Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

GM228 wrote: »

Interesting Tweet from Andrew Duff on what the EU27 may offer tomorrow:-

https://twitter.com/AndrewDuffEU/status/1187280720940716033?s=19

https://twitter.com/AndrewDuffEU/status/1187280722177986560?s=19

It's not clear if that is just his opinion or an insight into what may be agreed by the EU27, however, the notion of an EU stipulation that a further extension past 30th November would be based on a GE taking place would be at odds with treaty law, I have invited David Allen Green to comment his thoughts if true.

I wonder if by election, he means referendum..

There were people on this thread only a few days ago rubbishing the idea that there might be unrest if Brexit doesn't happen.

Hopefully that poll opens some eyes. Many are seriously underestimating the strength of feeling that Brexit has stirred up. Said it before but if just 1% or even 0.5% of that 17.4 million are upset to the point of wanting to act on their frustrations, that's a recipe for mayhem.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There were people on this thread only a few days ago rubbishing the idea that there might be unrest if Brexit doesn't happen.

"Unrest" is putting it lightly. England will become a tinderbox. (Note I say England - this is an English nationalist project)

Remember this is seen a vote for independence (and in most ways it is) by a lot of the population over there.

Impossible to overestimate the strength of feeling if the result was overturned.

A lot of people would be very frustrated and angry.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is that the argument you are going to use when England erupts? The remain side need to think long and hard about the consequences of overturning the referendum.

The situation will be very volatile.

Democracy only works if everyone believes their vote is equal and counted.

You are telling half the population - "you're vote doesn't count". "Yes you voted leave, you won - but you don't understand the issues like we do so for your own good we are going to turn this around".

This is playing with fire and it will end in tears.

You know full well how people feel on both sides of this issue. This is dangerous.

I can understand the point you make about not wanting to obstruct 'the will of the people' in a broad sense because of the disruption that might arise, but what of the more dangerous precedent it sets. Specifically, the idea that groups can campaign on deliberately vague and contradictory policies, squeeze out a narrow victory margin and employ that purported victory as a mandate for an arrangement which slices away some of many of those same campaign promises. More than that, I can't help but see the entire Brexit and Euro-scepticism fiasco as little more than the culmination of a long running campaign by the gutter media and marginal figures to finger the EU for just about any and all maladies.

My go-to on this point is immigration; now anyone would think from the Brexit campaign that migration into the UK was down exclusively to some Brussels diktat of the much absurd terms. It seems to have escaped the notice of these institutions that since 1992 non-EU migration has made up three-quarters of all migration into the UK, which has been entirely under the UK's control. And even the migration it has seen from the EU, which can be of the temporary seasonal variety or even medium term with an eventual return him, might be more easily reconciled with UK attitudes towards migration than say a more permanent migrant from the other side of the planet.

Now despite these realities, somehow the usual suspects in the UK manage to castigate EU as the chief conductor behind the type of mass migration they bemoan, and to be fair this is hardly the only area where emotionally charged rhetoric runs counter to reality. The economic arguments I hear in regards the EU are perhaps nothing short of a Nigel Farage style 'baffling' - the idea that the EU is to blame for the decline in UK fishing rather than the mass sell-off of fishing rights as well as the loss of the Icelandic fishing waters, the idea that the EU is responsible for both a de-industrializing globalization as well as stifling economic protectionism, the idea that the UK is going to break free from foreign domination by leaving the protection of a bloc of like-minded countries - these are all spectacularly contradictory ideas which have been sold to the UK public by what might be most generously described as an incompetent media and slice of the political intelligentsia eager to profit from said changes.

Surrendering to this enormous mania or treating as anything other than a bad idea, riven with contradictions and problems, is nothing short of an abdication of the principled responsibility of every citizen to try and defend the democratic system they live under. Now I see by your argument that you are perfectly au fait with the idea of such a deal going through and then making the counter argument. I might be inclined to go along with that but I would go a step further and argue that the specific choice of Brexit arrangement should be put to the people, be it Deal, No-Deal or No-Brexit in a single transferable vote. I'm not sure just how oppressed and maligned 'the people' can claim to be if they are the ones deciding what step is to be taken next, nor can they really complain if their chosen outcome fails to garner a majority. The choices are now crystal clear, the population is now actually well informed, and the only real argument against putting it back to the populace is that the Brexiteer's bag of shadows and snake oil wouldn't work twice.

GM228 wrote: »

Interesting Tweet from Andrew Duff on what the EU27 may offer tomorrow:-

https://twitter.com/AndrewDuffEU/status/1187280720940716033?s=19

https://twitter.com/AndrewDuffEU/status/1187280722177986560?s=19

It's not clear if that is just his opinion or an insight into what may be agreed by the EU27, however, the notion of an EU stipulation that a further extension past 30th November would be based on a GE taking place would be at odds with treaty law, I have invited David Allen Green to comment his thoughts if true.

Can't see that happening, the EU don't want to be seen as directing the UK what to do and giving preconditions based on those directions.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I can understand the point you make about not wanting to obstruct 'the will of the people' in a broad sense because of the disruption that might arise, but what of the more dangerous precedent it sets. Specifically, the idea that groups can campaign on deliberately vague and contradictory policies, squeeze out a narrow victory margin and employ that purported victory as a mandate for an arrangement which slices away some of many of those same campaign promises. More than that, I can't help but see the entire Brexit and Euro-scepticism fiasco as little more than the culmination of a long running campaign by the gutter media and marginal figures to finger the EU for just about any and all maladies.

My go-to on this point is immigration; now anyone would think from the Brexit campaign that migration into the UK was down exclusively to some Brussels diktat of the much absurd terms. It seems to have escaped the notice of these institutions that since 1992 non-EU migration has made up three-quarters of all migration into the UK, which has been entirely under the UK's control. And even the migration it has seen from the EU, which can be of the temporary seasonal variety or even medium term with an eventual return him, might be more easily reconciled with UK attitudes towards migration than say a more permanent migrant from the other side of the planet.

Now despite these realities, somehow the usual suspects in the UK manage to castigate EU as the chief conductor behind the type of mass migration they bemoan, and to be fair this is hardly the only area where emotionally charged rhetoric runs counter to reality. The economic arguments I hear in regards the EU are perhaps nothing short of a Nigel Farage style 'baffling' - the idea that the EU is to blame for the decline in UK fishing rather than the mass sell-off of fishing rights as well as the loss of the Icelandic fishing waters, the idea that the EU is responsible for both a de-industrializing globalization as well as stifling economic protectionism, the idea that the UK is going to break free from foreign domination by leaving the protection of a bloc of like-minded countries - these are all spectacularly contradictory ideas which have been sold to the UK public by what might be most generously described as an incompetent media and slice of the political intelligentsia eager to profit from said changes.

Surrendering to this enormous mania or treating as anything other than a bad idea, riven with contradictions and problems, is nothing short of an abdication of the principled responsibility of every citizen to try and defend the democratic system they live under. Now I see by your argument that you are perfectly au fait with the idea of such a deal going through and then making the counter argument. I might be inclined to go along with that but I would go a step further and argue that the specific choice of Brexit arrangement should be put to the people, be it Deal, No-Deal or No-Brexit in a single transferable vote. I'm not sure just how oppressed and maligned 'the people' can claim to be if they are the ones deciding what step is to be taken next, nor can they really complain if their chosen outcome fails to garner a majority. The choices are now crystal clear, the population is now actually well informed, and the only real argument against putting it back to the populace is that the Brexiteer's bag of shadows and snake oil wouldn't work twice.

But your rationale (and well articulated it is) runs aground when you consider that this was a vote for independence from the European Union.

So to pursue your own logic on how bad Brexit would be economically for people to it's conclusion then Ireland would never have gotten it's independence or any state dependent on a bigger power for that matter because people were going to be worse off immediately afterward.

The UK is a big confident resourceful country, well able to support itself inside or outside the EU.

I make that same argument of all countries big and small in the EU as well.

No matter what one thinks of the referendum (and lets be real there were lies and falsehoods on both sides) they voted to leave.

It does not get any simpler than that. To me that means they leave all the institutions of the EU.

The only people making it seem complicated are those who never accepted the result.

And that is my argument:

1. Accept the result
2. Once result is implemented then remainers can put forward a new debate to rejoin.

devnull wrote: »

The biggest hypocrite of the whole thing is Farage, saying a second referendum is undemocratic, despite the fact the very same person said if he lost by 52:48 then one should not be ruled out and it's a long way from being finished. That's before you even take into account the fact Leave cheated. 4% gap in a straight fight is a far bigger gap than 4% in a illegally manipulated one.

Every campaign is full of lies. This isn't why Brexit won the referendum.

The UK has always been luke warm to Europe, not really seeing itself as truely continental. This goes back over 100 years to 'splendid isolation' which gave Britain peace and wealth. This policy, they believe, also created their Empire which they have more affection for than their European neighbours.

hotmail.com wrote: »

It seems that the strongest support for Brexit is among the middle aged and older people, so I really can't see unrest/violence coming from them.

A politician was murdered by a nutter screaming 'Britain First'. Police foiled a threat on the life of another MP Rosie Cooper. There are numerous MPs who have tweeted threats sent to them in their offices. Police recently had to escort MPs out of the parliament buildings.

This is going to escalate massively if Brexit is thwarted, especially if Johnson is going to run his general election campaign on a basis of portraying parliament as the great villain of the piece.

Best thing now is an orderly withdrawal of the UK. It's a pity it looks like it will first require an election because that is going to stir up all sorts of unpleasantness, including north of the border.