Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

20-10-2019 11:33PM

lawred2 wrote: »

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

Indicative votes on the options available and let whichever one wins pass Parliament without opposition?

They have to go with something at some stage, even if it has no majority. Let the votes be secret.

Mr.Nice Guy · 20-10-2019 11:33PM

I'm really surprised that some on this thread still want the UK to stay in the EU after the way they've behaved the last couple of years. Why would anyone want a sullen member state that is going to most likely try to thwart the institution at every turn going forward? I think many EU member states wanted them to have a rethink early on, but my understanding is that most are now fed up and want to move on.

While I can see the amusement that would come with the Farages, Duncan-Smiths and Raabs etc. howling their calls of betrayal, that would quickly give way to less amusing ugliness outside of the Commons. One wouldn't want to be a non-national in such a poisonous atmosphere.

Best thing for Ireland and the other states at this point is an orderly withdrawal and allow the UK work out its identity issues in its own time. Perhaps England and Wales can vote to rejoin at some stage in the future, ideally after Scotland has already joined as an independent state, and NI has joined as part of a reunified Ireland.

hometruths · 20-10-2019 11:38PM

lawred2 wrote: »

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

Obviously that depends on the make up of the MPs - if Tories and Brexit Party can get enough numbers - then it is hard Brexit,

If Labour/Lib Dem can do a deal then you would have to fancy a 2nd ref with a remain outcome. Surely the Lib Dems could sign up to a coalition/confidence&supply if it is to thwart Tory Brexit.

Hung or not. Parliament should lean one way or another.

Water John · 20-10-2019 11:38PM

It really is the question of the majority in the UK being taken out in a Hard or Crash Out Brexit against their will. I wouldn't be bothered if they had gone for a Soft Brexit. It's what TM should have done on the 52/48, but her Tory Party was more important.

Kermit.de.frog · 20-10-2019 11:39PM

marno21 wrote: »

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 ?

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

Professor Moriarty · 20-10-2019 11:40PM

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.

A GE is not the way to determine a single issue. Party allegiance will skew voting. Other issues will skew voting. Plus Britain has FPTP which means that a third of the electorate could determine the issue.

Professor Moriarty · 20-10-2019 11:41PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

The "left"? Seriously?

Water John · 20-10-2019 11:42PM

It was clearly indicated in the draft legislation what would happen after the abortion Ref.

20-10-2019 11:42PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

That's a detail.

No Deal is the equivalent of using a clothes hanger, and ya, that would be so absurd as a government position, it would demand a revote.

Kermit.de.frog · 20-10-2019 11:46PM

Water John wrote: »

It was clearly indicated in the draft legislation what would happen after the abortion Ref.

No it wasn't.

They hadn't decided how many weeks during the referendum.

So I ask again should that vote have been revoked?

On the basis of the arguments here on the Brexit vote it should absolutely have been overturned.

It's total hypocrisy by people who don't accept the democratically expressed wish of the people in the referendum in the UK to leave the European Union because they don't like it.

It's only complicated for them because it suits them to pretend it's complicated.

prawnsambo · 20-10-2019 11:47PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

Not a great example tbf. It was clear we were voting for it to be legislated for. And that we were handing that power to the Dáil. If we didn't like the idea of the Dáil deciding we could have rejected it. And it was a defined outcome. There would be abortion, which was the substantive issue. And the other difference is that it wasn't prescriptive. You don't have to have an abortion and you don't have to go to the longest possible term to have one. If you were to apply that logic to brexit, some people could brexit and some could remain.

hometruths · 20-10-2019 11:52PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A GE is not the way to determine a single issue. Party allegiance will skew voting. Other issues will skew voting. Plus Britain has FPTP which means that a third of the electorate could determine the issue.

At some stage the electorate as well as the MPs have to responsibility for their votes and at this stage if party allegiance and other issues skew the voting, then individuals influenced by these factors cannot complain that they wanted to revoke but they have a Tory hard brexit government.

If voters feel this is the biggest issue on the table they should vote accordingly. If they think that Jeremy Corbyn is a psycho socialist and could not vote Labour although they want a 2nd ref, fair enough, but don't whine when you don't get a 2nd ref.

Equally if you'd like to revoke but you have voted Tory all your life, you should vote Lib Dem and to hell with how you've voted in the past.

Bottom line is if other issues do skew the voting then we are overestimating the importance of Brexit and they should be happy to let whoever wins get on with whatever they said they'd do in their manifesto.

Or if Brexit is the biggest issue of the day, then other issues will not skew the voting, then they should be happy to let whoever wins get on with whatever they said they'd do in their manifesto.

Only a general election will give a government the strength and insight to solve this problem, whatever that solution is.

lawred2 · 20-10-2019 11:53PM

schmittel wrote: »

Obviously that depends on the make up of the MPs - if Tories and Brexit Party can get enough numbers - then it is hard Brexit,

If Labour/Lib Dem can do a deal then you would have to fancy a 2nd ref with a remain outcome. Surely the Lib Dems could sign up to a coalition/confidence&supply if it is to thwart Tory Brexit.

Hung or not. Parliament should lean one way or another.

It already leans to remain

Kermit.de.frog · 20-10-2019 11:54PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

There would be abortion, which was the substantive issue.

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

prawnsambo · 20-10-2019 11:56PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

It's not. Because as I said, it's not prescriptive. Everyone doesn't have to have an abortion because of that vote. Only those who choose and/or need to.

Letwin_Larry · 21-10-2019 12:00AM

this Brexit nonsense reminds me of a time i was on hols in the South of Spain some years ago.
we visit this area very often and are very familiar with it. we adore this little slice of paradise.

one of the villages we love visiting is a very old typical Mediterranean fishing village. on this day we decided to call into a small fish restaurant. this particular place has been there for generations and rightly prides itself as one of the finest fish restaurants on the Med. the decor is deceptively plain and simple, the service is efficient and friendly, most importantly the fish is fresh, delicious and perfectly cooked. it arrives daily not just Mediterranean, but from all over the globe.

an English couple (mid 50s i reckon) sat down next to us. they looked pleasant. our 7 year old caught their attention, we glanced at one another and smiled.

the lady was undecided. what kind of fish do you have? she asked. the waiter nonchalantly explained they had practically every type of fish it was possible to eat. he went through every fish that was available. bream, bass, hake, halibut, herring. trout, cod, crayfish & eel. sardines, swordfish, salmon & snapper, monkfish, perch and pollock. the list was exhaustive. some species of fish i had never heard of, and most i cannot recall.

he explained what some of these fish might taste like. their size, texture, their flavour. their boneiness. his knowledge was truly impressive. still undecided she insisted on further explanation. he proudly presented to her some dozen or more different fish. sadly none were impressive enough to sway her. in desperation the waiter took her behind the scenes into the kitchen area, where few if any customers ever venture.

this performance was now ongoing for some 40 mins. and had attracted the attention of almost everybody. some people were amused, some locals looked annoyed, most like me were just curious, my partner was resisting the urge to titter. my daughter was slurping her ice-cream in the midday heat. the poor waiter was by now close to total exasperation. the lady's husband was stoic and impressively patient. i was intrigued to see what exotic species she might eventually decide on. i deliberately lingered over my cafe con leche.

in the end the waiter by now exhausted, pleaded in quiet desperation "please lady tell me what do you want?"

after some hesitation, she said

"Ah! i'll stick with the Cod"

21-10-2019 12:01AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

I actually agree overall but hate your analogy. I don't think there should be a referendum.

I used clothes hanger before. This time I'll make it more like Brexit.. The vote is "unborn babies can be killed." The people vote yes. The government says they will do this by killing the mother. That's No Deal.

They should have been voting on what the country should be. Not what it shouldn't be. Abortion is an exact thing. Leaving the EU is not.

reslfj · 21-10-2019 12:03AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This from last year explains why the Eastern European's weren't coming then.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44230865

...
And as we all knew, brexit (falling sterling and uncertainty about visas etc.) is the cause.

'Europe is getting older' - the demographic trend - is not just in the West, but in Eastern Europe too. It is and will increasingly be a major cause of missing workers in temporary jobs like harvesting. It will in addition increasingly be difficult - even in a revoke A50 situation - to attract more skilled people from other European countries.

Poland already has allowed between one and two mill. workers from Ukraine to work in Poland. The Polish government wants all Poles to come home as unemployment in Poland is very low.

In Lithuania around 10% of the population is living and working outside the country. This is not going to continue.

When the number of people wanting to migrate for work is reduced, the 'Brexit-low' pound will create an unfavourably competitive position for the UK on the labour market - skilled or unskilled, temporary or permanent - and continental Europe with stronger currencies e.g. Germany with the Euro will be first in line to get good people or people at all.

Lars

PS! The problem with FoM for people is in the poorer countries that loses the young, skilled and better people.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 12:08AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

That is up to Johnson, isn't it? If he doesn't like what parliament decides, whose decisions he has to follow, then he is free to resign and let someone else take over. Or there will be a general election to sort it out but the internal workings of the UK parliament is none of the EU's business, they only follow what is happening and react to that. If parliament is signalling that the deal currently with a customs union will pass then the EU will have to take that into account and try to negotiate a deal.

Isn't that what the EU has been asking from the UK? Give us what you can accept and we will work from there, it seems if a customs union is voted for this is what the UK parliament will accept.

As for the abortion referendum and Brexit, there was an indication given before the referendum on what the government would propose to change the legislation to if people vote for it,

The Department of Health published a policy paper on "Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy" on 9 March 2018.[27] This provided an outline of the policies for legislation which would repeal and replace the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 if the Amendment of Constitution Bill was passed in a referendum. Under this scheme, abortion would be permissible in circumstances where:
there is a risk to the health of a woman, on assessment by two doctors, without a distinction between physical and mental health;

there is a medical emergency, on assessment by one doctor;

there is a foetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth, on the assessment of two doctors;

up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication, with a time period after an initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the termination procedure.

This is what the bill that was eventually signed into law states,

The law allows for a termination:
under section 9, where there is a serious to the life or of serious harm to the health of a pregnant woman, after examination by 2 medical practitioners;

under section 10, in cases of emergency, where the is an immediate serious to the life or of serious harm to the health of a pregnant woman, after an examination by one medical practitioner;

under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth; and

under section 12, where there has been a certification that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks, and after a period of 3 days after this certification.

So there was a clear indication from government what they would do in the event of a yes result in the referendum and it seems to me that they have followed through on this.

Brexit, well there was no indication on what would happen if either result won and what the objectives would be so in no way can they be compared when looking at potential outcomes.

hometruths · 21-10-2019 12:08AM

lawred2 wrote: »

It already leans to remain

I agree it appears to, but hard to be sure given that a majority campaigned in 2017 promising to respect result of referendum and a majority voted to invoke Article 50.

Parliament appears to have changed its mind, but the government has not.

That’s exactly why they need another GE.

MrMusician18 · 21-10-2019 12:14AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

In fairness a second referendum wouldn't be hypocritical only for the fact that they want remain on the ballot

prawnsambo · 21-10-2019 12:15AM

Enzokk wrote: »

That is up to Johnson, isn't it? If he doesn't like what parliament decides, whose decisions he has to follow, then he is free to resign and let someone else take over. Or there will be a general election to sort it out but the internal workings of the UK parliament is none of the EU's business, they only follow what is happening and react to that. If parliament is signalling that the deal currently with a customs union will pass then the EU will have to take that into account and try to negotiate a deal.

Isn't that what the EU has been asking from the UK? Give us what you can accept and we will work from there, it seems if a customs union is voted for this is what the UK parliament will accept.

But if he won't resign and just stonewalls on any concessions or changes to the WA to account for them staying in the CU, what then? If he had a majority, there'd be no problem, but now (and this is going to come clear in the coming days) he's the puppet of parliament and everything he tries to pass will be amended out of all recognition. And he still has a QS to get through as well. This sh1tshow will never end.

Varta · 21-10-2019 12:31AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

This is the sole reason for the pantomime that we've had to endure. They dress it up in all manner of ways but, at the end of the day, the British cannot come to terms with the result of the referendum. It has now reached the point where it is damaging to the EU. In many ways, but particularly in terms of how the citizens of the EU are represented by its leaders. If the EU leaders don't soon cut the UK adrift they will soon lose the confidence of the people. Tears in the rain. A time to die.

trellheim · 21-10-2019 12:40AM

I find it extremely hypocritical of Johnson etc - resigned over TM deal etc because he didnt get the bits he wanted - now "Oh no you cant open the deal". E.g CU would seal the deal completely and 500+ votes.

If Speaker doesn't allow MV tomorrow, as its been moved already then the legislation can be amended . EU would go with a CU, as it solved NI far better than the deal on the current table, DUP are sorted, as would Labour, it passes, Boris does not have a majority, bish bash bong, job done . You'd need to do it before a GE though as if you thought its dirty pool so far you've seen nothing yet.

In fairness I was watching Bercow on Saturday afternoon at the end and he was not happy at Rees-Mogg for doing the Order of Business for Monday on a point of order.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 12:43AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

But if he won't resign and just stonewalls on any concessions or changes to the WA to account for them staying in the CU, what then? If he had a majority, there'd be no problem, but now (and this is going to come clear in the coming days) he's the puppet of parliament and everything he tries to pass will be amended out of all recognition. And he still has a QS to get through as well. This sh1tshow will never end.

He could try that, until parliament passes an act compelling him to go to the EU and ask for a permanent customs union. As GM228 pointed out that if he then stonewalls he will be charged for Misconduct of Public Office.

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

Misconduct in Public Office

If the opposition has the votes they could make him dance to their tune until the next election. But I suspect they will only look for assurances on either a second referendum or until they perceive him to be in the weakest position before forcing a election. Maybe if the court has made clear he has applied for the extension by sending the letter (even if he hasn't signed it) to the EU and the EU has granted a extension to the 31st January.

Strazdas · 21-10-2019 12:54AM

trellheim wrote: »

I find it extremely hypocritical of Johnson etc - resigned over TM deal etc because he didnt get the bits he wanted - now "Oh no you cant open the deal". E.g CU would seal the deal completely and 500+ votes.

If Speaker doesn't allow MV tomorrow, as its been moved already then the legislation can be amended . EU would go with a CU, as it solved NI far better than the deal on the current table, DUP are sorted, as would Labour, it passes, Boris does not have a majority, bish bash bong, job done . You'd need to do it before a GE though as if you thought its dirty pool so far you've seen nothing yet.

In fairness I was watching Bercow on Saturday afternoon at the end and he was not happy at Rees-Mogg for doing the Order of Business for Monday on a point of order.

It would be impossible for the UK to leave the EU with a WA its own PM and cabinet doesn't approve of : they are the ones running the country.

Parliament can only hold up or veto government decisions.

Charles Babbage · 21-10-2019 01:01AM

reslfj wrote: »

'Europe is getting older' - the demographic trend - is not just in the West, but in Eastern Europe too. It is and will increasingly be a major cause of missing workers in temporary jobs like harvesting. It will in addition increasingly be difficult - even in a revoke A50 situation - to attract more skilled people from other European countries.

Poland already has allowed between one and two mill. workers from Ukraine to work in Poland. The Polish government wants all Poles to come home as unemployment in Poland is very low.

In Lithuania around 10% of the population is living and working outside the country. This is not going to continue.

When the number of people wanting to migrate for work is reduced, the 'Brexit-low' pound will create an unfavourably competitive position for the UK on the labour market - skilled or unskilled, temporary or permanent - and continental Europe with stronger currencies e.g. Germany with the Euro will be first in line to get good people or people at all.

Lars

Given these demographic trends substantial immigration into the UK was going to end anyway. Having Brexit to achieve less EU immigration was like burning your house down an hour before dawn because it was dark.

Yet, the useless Remain campaign never really made the point that large scale E. European immigration into Britain was a once off thing. Had Cameron waited a year or so then the decline in immigration would have become obvious.

GM228 · 21-10-2019 01:25AM

Not sure if this has already been posted or mentioned previously, but well worth reading this thread in relation to alleged electoral offences involving the Vote Leave campaign:-

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1186010245061103618?s=19

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1185962901368168449?s=19

fash · 21-10-2019 06:08AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's total hypocrisy by people who don't accept the democratically expressed wish of the people in the referendum in the UK to leave the European Union because they don't like it.

It was a slightly expressed wish of some of the people in a country which doesn't really do democracy based on a silly and vague question, outrageous lies, outside interference and massive illegality. It was even expressly set out as legally non binding. You have no doubts whatsoever as to its legitimacy?

theological · 21-10-2019 06:20AM

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.

I couldn't agree with this more. The principle of losers consent has been undermined. It is required for democracy to function.

Instead of parliamentarians respectfully deferring to the referendum result and implementing it MPs have been hell bent on undermining it.

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

The reason Corbyn won't call an election or keeps the government and parliament hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which ought to be repealed when Johnson has a majority) is because he will lose very badly in an election to the Tories and the clearer positioned Lib Dems. I reckon Johnson will have a comfortable majority in this scenario.

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Comments