Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Corbyn should call for a VONC once Johnson has asked for one and gotten his deal passed. It could then be a Labour policy for a confirmation referendum while the Tories will be hit by the Brexit Party for the lie that he would leave the EU by the 31st October and that the deal isn't hard enough as well.

I must be misunderstanding this - it sounded like you're saying that Corbyn should want a confirmatory ref on a deal already agreed by the HoC and the EU 27?

If that's correct, then there'd be no need. A deal would take the wind out of everything, Brexit party, Labour and all. Brexit is nearing exhaustion, and the BP/UKIP will wither into irrelevance if and when this deal is passed. England will be out of the CU and SM, and that'll be more than enough for Brexiteers.

The 60:40 is you're measure, not an objective one.
It does need to shift more than it is but it is creeping there. Brexit being passed will give it a major boost.

robindch wrote: »

Here's a nice man in a balaclava giving his thoughts on border policy.

Full 11-minute report is here.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1184529443471142913

What's his thoughts on how the EU VAT regime should operate in the north?

That's what I really want to know.

briany wrote: »

I must be misunderstanding this - it sounded like you're saying that Corbyn should want a confirmatory ref on a deal already agreed by the HoC and the EU 27?

If that's correct, then there'd be no need. A deal would take the wind out of everything, Brexit party, Labour and all. Brexit is nearing exhaustion, and the BP/UKIP will wither into irrelevance if and when this deal is passed. England will be out of the CU and SM, and that'll be more than enough for Brexiteers.

There will need to be an extension to get the legislation passed for the deal to come into effect. In that time the UK would not have left and the chance is there to have an election before they legally leave the EU. Johnson would have broken one of his central promises that they would have left by the 31st October, deal or no deal.

As for the Brexit Party, you know the problem Johnson has is his pronouncements on no-deal the past 3 months have convinced voters that leaving without a deal will be okay. The Brexit Party can take this vote from the Tories as their only policy would be exactly that, we will have a "clean Brexit" which people have swallowed up already. Take into account that the details of the deal would have been scrutinized and Johnson's own words will be played back to him about how bad a deal it was when May proposed it.

All of my assumptions are based on Johnson getting a deal passed in the HoC. In that case Labour is in deeper trouble than they are now, this is one way I think they can win some of the votes back. It's the Cameron strategy of 2015, where only a Tory vote would get a Brexit referendum. In this case a possible revoke can only happen with a Labour majority or coalition with the Lib Dems. At the very least it would concentrate the Remainers to get a strategy out to stop Johnson getting a majority.

robindch wrote: »

Sturgeon has also said that she'll only call a second referendum when she's sure of winning it - if memory serves, that means a sustained, plausible majority of 60% in favour versus 40% against according to multiple opinion polls.

The UK Government, Westminster and the Scottish unionist parities (Tory, Lib Dem & Labour) have consistently stated they will ignore any mandate that exists for calling a second independence referendum and they will not allow one to happen.It is akin to the Catalonia situation except that there is doubt if Westminster consent is actually needed

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

An official suggested that the DUP could benefit from using the simple majority method whereas the nationalist community could ensure there was no change to Northern Ireland's status by withdrawing from the Assembly so that no vote could be taken.

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Honestly everything was going fine wasn't it? Until someone decided that UKIP might usurp things in time. Eu via Cameron was approached to see if it would change things to suit UK, non.

And then there was Brexit. Just a short summary!

And so here we are.

Nobody was looking for a referendum in 2015, not even UKIP.

Cameron held the thing as a cheap and cynical political stunt.

J Mysterio wrote: »

There's also a potential psychological element where the parties, politicans and public get conditioned to voting to maintain the close relationship with Ireland. If you're doing that every four years, might just as well vote for a UI at one point and get it over with, remove all the admin and stress of it.

I'm not convinced everything is as it seems right now though, and there must be more to it. These reports are surprisingly convoluted, if simple.

True, I didn't think of a vote for a close relationship in that way before. I agree that there is still a lot of details to sort and a lot of ways it could be rejected by various parties. If Johnson is looking for a deal he will make the compromises he has to, if not this will all be a time wasting exercise on the way to no-deal. I doubt anyone still knows or has figured out the plan.

Water John wrote: »

The 60:40 is you're measure, not an objective one.
It does need to shift more than it is but it is creeping there. Brexit being passed will give it a major boost.

Remember they only lost the indyref1 over the EU membership questions at the time. Tories proceeded to shaft Scotland with Brexit so Indyref2 will be to become independent if theres a crash or they're dragged out of the EU after this.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:



So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

Only way our side should see ANY of this as acceptable is in the event of no agreement or that if the assembly votes to "leave" then a Border Poll is the fallback position on all of this having a UI as a fallback position would focus enough of the DUP to not risk it.

What is it the erg want in all this? Outside of their weird bromance with the dup, I'd have thought escaping all the regulatory frameworks would be a red line for them but the pm seems to be going in the opposite direction. Very hard to square all this.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any word out of Scotland on all this?

Seemingly they want an independance referendum, can't blame them tbf.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

I'd consider them a subversive party within a party to be fair they're essentially UKIP for diaster capitalists had they been booted out of the conservative party years ago instead of their poisonous views tolerated we might be in a completely different place.