Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

The Rape of Lucretia

Folks, again, the focus on the financial aspect is missing the mark completely. Adding or subtracting billions for this or that is all beside the point - do you want to run your own country? Yes, maybe, quite likely even, UK would be better off in the EU ffinancially. But it has shown the courage of its convictions, been true to it's world view, of self, and not been swayed by pure economics, and chosen, commendably, to take back control and build a British society for British citizens. Most laudable in a world of cynical money above all, and screw culture, heritage, national pride, self respect, and democracy.

Enzokk

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't see how many people have changed their minds on Brexit. Yes it has gotten tough, but this will only be blamed even more on those pesky EU Immigrants by those that used to blame them the first time around. Nothing has changed that made people vote for Bexit, which is people using the NHS without paying into it or Polish people claiming benefits and having 6 kids.

If a election is called and all parties run on a manifesto to cancel the referendum vote I can only see UKIP actually growing as a result of this. I think Theresa May knows this and that is why she is not backing down on Brexit. I think she knows as well that as long as Jeremy Corbyn is Labour leader he will not run on going back to the EU. So the Tories could lose votes on where they position themselves with a new election.

catbear

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Folks, again, the focus on the financial aspect is missing the mark completely. Adding or subtracting billions for this or that is all beside the point - do you want to run your own country? Yes, maybe, quite likely even, UK would be better off in the EU ffinancially. But it has shown the courage of its convictions, been true to it's world view, of self, and not been swayed by pure economics, and chosen, commendably, to take back control and build a British society for British citizens. Most laudable in a world of cynical money above all, and screw culture, heritage, national pride, self respect, and democracy.

The man standing alone in the middle of a desert is sovereign.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Folks, again, the focus on the financial aspect is missing the mark completely. Adding or subtracting billions for this or that is all beside the point - do you want to run your own country? Yes, maybe, quite likely even, UK would be better off in the EU ffinancially. But it has shown the courage of its convictions, been true to it's world view, of self, and not been swayed by pure economics, and chosen, commendably, to take back control and build a British society for British citizens. Most laudable in a world of cynical money above all, and screw culture, heritage, national pride, self respect, and democracy.

As said above, 75% of parliament want to remain. The current government and opposition wanted to remain. They did NOT talk about taking back control and iterate a 'world view' that you speak off. They did NOT choose to take back control and build a British society for British citizens.

What happened was a rump of xenophobes - added to a minority in British society that genuinely (and without racist or xenophobic motives)wanted to take back control, managed to narrowly win a referendum, that was badly fought by the governing party and opposition.

You can bring a bull**** hindsight to the referendum, but what you say is nonsense.

wes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Folks, again, the focus on the financial aspect is missing the mark completely. Adding or subtracting billions for this or that is all beside the point - do you want to run your own country? Yes, maybe, quite likely even, UK would be better off in the EU ffinancially. But it has shown the courage of its convictions, been true to it's world view, of self, and not been swayed by pure economics, and chosen, commendably, to take back control and build a British society for British citizens. Most laudable in a world of cynical money above all, and screw culture, heritage, national pride, self respect, and democracy.

People were promised 350 million for the NHS.........

Fratton Fred

wes wrote: »

People were promised 350 million for the NHS.........

The people who made those promises should be forced to honour them out of their own pockets.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

Don't know anyone who regrets the vote. But then I am from Upper Bann.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The people who made those promises should be forced to honour them out of their own pockets.

Lies are told in elections all the time.

My ire would be directed at the idiots who couldn't effectively knock it on the head with the truth.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To my regret, I disagree.

I don't know, but I suspect that a majority of British MPs would be Remainers, and on a free vote, with no referendum having been held, the Commons would vote to remain.

But here in the real world, there has been a referendum, and when there's a vote in Parliament it won't be a free vote; members of all parties will be whipped in. The Tories were elected on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to respect the result, and they will be whipped to support whatever Brexit terms the Government proposes. Labour will vote the other way, because they're the opposition and that's what oppositions do, but they'll be at pains in doing so to say that they are not necessarily voting against Brexit as mandated by the people, just against the particular Brexit terms that the government is putting to Parliament. In other words, it'll be party politics as usual.

The point about demanding a parliamentary vote before giving notice under Art 50 is not to prevent Brexit; it's to give the parliamentary party more influence over the kind of Brexit that the Government aims to negotiate with the EU. The likely outcome would be a softer Brexit than might otherwise happen, not no Brexit.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

Thread title had me hoping they decided to leave the UN.


I am disappoint.

The way things are going it's more likely that the UN will close whatever offices it has in Britain and leave.*

1. 76% of U.K. CEOs consider leaving Britain after Brexit, survey finds

2. Quarter of Brits considered leaving UK since Brexit vote: poll

3. Nissan warns future of UK car plant hinges on Brexit talks

*With the option to return around 28 days later to rescue Cillian Murphy and a few other stragglers in the City of London.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdRFMp8Xwo

FrancieBrady

The strategy is allow the stupidity of this to dawn on the public and then vote on it and they will all sigh with relief.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-block-brexit-deal-no-10-admits-a7368561.html

Edit: or maybe not. I was hoping it was a way out, but I see in the last paragraph that they will still exit if the 'deal' is voted down.

Nate--IRL--

I don't understand what parliament will be voting on. Article 50 is for agreeing the procedure for leaving, separate to the Framework for the future relationship.

Even if Parliament vote it down they still exit.

Nate

FrancieBrady

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I don't understand what parliament will be voting on. Article 50 is for agreeing the procedure for leaving, separate to the Framework for the future relationship.

Even if Parliament vote it down they still exit.

Nate

On whatever deal the negotiators thrash out?

Capt'n Midnight

To please the little englanders we could call it

Brexit : The Empire strikes back.






This is just bizarre. The UK could leave the EU and then the MP's could vote to reject the deal. Hey. if you're going to shot yourself in the foot you might as well use both barrels.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37691270

Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: "A vote so late in the day would put MPs between a rock and a hard place. It would ask us to choose between a deal on the government's terms or leaving the European Union with no deal at all."

Nate--IRL--

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On whatever deal the negotiators thrash out?

The Future relationship framework negotiations are not part of the Article 50 process. They could run concurrently (not sure?) but will likely take many years longer, at best.

The 2 years for A50 are to provide an orderly detachment of the 2 entities.

Nate

FrancieBrady

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The Future relationship framework negotiations are not part of the Article 50 process. They could run concurrently (not sure?) but will likely take many years longer, at best.

The 2 years for A50 are to provide an orderly detachment of the 2 entities.

Nate

I thought it was all to be completed in the 2 years? Not sure either.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought it was all to be completed in the 2 years? Not sure either.

The idea is that after 2 years they're out one way or another. The two years were supposed to be a chance to get everything in order. Whether it's finished or not, they're out.

Nate--IRL--

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought it was all to be completed in the 2 years? Not sure either.

Just Article 50. Future framework/trade negotiations, to get back in, can take as long as they want. Switzerland for example, have been in constant negotiation since 1973

Nate

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

The idea is that after 2 years they're out one way or another. The two years were supposed to be a chance to get everything in order. Whether it's finished or not, they're out.

Yeh, I get that. Nate is saying there are more negotiations though.

Capt'n Midnight

wes wrote: »

People were promised 350 million for the NHS.........

Norn Iron costs £211m a week.

NI = £11Bn compared to UK nett EU contribution of £8.5Bn a year ( £165m / week )

People still don't get how dependent the UK is on services.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37508969

"As a share of our GDP, if you compare our exports to say Germany there's a huge difference.

"If you look at total trade, imports and exports makes up about 57% of our total GDP - [it's] 86% in Germany.

"We have an increasing current account deficit that needs to be closed.

The Rape of Lucretia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Norn Iron costs £211m a week.

NI = £11Bn compared to UK nett EU contribution of £8.5Bn a year ( £165m / week )

People still don't get how dependent the UK is on services.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37508969

So NI certainly not a romantic fantasy that the Eire could even think of taking on in any reunification scheme. Would the Scots have any interest in them ? Unlikely. Looks like NI have no option but to exit with England and Wales.

Peregrinus

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I don't understand what parliament will be voting on. Article 50 is for agreeing the procedure for leaving, separate to the Framework for the future relationship.

Even if Parliament vote it down they still exit.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The Future relationship framework negotiations are not part of the Article 50 process. They could run concurrently (not sure?) but will likely take many years longer, at best.

The 2 years for A50 are to provide an orderly detachment of the 2 entities.

It works like this:

Once you give notice under Art 50, a two-year period starts to run, during which time you negotiate about the terms on which you will leave, and about the terms of any continuing special relationship you might have (for example, EEA membership, or participating in a customs union, or “grandfathered” rights for EU citizens already living in the UK and UK citizens already living in the EU-27, etc.)

Ideally, at least the principal elements of the ongoing relationship will be hammered out in these negotations, so that when the state concerned leaves they can transition immediately to the new relationship. There won’t be any interim period where the exiting state and the EU-27 are perfect strangers to one another, so to speak. There will of course still be lots more detail to be hammered out, and many more decisions to be taken, over a number of years after that, but the main planks of the continuing relationship will be known, and will be in place.

At the end of the two years, if the negotiations are going will but haven’t finished, the two-year period can be extended so that this transition can happen, just a bit later, but only if everyone agrees.

If the negotiations break down, or if there isn’t unanimous agreement to continue them, then at the end of the two years the exiting state is out, and the EU and the exiting state are complete strangers. This isn’t an outcome anybody wants, but it’s what will happen if they can’t agree on something more satisfactory.

Right. If, as a result of a court ruling or a political decision, the UK government decides to seek parliamentary approval to serve Art. 50 notice, in my judgment they are highly likely to get it (for the reasons given in my earlier post). But the significance of going to Parliament is that the Government will need to talk to its own backbench MPs, who can reasonably say “you can’t ask us to approve Brexit when we don’t know what long-term relationship with the EU you are seeking/proposing in the negotiations which will inevitably start shortly after we approve Brexit”. That requires the government to put together, and present to the parliamentary party and in due course to Parliament and the nation, a Brexit strategy which commands the support, or at least the assent, of its own backbenchers. Which means a Brexit strategy that pays a lot of attention to the concerns/aspirations/values of remainers, who are probably a majority of the backbenchers. Which is precisely why the more ardent Brexiters dont’ favour this.

Nate--IRL--

Peregrinus wrote: »

It works like this:

Once you give notice under Art 50, a two-year period starts to run, during which time you negotiate about the terms on which you will leave, and about the terms of any continuing special relationship you might have (for example, EEA membership, or participating in a customs union, or “grandfathered” rights for EU citizens already living in the UK and UK citizens already living in the EU-27, etc.)

As far as I've understood the process it this is not correct - Article 50 does not include the negotiations for the future relationship.

In anycase 2 years is no where near enough for such a discussion. From reading the Article itself it is clear it is an exit process only, but with consideration toward the Future Framework Negotiations.

Nate

Peregrinus

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

As far as I've understood the process it this is not correct - Article 50 does not include the negotiations for the future relationship.

In anycase 2 years is no where near enough for such a discussion. From reading the Article itself it is clear it is an exit process only, but with consideration toward the Future Framework Negotiations.

Legally, no, giving Art 50 notice doesn't involve any obligation or commitment to negotiate a future relationship.

But the whole point of the two-year notice period is to allow that to happen; otherwise why wouldn't Art 50 notice be immediately effective? It's not likely to be in anybody's interests that a member state just leaves, bang, with no new relationship in place, so the two-year period is to allow for that. So the start of the "future relationship" negotiations absolutely is linked to the giving of notice under Art. 50. The more so since the EU has said it won't start them until Art. 50 notice is served.

I accept that the future relationship won't be fully fleshed out in two years. But the idea is that the significant features can be agreed, and can be in place from the day exit actually happens.

For example, a fairly obvious feature of the future relationship might be that EU nationals who have settled in the UK in exercise of their free movement rights should be afforded a continuing right to stay, and likewise for UK citizens who have settled in the EU-27. It would be in both sides' interest to agree this. But it really needs to be in place right from exit-day; otherwise the people concerned have no right to stay and can be made to leave at any time. All they would have is a hope that they might at some unspecified point in the future be granted the right to stay. And this would create precisely the kind of uncertainty and instability that you want to avoid.

Another example. It's almost certainly the case that, on exit-day, the UK is not going to abolish all EU-driven laws in force in the UK, if only because this would leave them with huge gaps in their domestic legal system. The default position is almost certain to be that EU-driven legislation remains in force in the UK unless and until the UK authorities repeal or amend it.

So far, so good; the UK can make and implement that decision themselves. But, given that they are likely to do that, it makes sense to make use of it in the future relationship negotiations. For instance, if the UK wants preferential access for its manufactured goods or agricultural produce or whatever to EU markets, it's useful that EU product standards/food standards will continue to be enforced in the UK. So they might want to agree that, into the future, they won't remove or alter those laws without notice to the EU, as part of a deal whereby as long as that notice is not given those products are admitted to the EU without having to undergo inspection for compliance with EU standards at the border. That kind of thing.

In other words, many of the decisions that arise in deciding the model of exit that the UK will follow have implications for the future relationship that the UK will have with the EU, and therefore you want to consider these two things in parallel. That's what the two-year period is for. And that is what will happen during the two-year period.

Which is why it would be reasonable for parliamentarians to say that we won't give the nod to the start of the two-year period until you give us a good idea of what you propose to do during the two-year period.

catbear

catbear wrote: »

Brexit II, the Empire Strikes Back!

Why thank you!

Anyhow the Luxembourg PM tweeted this nice little zinger.

“Before they were in and they had many opt-outs; now they want to be out with many opt-ins.”

Precise and concise.

FrancieBrady

catbear wrote: »

Why thank you!

Anyhow the Luxembourg PM tweeted this nice little zinger.



Precise and concise.

Precisely what anybody with an over exalted opinion of their stature would do.

How about just knuckling down and making it work for once Britain?

catbear

It feels as in the changing of thread carriages we may have left behind some unhappy passengers. Good analogy if so.

beach_walker

A Little Pony wrote: »

Don't know anyone who regrets the vote.

Same. I know a few who voted out, was at the pub with one last night actually, and none say they'd change it. Rather than feeling Bregret, or whatever the line the Guardian is pushing, it seems they're more pi$$ed off with the slowness of the government response to it so far.

FrancieBrady

beach_walker wrote: »

Same. I know a few who voted out, was at the pub with one last night actually, and none say they'd change it. Rather than feeling Bregret, or whatever the line the Guardian is pushing, it seems they're more pi$$ed off with the slowness of the government response to it so far.

The DUP is not renowned for spotting a progressive move straight off the bat.

It will probably filter through in time that staying in is a survival mode for NI and then they will be all for it.

beach_walker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP is not renowned for spotting a progressive move straight off the bat.

It will probably filter through in time that staying in is a survival mode for NI and then they will be all for it.

Should point out I'm living in Scotland, not the North.

C'mon, I wouldn't be having a pint with DUP types! :pac:

FrancieBrady

Plenty in Scotland too.

beach_walker

True. But the Leave voters I know (both here and from my work trips to England) bear little to no resemblance to the caricatures presented on threads like this and in the media at large.

FrancieBrady

beach_walker wrote: »

True. But the Leave voters I know (both here and from my work trips to England) bear little to no resemblance to the caricatures presented on threads like this and in the media at large.

True to an extent that caricatures are used on both sides.(the 'gleefull' republicans, 'the big bad EU', 'de Germans')
But the amount of people who are sticking to their guns on this Brexit is diminishing, if you look at the polling.

indioblack

catbear wrote: »

It feels as in the changing of thread carriages we may have left behind some unhappy passengers. Good analogy if so.

The passengers who paid their fare - as opposed to those who were given a free ride.

indioblack

beach_walker wrote: »

True. But the Leave voters I know (both here and from my work trips to England) bear little to no resemblance to the caricatures presented on threads like this and in the media at large.

I can think of four I know from work.
One who was the classic Little Englander - in fact he not only disliked foreigners and the Scots, Irish and Welsh - he didn't care much for the English either - I guess he just didn't like people!
The second was quite indifferent to the whole business.
The third was an ardent Brexiter - he's gone a bit quiet now.
The last accepted it was a risk to leave - but considered it a chance worth taking.

Peregrinus

There was a bunch of newspaper reports of polls in July which suggested that some Leave voters were regretting their vote. This is interesting because the usual phenomenon with polls taken just after a result is that the winning outcome gets more support that it was getting in the polls before the result. People like to see themselves as backing a winner, it seems.

But I don't know how rigorous or scientific these polls were. Plus, reports of these seem to have dried up. I can't find anything after early August, so even if this phenomenon was real we don't know if it has persisted.

My hunch is that if you ran a poll now, you'd get a high "don't know" showing, as it's becoming apparent to a lot of people that nobody really knows that Brexit will mean in practice. It could mean a range of things. They'll keep their powder dry, so to speak, until the government shows its hand, and the commentators have had a chance to say how likely it is that the government will get the kind of deal it professes to want, and then they'll decide if they like it.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

beach_walker wrote: »

True. But the Leave voters I know (both here and from my work trips to England) bear little to no resemblance to the caricatures presented on threads like this and in the media at large.

True to an extent that caricatures are used on both sides.(the 'gleefull' republicans, 'the big bad EU', 'de Germans')
But the amount of people who are sticking to their guns on this Brexit is diminishing, if you look at the polling.

That is complete nonsense.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/696760/british-no-regret-Brexit-majority-support-Leave-theresa-may-national-stats-poll-EU
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-no-regrets-brexit-polling-8882527

Polls show 79% of people want an end to the free movement of people from Europeafter we leave.

Prof Curtice said a series of polls through the summer show support for Brexit is still at 52% - the exact margin of victory on June 23.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is complete nonsense.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/696760/british-no-regret-Brexit-majority-support-Leave-theresa-may-national-stats-poll-EU
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-no-regrets-brexit-polling-8882527

6% and rising regret their vote already.
That is high for a 'winning side' and is now higher than the margin of victory.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-vote-regret-leave-margin-victory-2016-10
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-britain-british-election-study-insights-from-the-post-eu-referendum-wave-of-the-bes-internet-panel/#.WAjNtuArLcu

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is complete nonsense.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/696760/british-no-regret-Brexit-majority-support-Leave-theresa-may-national-stats-poll-EU
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-no-regrets-brexit-polling-8882527

6% and rising regret their vote already.
That is high for a 'winning side' and is now higher than the margin of victory.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-vote-regret-leave-margin-victory-2016-10
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-britain-british-election-study-insights-from-the-post-eu-referendum-wave-of-the-bes-internet-panel/#.WAjNtuArLcu

Look at the mirror link. The number is still around 52%. I wonder why some people can't just let it go. Remain lost and they need to deal with it. I have two brothers who voted remain, I voted leave. They don't like the result but they have accepted it ultimately.

Not saying you personally but some people in the UK still seem to be in the grief stage.

catbear

The express? Ah here!

What is now, 10p a copy?

Flattery is cheap.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Look at the mirror link. The number is still around 52%. I wonder why some people can't just let it go. Remain lost and they need to deal with it. I have two brothers who voted remain, I voted leave. They don't like the result but they have accepted it ultimately.

Not saying you personally but some people in the UK still seem to be in the grief stage.

I think a link with an actual poll from 6th Oct, trumps a link with no poll but a pollster giving his 'opinion' from 23rd Sept.


The people who wanted to Remain are dealing with it, Theresa May being a case in point, who wanted to Remain.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She campaigned for Remain, 75% of her parliament want to Remain.
They are dealing with the result, despite claims to the contrary.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think a link with an actual poll from 6th Oct, trumps a link with no poll but a pollster giving his 'opinion' from 23rd Sept.


The people who wanted to Remain are dealing with it, Theresa May being a case in point, who wanted to Remain.

May is a politician. I'm pretty certain that whatever course she opts for it will not be the best for the UK but the best for her. She won't take any decision that will jeopardise her future as PM.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

May is a politician. I'm pretty certain that whatever course she opts for it will not be the best for the UK but the best for her. She won't take any decision that will jeopardise her future as PM.

Totally agree.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Look at the mirror link. The number is still around 52%. I wonder why some people can't just let it go. Remain lost and they need to deal with it. I have two brothers who voted remain, I voted leave. They don't like the result but they have accepted it ultimately.

Not saying you personally but some people in the UK still seem to be in the grief stage.

I think a link with an actual poll from 6th Oct, trumps a link with no poll but a pollster giving his 'opinion' from 23rd Sept.


The people who wanted to Remain are dealing with it, Theresa May being a case in point, who wanted to Remain.

He is a very credible pollster to be fair.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/yougov-focus-groups/

steddyeddy

Martin McGuinnes says he does not trust James Brokenshire, secretary of state for Northern Ireland to negotiate on behalf of NI in Brexit discussions. It appears Martin and Arlene won't be invited to the talks. A conversation with Arelene's like talking to a brick wall from the Orange Order but but despite that, she's elected by the people and should be included in the talks. As should Martin.



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37704302?client=ms-android-samsung

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is a very credible pollster to be fair.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/yougov-focus-groups/

Yes he is and he is a member of the team that found in this research that 6% of Leave voters would vote the other way now.

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/faqs/#.WAjnJOArLcs

He is a member of the team that found this out in a survey of over 10,000 people conducted on 6th Oct 2016.
So I think his opinion might just possibly have altered slightly from the one he had on the 23rd Sept or 5th Aug 2016

What do you think? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Martin McGuinnes says he does not trust James Brokenshire, secretary of state for Northern Ireland to negotiate on behalf of NI in Brexit discussions. It appears Martin and Arlene won't be invited to the talks. A conversation with Arelene's like talking to a brick wall from the Orange Order but but despite that, she's elected by the people and should be included in the talks. As should Martin.



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37704302?client=ms-android-samsung

A cynic might think that they don't want the regions muddying the waters.