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

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They could if all 27 agree, after all they're being asked to agree on a lot of things that have been unexpected in recent months. If they really want closure on the whole Brexit saga, it provided a way out for all, and a possible way back for the remainers.

A far better option than a no deal crashout, which is still possible if an extension is refused.

That would be contrary to the treaties and the ECJ has already previously held a country which leaves and subsequently wants to come back must go through accession in accordance with Article 49 of the TFEU.

Kermit.de.frog

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What did the "leavers" vote for?

To leave the European Union.

No matter how much anyone disagrees with it that it what they voted for.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To leave the European Union.

No matter how much anyone disagrees with it that it what they voted for.

With no deal?

Nate--IRL--

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What did the "leavers" vote for?

While I think that Leave is an idiotic postilion. To dismiss what he's pointing out with such a question is disingenuous. It ignores that Leave/Remain is now tribal. Logic does not apply any more. As illogical as that may be.

Nate

Headshot

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What did the "leavers" vote for?

Bang on!

Beside the constant lies from the leave side, the referendum question was far to vague for the leave side. There's so many variations of leave that voters could of been voting for any thing.

One certain thing is that they didnt vote for NO DEAL as the leave side kept banging on about the "Easies Deal" etc etc

The great thing about Democracy people can change their minds, especially nearly 4yrs on and the demographic of voters has changed so much at this stage too. We know voters are more knowledgable about Brexit and alot of them have changed their mind.

A confirmation Referendum is the only way to go at this stage

Mr.Nice Guy

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

I have sympathy with Leave voters in that respect. There's a double standard at the heart of it.

Professor Moriarty

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

While I think that Leave is an idiotic postilion. To dismiss what he's pointing out with such a question is disingenuous. It ignores that Leave/Remain is now tribal. Logic does not apply any more. As illogical as that may be.

Nate

Explain how asking what Leave voters voted for is "disingenuous". Is it not also disingenuous to hand wave away awkward questions by dismissing Brexit as "tribal"?

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

I have sympathy with Leave voters in that respect. There's a double standard at the heart of it.

Except that Remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To leave the European Union.

No matter how much anyone disagrees with it that it what they voted for.

Yes indeed, though it illustrates how poorly set up the referendum was.

'Leave and do what?' should have been the burning issue. What the UK public did was the equivalent of selling the house and car, quitting their job of 25 years, divorcing their spouse, all on the same day and with no plan whatsoever for what happens the following day and not knowing how damaging this might be to their life.

Kermit.de.frog

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

I have sympathy with Leave voters in that respect. There's a double standard at the heart of it.

Spot on and should be said more often. There is also an inherent snobbery involved as well.

I think the odds are Brexit will happen sooner rather than later with this deal.

I don't think they will leave with no deal simply because most Labour MPs would never vote in a way that makes that happen.

Water John

Hancock being destroyed by Peston on a Peston special.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Hancock being destroyed by Peston on a Peston special.

Good.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

I have sympathy with Leave voters in that respect. There's a double standard at the heart of it.

That's a false equivalence. The premise of brexit at the time of the referendum was all things to all voters. Remaining was the status quo that everybody knew through experience if not knowledge. If the result had been reversed, the answer to any would be second referendum proponents could be "tell us what you want and we'll set it out specifically in a referendum." and they'd still be working it out a decade from now. And that's all people are looking for now. For the exact form of brexit that has been agreed to be put back to a referendum. It's not an outrageous demand.

The problem with brexit is and always will be that it immediately fails in every respect the minute it's defined.

Headshot

Water John wrote: »

Hancock being destroyed by Peston on a Peston special.

Damn I missed it.

Any summary?

devnull

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

Farage said if it was 52/48 before the referendum then it would be unfinished business.

What he meant was, only if he loses.

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

The problem with brexit is and always will be that it immediately fails in every respect the minute it's defined.

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

What is wrong with asking people if they are happy with the deal they've got? A simple confirmatory vote - Remain or the Deal. Why are Brexiteers so afraid of that?

Water John

No 10 had said, after the Letwin Adm was passed that it increased the likelyhood of a No Deal Brexit. Peston pushed him to justify the statement. Hancock waffled and eventually, used the worst defence, that he hadn't seen the statement.

Letwin_Larry

another pivotal/crucial week ahead then?
not really.

IT's GROUNDhog DAY!!!!!!

Joe_ Public

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Remember campaign pretty well and one thing im sure about is very few, if any, came out with deal or no deal line. Even farage wasnt peddling that for pitys sake.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Had it been sold to the British public on those terms, it would never have passed i.e. Vote Leave and the Daily Telegraph having to admit "We cannot guarantee Brexit will not decimate the UK economy".

They had to lie to the public to get it over the 50% threshold.

Mr.Nice Guy

devnull wrote:

Farage said if it was 52/48 before the referendum then it would be unfinished business.

What he meant was, only if he loses.

And he was getting slated for it by the very people who would end up calling for the same thing.

What they meant was, respect the result - provided we win it.

As regards the argument that the referendum was all things to all voters, that's not much much different to the 1918 general election in this country which was, and still is, cited as a sacrosanct democratic mandate for our independence.

SF won the election here fighting on a very vague definition of what Irish independence amounted to. There was very little detail spelt out at the time. The tough choices came after and much like with Brexit, the problems came in defining it. I'd still contend however that the British should have respected the outcome of that vote, whether they liked it or not.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

No I have not said that. I'm talking about brexit and the way it was sold. The Leave campaign even admitted that they knew it would fail miserably if they tried to define it. So they kept it vague and illusory. They didn't just ignore the issues, they denied them. I'd like to think (and brexit has helped here) that any other country would not allow such an important decision to be put to a referendum without a clear understanding of the risks and what they were voting for.

And 'deal or no deal' didn't even become a 'thing' until 2017. After the referendum. So to imply that people voted in that way is... disingenuous.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

No I have not said that. I'm talking about brexit and the way it was sold. The Leave campaign even admitted that they knew it would fail miserably if they tried to define it. So they kept it vague and illusory. They didn't just ignore the issues, they denied them. I'd like to think (and brexit has helped here) that any other country would not allow such an important decision to be put to a referendum without a clear understanding of the risks and what they were voting for.

And 'deal or no deal' didn't even become a 'thing' until 2017. After the referendum. So to imply that people voted in that way is... disingenuous.

The media should have been sounding all sorts of alarm bells about just how risky an ambiguous and ill defined Leave vote would be for the UK and drawing attention to just how flawed the actual referendum itself was.

Brexit was an absolute failure of the British media and political class

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its ridiculous this call to bring an amendment for an all UK customs union.

The deal was negotiated between the EU and the UK. Parliament can't just make whatever changes they fancy to this now and think that is ok. It's so arrogant.

Who says a customs union is now on offer? Who says that wouldn't require a different compromise from the UK? Quid pro quo. How would a customs union then affect the arrangements for Ireland?

The deal is the deal. It's the second deal. It's infuriating this idea that the UK can unilaterally change the deal now. Barnier was literally briefing ambassadors on the deal yesterday, and the UK is already trying to pick it apart again.

The UK need to understand that the latest deal is the deal unless and until there is agreement from the EU to alter it. The EU have no intention of changing the deal as they just concluded it literally days ago, miraculously pulling it out of the bag after some big compromises.

If the UK don't want to pass the deal, they should focus on getting an extension for a GE and/or a referendum. That also requires agreement of the EU if they don't want to crash out in 11 days.

Of course we don't know if the deal has a majority or not, because the HOC stopped the HOC asking the HOC. For ****s sake.

It took a few weeks to change the deal on the backstop, do you think it will take a lot of time for the EU to change the WA to a permanent customs union? We have to consider if it is in the interest of the EU to have a permanent customs union with the UK. If the answer is yes then it can be done. If the answer is no then it will be rejected. Do you think we will reject an option to cause less damage than Johnson's deal will do?

As for what the EU would think of the changing of the deal, if it means there is a majority that will accept a permanent customs union it makes it more likely to pass, which is what the EU will be interested in as well. So they should be welcoming if there is an indication from the HoC and Johnson if they will accept this.

Finally, most of those involved are seasoned politicians hence why the EU didn't fall for the 3 letters scam from Johnson. They know the game as they have been playing it as well. They know what the opposition will be trying to do and so they would have thought of what possibly could happen and might have some contacts with the plans as well. So the EU shouldn't be surprised by the moves of the opposition and I think they should be welcoming if it means a better deal than we have now, which a permanent customs union undoubtedly is.

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

There’s a direct contradiction in lines 3 and 4 in your post. Referenda don’t work when it’s a case of “either way”. Did they vote to leave with a deal or not ? Many of the Leave campaigners mentioned remaining in the SM/CU, the deal is therefore not implementing the “will of the people” as they see it ?

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brazilians in Tuam for starters, Indians in IT support roles and countless other imports to maintain growth.

Indians in IT support roles?

In Ireland?

And not outsourced in India?

Who is doing that exactly?

And in what numbers?

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is wrong with asking people if they are happy with the deal they've got? A simple confirmatory vote - Remain or the Deal. Why are Brexiteers so afraid of that?

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

lawred2

schmittel wrote: »

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

And what happens if a GE results in a hung parliament?

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

It took a few weeks to change the deal on the backstop, do you think it will take a lot of time for the EU to change the WA to a permanent customs union? We have to consider if it is in the interest of the EU to have a permanent customs union with the UK. If the answer is yes then it can be done. If the answer is no then it will be rejected. Do you think we will reject an option to cause less damage than Johnson's deal will do?

The difficulty will lie with a recalcitrant Johnson who won't want it. So how do they negotiate it? It's a completely mad idea to have a WA come out of the HoC that the negotiating party doesn't want.