back per week. Mentioned it cost 8billion to stay and 15 billion pa to leave. Independence came back. Theres no reasoning!

I had a chat with a nurse who voted for Brexit. Conversation came down to the NHS and I mentioned that the problems that the NHS and public services are facing will not be solved by Brexit. The response was she would still vote for Brexit if there is a second vote. We have to accept that if there is a second vote the result may be Brexit again, there is very little sense to it and I doubt you will get to change many minds. The hope is that the eldery that voted has died off and new voters will back remain, views are too entrenched to try and change minds.

davedanon

I read somewhere that at least a couple of million of - overwhelmingly Leave - voters have died since 2016, while the same number of - overwhelmingly Remain - voters have come of age.

The margin of victory for Leave was 1.4 million.

murphaph

Enzokk wrote: »

I had a chat with a nurse who voted for Brexit. Conversation came down to the NHS and I mentioned that the problems that the NHS and public services are facing will not be solved by Brexit. The response was she would still vote for Brexit if there is a second vote. We have to accept that if there is a second vote the result may be Brexit again, there is very little sense to it and I doubt you will get to change many minds. The hope is that the eldery that voted has died off and new voters will back remain, views are too entrenched to try and change minds.

I am of the opinion that a second referendum is the right thing to do but with the 3 realistic options on the ballot, to be decided by instant runoff (same as Irish presidential election):
-Leave with no deal on date x or before
-Leave on May's deal
-Revoke and remain

If they still vote for a leave option then they will have done so knowing how bad the experts (derided as the may be) think it will be. You can take a horse to water....

Joe_ Public

The whole issue with the second referendum, if it ever comes to it, is that there is absolutely no indication that there will be a decisive result either way. It's wishful thinking to imagine for various reasons that logic will hold sway and remain side wins with a comfortable margin. I support the idea in principle, but you then emerge, say, with a 51-49 win for remain (depending on how the ballot is framed, i guess) and i dont know how much that solves things. On many levels, leaving does really seem the best option for everybody, provided they can come up with something that doesnt leave any side significantly worse off.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

On many levels, leaving does really seem the best option for everybody, provided they can come up with something that doesnt leave any side significantly worse off.

Brexit is an exercise in erecting barriers to trade - all possible Brexits leave everyone worse off. Norway+/BRINO does the least damage, No Deal the most, but all of them will make all sides poorer.

Joe_ Public

murphaph wrote: »

I am of the opinion that a second referendum is the right thing to do but with the 3 realistic options on the ballot, to be decided by instant runoff (same as Irish presidential election):
-Leave with no deal on date x or before
-Leave on May's deal
-Revoke and remain

If they still vote for a leave option then they will have done so knowing how bad the experts (derided as the may be) think it will be. You can take a horse to water....

If someone could convince me of a potential ballot that could be endorsed by all sides, then i'd be all for it 1000 per cent. But i dont see how your above scenario even gets past first base. The leave side would challenge it all the way to the courts and then refuse to play ball if it came to it and likely threatening all manner of social unrest. May's deal, as it stands, is not realistic and seeing two leave options on a ballot, thus an obvious splitting of the leave vote, is just not something they'd countenance imo.

Gerry T

Seth Brundle wrote:

The UK have to write in for an extension but nothing stopping the EU offering one first. Still can't find anything conclusive that they're offering one apart from the likes of this suggestion...

Why would the EU do that ?
The UK is leaving, if it wants an extension it has to ask for one and give reasons as to why the EU would grant such a request. The EU may also attach conditions to any extension.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit is an exercise in erecting barriers to trade - all possible Brexits leave everyone worse off. Norway+/BRINO does the least damage, No Deal the most, but all of them will make all sides poorer.

I understand that, but something has to give in all of this mess and if that means leaving, then so be it. Norway+ would seem the best way. If someone can convince me there is a smooth path to revoke and remain, then i'm all for that too.

farmchoice

murphaph wrote: »

I am of the opinion that a second referendum is the right thing to do but with the 3 realistic options on the ballot, to be decided by instant runoff (same as Irish presidential election):
-Leave with no deal on date x or before
-Leave on May's deal
-Revoke and remain

If they still vote for a leave option then they will have done so knowing how bad the experts (derided as the may be) think it will be. You can take a horse to water....

i dont think they can ever put no deal on a ballot, because the next day they then have to go and negotiate a deal so its back to square one.

Joe_ Public

Gerry T wrote: »

Why would the EU do that ?
The UK is leaving, if it wants an extension it has to ask for one and give reasons as to why the EU would grant such a request. The EU may also attach conditions to any extension.

It's an unlikely scenario imo, but they might do it on the basis that a deal has been agreed and passed in the Commons but needs more time for the legislation to be passed. The EU wants a deal, of that we can be certain i think, and if Johnson has some idea of letting the clock wind down, such an offer would at least put some pressure on the government to comply. In fact, i'm not sure it could be turned down in that situation.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If someone could convince me of a potential ballot that could be endorsed by all sides, then i'd be all for it 1000 per cent. But i dont see how your above scenario even gets past first base. The leave side would challenge it all the way to the courts and then refuse to play ball if it came to it and likely threatening all manner of social unrest. May's deal, as it stands, is not realistic and seeing two leave options on a ballot, thus an obvious splitting of the leave vote, is just not something they'd countenance imo.

I think the best way to proceed (if one is of the Remain ilk) would be for the HoC to vote Revoke and then pass legislation for a 2nd referendum to be held within 3 months, with a deal vs Remain. The deal would have to be May's Withdrawal Deal, as no other has been accepted by the EU and the UK Gov. (Besides, a softer Brexit can always be negotiated in the following discussions).

If the 2nd ref comes back with Brexit, then the WA goes into effect immediately, and the transition period begins.

By passing the Revoke motion, then all the extension stuff gets dropped, and the uncertainty ends. The next step is the ref followed by either Brexit or Remain, and so a definite time line.

It is only the likely remain win that has the Brexiteers fighting the 'undemocratic' nature of a vote for democracy.

Seth Brundle

Gerry T wrote: »

Why would the EU do that ?
The UK is leaving, if it wants an extension it has to ask for one and give reasons as to why the EU would grant such a request. The EU may also attach conditions to any extension.

It may be the case that Johnson still doesn't want a deal and will look to blame the EU in whatever way he can.
The EU by offering a deal puts him in the position that he can't turn it down if it's needed. It spoils his "EU are the bad guys" narrative.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I understand that, but something has to give in all of this mess and if that means leaving, then so be it.

I see no reason why the thing to give shouldn't be Brexit. It is a terrible idea - it will make everyone poorer, mess up European security arrangements, destabilise the North, strip rights from UK citizens, strip rights for EU citizens in the UK.

Call it off. The downside is noise from the Brexiters. Big deal - that's what they do. They will make noise anyway.

johnnyskeleton

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Seem like harmless old conventions to me, though you'd wonder what kind of role these sort of ceremonies should command in a supposedly modernising society. But it's not my country, so thats just a pure observation. I did notice that some MPs didnt actually go into the lords chamber to hear the speech, "refuseniks" they were reffered to on Sky. Not sure how many there were, though.

I think it can help to promote collegiality amongst MPs. They are reminded, in a sense, that Parliament fought and obtained power over the monarchy and so while they attend when the Queen summons them, they do so reluctantly.

You can also see Johnson and Corbyn having a bit of a chat as they walk out, as do some of the other senior government and shadow cabinet members.

If the sole purpose is to give them a sense of occasion and an excuse for a break in the tension, then it's probably no harm.

Also, the pageantry is something of an entertainment for people and promotes tourism. No one takes as much of an interest in Dail procedure or wants to watch their opening etc on television. Mostly, I suppose, that is because the Dail doesn't have the eyes of the world on it in the way Westminster has right now, but I'm sure part of what interests people in things like this are the pomp and circumstance, and the long years of history that are being represented in the ceremony.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the best way to proceed (if one is of the Remain ilk) would be for the HoC to vote Revoke and then pass legislation for a 2nd referendum to be held within 3 months, with a deal vs Remain. The deal would have to be May's Withdrawal Deal, as no other has been accepted by the EU and the UK Gov. (Besides, a softer Brexit can always be negotiated in the following discussions).

If the 2nd ref comes back with Brexit, then the WA goes into effect immediately, and the transition period begins.

By passing the Revoke motion, then all the extension stuff gets dropped, and the uncertainty ends. The next step is the ref followed by either Brexit or Remain, and so a definite time line.

It is only the likely remain win that has the Brexiteers fighting the 'undemocratic' nature of a vote for democracy.

That's a massive win for remainers if they get that process agreed. At a minimum, i wish remain MPs would be asked to set out their ideas for how another vote would be framed, whether along your lines or some alternative. As far as i can tell, the only politician who has set out a framework for how we might proceed is Corbyn but that entails lab winning a GE so may not be all that realistic and everybody seems to hate it anyway because it comes from him. Oh, and the Lib Dem leader, Alice-like clicks her heels and says they'll revoke when she becomes PM!

The big question i'd have about the plan laid out above is that it still involves politicians of all ilks, including tory and labour brexiteers, the Dup etc all voting to revoke (even the idea of it!) and then agreeing to a vote with May's deal in it which most of them despise. Rightly or wrongly, just cant see them doing it.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the best way to proceed (if one is of the Remain ilk) would be for the HoC to vote Revoke and then pass legislation for a 2nd referendum to be held within 3 months, with a deal vs Remain. The deal would have to be May's Withdrawal Deal, as no other has been accepted by the EU and the UK Gov.

But that'd be just more tinkering. If they were going for a rushed 2nd ref based on May's red lines, they could ask for a three-month extension and go for it straight away ... and probably end up in exactly the same situation as they find themselves today.

If the HoC is going to take the risk of revoking Art. 50, the next step should be not to fix a date for a second ref but to establish a cross-party committee and/or citizens' assembly to discuss what - precisely - Brexit is supposed to mean, and to establish an independent list of the costs and benefits of each level of integration with "Europe". After three years, there's no point in continuing to negotiate along and around May's irreconcilable red lines.

Two years would be a far more realistic timescale for that exercise, and should allow the production of a fresh, well-defined, coherent Brexit proposal to be put to the people, against an option to remain.

An Ciarraioch

Does the Immigration Bill dilute the protections of the Common Travel Area?

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1183697157003587584

Imreoir2

careless sherpa wrote: »

It's why the term in Irish is sasamach

Back when Brexit first came to attention as a term, several words in Irish were coined as a translation for Brexit. Sasamach is one of the options that people came up with, "Brealú" was another, but they all lost out to the term Breatimeacht.

Breatimeacht, which would be a contraction of "Britain" and "departure", is well and away the most common term in use in Irish for Brexit today.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I see no reason why the thing to give shouldn't be Brexit. It is a terrible idea - it will make everyone poorer, mess up European security arrangements, destabilise the North, strip rights from UK citizens, strip rights for EU citizens in the UK.

Call it off. The downside is noise from the Brexiters. Big deal - that's what they do. They will make noise anyway.

With close alignment, i dont think the potential consequences for the likes of security arrangements, NI stability need to be all that bad. But i would heartily agree that a tory brexit isn't something to be welcomed, the idea of Johnson & Co negotiating the future relationship is an alarming one. Would love to see it all called off, but just not so sanguine about the immediate future of British society as a result.

Seth Brundle

Emma De Souza's case was brought up earlier today - bad news...

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1183683193343488000

Leroy42

That is an eminently sensible approach.

Therefore it doesn't stand a chance.

Enzokk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Emma De Souza's case was brought up earlier today - bad news...

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1183683193343488000

This case just highlights how useless the UK Government has been in not following through on the provision provided in the GFA. They have not as yet made the choice of citizenship into UK law so that seems to be where we are right now. It is amazing that the 1981 British Nationality Act trumps the GFA because the UK Government has not acted to have it updated.

VinLieger

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Emma De Souza's case was brought up earlier today - bad news...

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1183683193343488000

Basically the UK failed to follow through on the required legislative changes the GFA dictated, Ireland did make the changes but it seems successive UK government weren't bothered or just forgot, surprise surprise.....

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Call it off. The downside is noise from the Brexiters. Big deal - that's what they do. They will make noise anyway.

If this was a minority of headbangers, I'd agree, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate. How can you get on with politics as usual when half your country is seething with anger, and have an outlet to direct it?

Cancelling Brexit would not even cancel Brexit at this stage. UK politics is looking likely to be mired in its shadow for the foreseeable future, no matter what the eventual outcome is.

lawred2

briany wrote: »

If this was a minority of headbangers, I'd agree, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate. How can you get on with politics as usual when half your country is seething with anger, and have an outlet to direct it?

Cancelling Brexit would not even cancel Brexit at this stage. UK politics is looking likely to be mired in its shadow for the foreseeable future, no matter what the eventual outcome is.

Based upon opinion polls then surely Brexit would result in more than half the electorate 'seething with anger'?

Lemming

briany wrote: »

, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate.

Not even remotely half the UK overall electorate considering that only some 60-odd percent voted. In effect, roughly a third of the overall electorate voted for Brexit in some way shape or form of which we have no idea the actual representation of that because it was sold deliberately as all things to all people.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

Based upon opinion polls then surely Brexit would result in more than half the electorate 'seething with anger'?

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

sure - but Brexit hasn't actually happened yet