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

robinph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Johnson was a prominent leaver and lied through his teeth from day one-those of us who voted remain believe the electorate was duped by him and his cohorts.You know Johnson is a charlatan so why would you back his perfidious campaign by saying it's the will of the people?
As far as I'm concerned the UK public were lied to and as the shortcomings of the political system didn't allow for a measured referendum approach (as in Ireland)a 2nd referendum with the true facts is a must imo.

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

You say "at fault" but that is not it at all. The media here is concentrated in the hands of a few anti-EU oligarchs. They're not "at fault", they are aiding and abetting the government.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You say "at fault" but that is not it at all. The media here is concentrated in the hands of a few anti-EU oligarchs. They're not "at fault", they are aiding and abetting the government.

That is true of the print media certainly.

The bias is less clear from the TV media, as shown by both sides being convinced that they are biased against them.

Joe_ Public

Nothing at all wrong or in anyway undemocratic about a second vote. Only question is does political will exist to orchestrate it and answer right now is no. Boris Johnson is certainly never going to facilitate it as it would simply be political suicide for him to do so.

Strazdas

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

They keep banging on about "democracy" but a process can only be truly deemed democratic if everyone who voted in it believes it was democratic.

A bitterly contested and controversial referendum process, shrouded in arguments and ill feeling, can hardly be described as a democratic event at all. They cannot admit to this though, as it is literally their only ever chance to get out of the hated EU.

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

That is true of the print media certainly.

The bias is less clear from the TV media, as shown by both sides being convinced that they are biased against them.

This is because TV channels are legally bound to be objective and impartial. The print media, well.... That became a lost cause when Murdoch gained traction.

hotmail.com

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the two posts above, we have the perfect explanation of why Brexit is a mess: The Brits most certainly do not want out of Europe. Their problem is they - and posters who argue this point - is that there is no single definition of what the "Europe" is that they want out of. To take a very recent example: Thomas Cook. Tens of thousands of Brits were quite happy to spend their GBPs on airlines benefiting from EASA regulation of their aircraft, flying through European Air Traffic Control, benefiting from EU-directed consumer protection regulation, to visit another EU country, visa-free, where they could use their mobile phones under EU-directed "at home" tariffs, protected by at least an EHIC in case of injury, but possibly also travel insurance subject to the same guarantees in "Europe" as GB, and eating food prepared in catering establishments that had been certified safe according to the same standards as any eatery in their local High Street. If they were unfortunate enough to be the victim of crime, they could have counted on the mutual recognition of security protocols and legal decisions. And at the end of their trip, they were free to bring back to the UK just about anything they'd bought, borrowed or found without fear of prosecution.

Which part of all that so angers the British that they want to trash their relationship with 27 other countries on the European continent?

It is utterly pointless arguing in favour of anything Brexity on the grounds that "the people voted to leave" until you've answered the question "Leave what?" ... and if there's even one Leaver who says "this is not what I voted for in 2016" then it calls into question the whole vote.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But this isn't the way a large chunk of Britons see it. They want to be out of the European Union even if their position is hypocritical or contradictory.

The Irish government has accepted this position and are trying to move on.

Leroy42

The difference between a 2nd Ref and holding a GE, in the context of the democratic legitimacy of either, is that the last GE did end up being followed through on, i.e. the Tories formed a minority government.

The Ref decision has not actually been carried out yet. Of course the big issue is that anyone that has studied it with any degree of reality can see that leaving the EU is massively complicated and there are very few, if any, advantages to it. And the cost of doing it, just to see how it works, would be even greater since the cost to rejoin, possible Euro, loss of rebate etc, is simply too high.

It is simply a gamble not worth taking. If a new government is formed after a GE and turns out to be terrible, whilst harder now under FTPA, it can still be removed without causing too much damage. Leaving the EU is the exact opposite.

So, I get the idea that anti 2nd Ref talk about, but the reality is that the cost of not checking again is simply too high.

Sam Russell

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But this isn't the way a large chunk of Britons see it. They want to be out of the European Union even if their position is hypocritical or contradictory.

The Irish government has accepted this position and are trying to move on.

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

hotmail.com

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

Sam Russell

hotmail.com wrote: »

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

You might be right but I am loath to see such an amount of foolhardy self harm.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

Seth Brundle

Sam Russell wrote: »

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

To be honest, I can't actually see that happening to any large extent.
Both sides will make various claims but who should the people trust?
The government there has shown itself to be massively impartial against the EU.
The media are to a very large extent an absolute disgrace with even the once reputable BBC now just a mouthpiece for the government's "fake news".
There were no repurcussions for lying to the public. There were no repurcussions from the last referendum towards those who used underhanded and illegal data mining and large scale profiling techniques to change the minds of the undecided voters.
There's no independent source of information for UK voters to listen to.
What will be different now?

joe40

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

100% agree. It is actually worse than ill-informed, large swathes of the electorate were blatantly mis-informed

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

I assume the question would be along the lines of:

'Do you wish to shoot yourself in -

1: The head?

2: The foot?

Please select one or the other.

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

I assume the question would be along the lines of:

'Do you wish to shoot yourself in -

1: The head?

2: The foot?

Please select one or the other.

Would be more realistic if it was two doors and there was somebody outside them ready to carry out your choice for you.

McFly85

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

Which would really be utterly pointless. The idea of a second ref isn’t to steal Brexit away, but to acknowledge that the question asked in 2016 was to vague to provide parliment with an irrefutable mandate.

So what happens if you have a confirmatory referendum without an option to remain? Most likely you end up with the UK voting for a deal, but with a very low turnout. And if the turnout is low, opposition/remain parties will be quite rightly able to argue that it was due to a large amount of the population wanting to remain.

So we’re right back in the House of Commons getting deals rejected, and the UK govt will have asked the public once again for an inconclusive answer to the question of Brexit.

dePeatrick

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/licence-fee-bbc-could-become-a-subscription-service-says-director-general-g7wgh0vbk

Good way of keeping the BBC in line as it is felt that moving to a subscription model will reduce revenue...

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

'Getting Brexit done!' is a nonsense in terms of passing the current deal and it is all over. It is just a basic lie. The 'deal' is only the withdrawal agreement (WA) and leads onto the next step - a future relationship agreement - a trade agreement.

The future agreements are much more than just about trade and trade related.

Lots of previously mutual agreements have been moved under the common EU umbrella. They will cease to exist with a 'No Deal' or with a WA at the end of the transition period(s).
Schengen is an example. It was first agreed outside EU reign in 1985 by just 5 states and was first included in the EU by Amsterdam 1999 - with UK/RoI opt-outs (and since by some new member states not yet Schengen-ready)

Open Sky with all 9 freedoms of the air, airplane safety, 95% of UK long haul lorries traffic, REACH, ERASMUS, "Horizon Europe", much security cooperation, CFP (the 200 nm economic zones are from post UK's EEC membership, as are UN sustainability rules for fishing), EHIC, etc. etc.

It is literally hundreds of agreements that will and must be negotiated, agreed and included in the new UK 'top-level' association-agreement with the EU27.

In addition there are new areas like GDPR (data and privacy protection) that will be urgently needed for the UK to be able to participate in almost all future activities - 'Digital' is the name of any future 'game' - involving the EU/EEA countries.

Trade tariffs are the least of the UK's future Brexit problems (after the auto industry, farm export and much fishing export are no longer).

Lars

PS! And 'Level Playing Field' rules are partly moved to the PD, where the EU27 will be extremely firm in its negotiation positions - it is already 'deep red lines' for the EU.

murphaph

hotmail.com wrote: »

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

Nobody is fighting any battles here. It's a discussion forum so we are discussing it. We all know it's a UK matter.

MrMusician18

murphaph wrote: »

Nobody is fighting any battles here. It's a discussion forum so we are discussing it. We all know it's a UK matter.

Could've fooled me tbh.

Field east

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

Cannot agree with you. If we are back in the previous centenary , then yes I would be in agreement when the media ie TV station owners, newsreel and radio station owners were in total control as to what was fed to the public. But now we have got loads of platforms to communicate with the public and the traditional media have no control over. By way of example - look how Trump built up his followers on Facebook and completely by passing mainstream media.
The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.

Letwin_Larry

the Brexit virus seems to be spreading to the EU.
having infected UK politics, i hope the EU has the resilience to deal with this contagion and that they can contain it.

dePeatrick

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I hope the EU don't offer an extension until minutes before deadline, this would wreck UK markets and provide the much needed taste of no deal Brexit to Johnson

How so, I was under the impression that it had fortified member states?

prawnsambo

Field east wrote: »

The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.

That's not correct. They tried to explain why the soundbites from the leave campaign were wrong, but when you're explaining, you're losing. And the leave campaign presented a moving target. They just kept saying stuff that either wasn't true or so vague as to be meaningless. Look back at the likes of Gove saying that "of course we're not going to leave the SM" etc. So it was 'project fear' every time remain said something negative about leaving and reassuring nonsense when they were being questioned. They didn't define what leave meant, so they wouldn't have to defend a position and could just keep moving the goalposts. And the average voter didn't know much about the EU, never mind the SM or the CU. In fact there are MPs who to this day don't understand the CU.

Danzy

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I hope the EU don't offer an extension until minutes before deadline, this would wreck UK markets and provide the much needed taste of no deal Brexit to Johnson

The EU will do whatever it takes to facilitate him getting the deal passed or re-elected and then passing it.

They have no personal problem with him. Ideologically he would be centre right if he was a Commissioner.

Danzy

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the Brexit virus seems to be spreading to the EU.
having infected UK politics, i hope the EU has the resilience to deal with this contagion and that they can contain it.

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

prawnsambo

Danzy wrote: »

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I took the OP's remark to be semi-jocularly referring to the stalemate in the EuCo about the length of the extension.

Strazdas

Danzy wrote: »

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems.

A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

ALL European countries have been "at odds" (literally at war) with their neighbours for centuries. That's why most have the common sense to see the benefit of the EU!

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.