Brexit Referendum Superthread

Water John

SNP and Scotland are a minor side show to her.
It's all about strengthening her own base for when the going gets though, which they inevitably will.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The SNP seems to be here to stay though. Nothing May does in the short term will change that.

SNP might be here to stay - but not in the UK.

Water John

UK history, will not be kind to Cameron.

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP does not even need all the seats, a simple majority will be fine

No they certainly do not need all the seats and the fact they got 56 out of 59 seats last time it is hard to imagine they can match that almost clean sweep. But as long as they get a clear majority having said they are going for a second indy referendum that will be a very positive result for the SNP and give them great momentum especially considering the success they have had in the last 2 elections post indy referendum 1.

Enzokk

Not too sure what to make of this, do people in the UK still believe they can host EU agencies if they want nothing to do with the EU? Seems as though it is clear as day what will happen to reasonable people, so the question must be if the people in the Brexit department are reasonable?



UK contradicts EU over location of agencies after Brexit


https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/854687528254918657

Jayop

Eeeh, surely EU agencies will be based in the EU. What utter madness would it be to suggest otherwise.

Enzokk

Jayop wrote: »

Eeeh, surely EU agencies will be based in the EU. What utter madness would it be to suggest otherwise.

And yet if you google, "EU Agencies located in the UK" you get results from UK sources that states those two agencies could stay in London post Brexit. I think you describe it aptly that is is utter madness.

CrabRevolution

I've noted before depending on how favorable they are to Brexit, how vague, weak statements are taken as gospel, but constitutional positions and firmly entrenched laws are dismissed as "not definite" and "up for negotiation".

For example, a few random MEPs explain that they don't think it's possible for an independent Scotland to seamlessly stay in the EU. Brexiteers/Unionists* take this as a binding resolution and exclaim that Scotland are "back of the queue" for the EU and would take decades to get in so shouldn't bother with independence.

Yet when every treaty, every law, every EU politician, every Prime Minister within the EU etc. all officially declare that the UK can't pick and choose what parts of the EU they want, it's dismissed by Brexiteers as bluffing and that those things are all up for discussion.

*I know not all Brexiteers are Unionists and vice versa, but the overlap between the 2 is huge.

First Up

Its amusing to hear May talking about getting a mandate that will "strengthen her hand" in negotiations with the EU. As if the EU could care less how many Brits think Brexit is a great idea.

The poor old Greeks suffered from the same delusion, believing a huge vote for Syriza would make Europe concede to all sorts of fantasies.

They found out and so will the British.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

They found out and so will the English.

FYP. Not trying to be smart about it; because this entire debacle is the result of a resurgence of English nationalism. This is all about "England First", and never once was the fate of any other member of the union considered.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

FYP. Not trying to be smart about it; because this entire debacle is the result of a resurgence of English nationalism. This is all about "England First", and never once was the fate of any other member of the union considered.

The Welsh voted leave too.

steddyeddy

Jayop wrote: »

Eeeh, surely EU agencies will be based in the EU. What utter madness would it be to suggest otherwise.

It' not madness in Brexit land!

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

The Welsh voted leave too.

And they are now showing considerable signs of voters remorse and getting very, very, very nervous about it.

CrabRevolution

First Up wrote: »

Its amusing to hear May talking about getting a mandate that will "strengthen her hand" in negotiations with the EU. As if the EU could care less how many Brits think Brexit is a great idea.

The poor old Greeks suffered from the same delusion, believing a huge vote for Syriza would make Europe concede to all sorts of fantasies.

They found out and so will the British.

There was a poster here who was very active a few months ago who claimed to have voted remain, but their staunch and dogmatic defence of every pro Brexit position made me doubt that.

A lot of their argument seemed to be that the EU was obliged to give in to all the UK's demands because the UK had a mandate from the British people. This mandate apparently overrode the entire operation of the EU, as well as the interests of the other 27 countries and the will of the other 90% of the EU's population.

It's similar with a likely conservative parliamentary majority. How can a decisive election victory strengthen May's position on the EU stage? How would it even come into the discussions? Does she declare to Merkel and Tusk "The conservatives have a majority of 50 seats in our own parliament, so give us what we want".

CIARAN_BOYLE

First Up wrote: »

Its amusing to hear May talking about getting a mandate that will "strengthen her hand" in negotiations with the EU. As if the EU could care less how many Brits think Brexit is a great idea.

The poor old Greeks suffered from the same delusion, believing a huge vote for Syriza would make Europe concede to all sorts of fantasies.

They found out and so will the British.

At the moment if May had agreed a deal with the EU for Britain to leave it wouldn't pass commons. The tories have a majority of 17. Who says the entire party will back My.

She had a couple of rebels and 5 or 6 abstentions in the article 50 vote.

She needs to have a supermajority in order to be able to deliver on any deal she makes.

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

Not too sure what to make of this, do people in the UK still believe they can host EU agencies if they want nothing to do with the EU? Seems as though it is clear as day what will happen to reasonable people, so the question must be if the people in the Brexit department are reasonable?



UK contradicts EU over location of agencies after Brexit


https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/854687528254918657

A friend works in the EMA and while there was no official announcement, they've been told to prepare to move. Not easy if you have family in this country.

Water John

Interesting to see Activists outside the political system getting involved.
Gina Miller taking a lead;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/19/gina-miller-best-for-britain-tactical-voting-against-hard-brexit

Wonder will the Daily Mail label her as now the most dangerous woman in UK?

Hande hoche!

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see Activists outside the political system getting involved.
Gina Miller taking a lead;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/19/gina-miller-best-for-britain-tactical-voting-against-hard-brexit

Wonder will the Daily Mail label her as now the most dangerous woman in UK?

Was curious as to when she would reappear.

Water John

Don't think she ever went ahide, despite the level of abuse thrown at her.
Strange how somebody who defends the citizen rights, is almost considered a threat.

Jayop

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Was curious as to when she would reappear.

Did she disappear?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Its amusing to hear May talking about getting a mandate that will "strengthen her hand" in negotiations with the EU. As if the EU could care less how many Brits think Brexit is a great idea.

The poor old Greeks suffered from the same delusion, believing a huge vote for Syriza would make Europe concede to all sorts of fantasies.

They found out and so will the British.

A general election is obviously not going to strengthen May's hand externally, in her dealings with the EU. She already has all the mandate she needs to deal with the EU on behalf of the UK; she's the Prime Minister of the UK. No general election can make her more the Prime Minister than she already is.

Her objective is to strengthen her hand internally, and in particular within her own party.

Just like Cameron, she has decided to try to sidestep party divisions by going to the people. What could possibly go wrong?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Her objective is to strengthen her hand internally, and in particular within her own party.

I suspect the main reason is to buy them two extra years - i.e. push the NEXT election back to 2022, in the hope that the worst of the Brexit damage will have faded from the national conscience or that they will somehow have struck a few good deals somewhere. When you are desperate, you cling to those sort of hopes.

She is likely to come out of this one OK, although the law of unintended consequences can't be discounted. It also gives Labour two extra years to try to rebuild after Corbyn but that may not be enough, given that Brexit is going to hit their voters hardest, resulting in who knows what.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

push the NEXT election back to 2022, in the hope that the worst of the Brexit damage will have faded from the national conscience or that they will somehow have struck a few good deals somewhere.

I think that she knows Brexit will take more than 2 years and will still be a huge mess in 2020, and is hoping it will be a done deal and too late to back out in 2022.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think that she knows Brexit will take more than 2 years and will still be a huge mess in 2020, and is hoping it will be a done deal and too late to back out in 2022.

One way or another, it'll be a done deal by 29th March 2019.

The UK's faffing and game playing around this whole debacle leaves a very sour taste in the mouths of the rest of the EU. If the UK want an extension on their 2-year term, they need unanimous approval. They won't get it.

The rest of the EU isn't going to draw out the process longer than is necessary because the UK couldn't get their sh1t together.

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

One way or another, it'll be a done deal by 29th March 2019.

Some elements, the bits that are under the gun, will be completed.

But the future relationship between the UK and the EU will not be finalized on that date - not the stuff covered in Article 50, but talks about future trade arrangements, bilateral travel, work, residency agreements etc. etc. will still be ongoing in 2020. And 2022. Probably 2030.

Jim2007

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

She needs to have a supermajority in order to be able to deliver on any deal she makes.

No matter how big a majority she is returned with, it is going to be a tall order to get MPs to accept a deal that involves paying a big their EU budget contribution.

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

One way or another, it'll be a done deal by 29th March 2019.

The UK's faffing and game playing around this whole debacle leaves a very sour taste in the mouths of the rest of the EU. If the UK want an extension on their 2-year term, they need unanimous approval. They won't get it.

The rest of the EU isn't going to draw out the process longer than is necessary because the UK couldn't get their sh1t together.

The UK is basically the Roy Keane of the EU. It's gotten its own way for some time now but it was never enough while always treating the EU as either a scapegoat or a lesser priority. It seems to be completely oblivious that dragging its heels while whinging that the EU is repatriating its assets is only serving to deteriorate the relationship it needs to keep hale to ensure a good deal. Worse, it is completely ignoring the fact that all member states need to agree to extend the 2-year negotiating period if a deal isn't reached.

djpbarry

First Up wrote: »

I suspect the main reason is to buy them two extra years - i.e. push the NEXT election back to 2022, in the hope that the worst of the Brexit damage will have faded from the national conscience or that they will somehow have struck a few good deals somewhere.

If that is the case (and it does seem to be the generally accepted explanation), then why now? Why not prior to Article 50 being triggered? Precious negotiating time is now being wasted on a general election which, in my opinion, is unlikely to change the make-up of the Commons all that much. It further reinforces the idea that either...

(a) nobody in May's cabinet has any idea what they're doing
(b) nobody in May's cabinet can agree on anything
(c) all of the above

Either way, I'm sure the news was greeted with a great big FFS in Brussels.

First Up

djpbarry wrote:

If that is the case (and it does seem to be the generally accepted explanation), then why now? Why not prior to Article 50 being triggered? Precious negotiating time is now being wasted on a general election which, in my opinion, is unlikely to change the make-up of the Commons all that much. It further reinforces the idea that either...

(a) nobody in May's cabinet has any idea what they're doing (b) nobody in May's cabinet can agree on anything (c) all of the above


Either way, I'm sure the news was greeted with a great big FFS in Brussels.

A flattering explanation would be that calling an election before A50 would have made it the campaign issue and May wasn't prepared to re-run the referendum.

A less flattering explanations is that they are making it up as they go along.

Junker has just told them that negotiations won't start until after June 8th. The UK has wasted 7+ weeks of their precious 2 year negotiating window but that (like everything else) is a problem of their own making.

Jim2007

First Up wrote: »

Junker has just told them that negotiations won't start until after June 8th. The UK has wasted 7+ weeks of their precious 2 year negotiating window but that (like everything else) is a problem of their own making.

And proper order!  Where is the point in negotiating with someone who claims they need a better mandate.