Brexit discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Very interesting and thank you very much for this. It appears to back up most of what I have said.

I note that the paper clearly states "That High Court in Belfast declared in October 2016 that it would be an over-statement to suggest that EU membership was a constitutional bulwark central to the Good Friday Agreement, which would be breached by notification of Article 50. This, the Court asserted, would be to ‘elevate ... [EU membership] over and beyond its true contextual position’.16 In its January 2017 verdict, the UK Supreme Court upheld the Belfast High Court position: the principle of consent for constitutional change contained in the Good Friday Agreement referred to whether Northern Ireland remained in the UK or unified with the rest of Ireland. It did not refer to EU membership or withdrawal."

I must look up these cases, as the Courts have clearly determined already that Brexit does not breach the GFA. We can close off this debate.

Then there is the suggestion:

"Brexit must surely require deletion and/or revision of the references to the EU within the Good Friday Agreement. As one of the signatories to the deal will no longer be part of the EU, it is unclear how the required ‘implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework’, as outlined in para. 17 of Strand Two, can continue."

Why is this so? There are plenty of defunct clauses in international agreements all over the world. References to the League of Nations or the European Community etc. abound in various international treaties, yet neither organisation continues to exist. The rational conclusion, involving the least disruption is that there is no further discussion on EU programmes because they no longer apply to Northern Ireland.

As for the ECHR, there is confirmation that it is a separate manner and has no relation to Brexit:

"A further aspect of UK withdrawal relates to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Convention is not an EU institution, but secession from the EU may embolden those in the UK Conservative Government seeking to replace adherence to the ECHR with a UK Bill of Rights."

A What if scenario if ever I saw one.

On citizenship, apart from saying that there has been an increase in applications, it does not say that Brexit affects the GFA provisions.

"One other important aspect of the Agreement is its confirmation of the right of anyone born on the island of Ireland to hold Irish, and thus EU, citizenship. The Agreement confirms (Constitutional Issues, para vi.) the right of Northern Ireland’s citizens to hold British and Irish citizenship and that this ‘would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland’. In the five months following the Brexit referendum vote, there were 24,849 applications for an Irish passport from Northern Ireland (a 63 per cent increase on the same period in 2015)."

So to sum up:

- The Courts have determined that the GFA does not require continued UK membership of the EU, therefore Brexit in and of itself does not breach the GFA
- Citizenship rights are not affected
- The ECHR is a completely separate issue
- References to the EU in the GFA are complicated, the paper suggests they may have to be renegotiated, alternatively, as I suggest, they are just defunct. Either way, it is hardly relevant as the EU programmes will no longer apply to Northern Ireland, so why would the two nations discuss them?
- There are political issues around the GFA


I can't disagree with any of that.

There is enough in there to point to a number of possible breach's of the GFA which is what has been claimed. The possibility for breach. Despite you claiming that posters said it was in breach as of now, I don't think anyone claimed that.

swampgas

A Little Pony wrote: »

Doesn't matter who it is, the only requirement is they must believe in Brexit. And then preferably get rid of the remain squad.

There's a fundamentalist, isolationist, quasi-religious vibe to statements like that.

Almost like you want to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of the world and hunker down in your bunker in case you get infected by strange foreign ideas and lose your sense of identity.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Anthracite wrote: »

This nonsense again.

The referendum was about withdrawing from the EU. It said NOTHING about the EEA.

Respectfully I disagree. The referendum was won on the basis of taking back control of borders, laws and money. Feel free to look at the Lord Ashcroft poll of leave and remain voters that ancapailldorcha keeps posting. The EEA option is a bad deal. It effectively means that Britain hasn't left the European Union. It is subject to its strictures without having regained any control. The opposite of what won the referendum.

To others:
On John Redwood and his derivatives. I personally don't mind what speculative financial instruments he chooses to buy and sell and why. He's a leaver in the no deal camp rather than a leaver who supports a good negotiated agreement (like myself).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Little Pony

swampgas wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Doesn't matter who it is, the only requirement is they must believe in Brexit. And then preferably get rid of the remain squad.

There's a fundamentalist, isolationist, quasi-religious vibe to statements like that.  

Almost like you want to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of the world and hunker down in your bunker in case you get infected by strange foreign ideas and lose your sense of identity.

It's fundamentalist alright, I believes the spoils of victory should go to the winning side and I want to see Brexit delivered and I don't care how it's done except the fundamentals on the SM and CU. Theresa May is weak and comes across as such and as she doesn't believe in it, it's time to get rid of her.

View

A Little Pony wrote: »

View wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

View wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Russians are here, hide under the bed! 


Wouldn't mind if it was ripped up, worst form of government in Europe and doesn't work, so it's not worth saving.

Ah, i see lets deploy the deflection tactics.

So are you disputing  the evidence of involvement or trying to side track it like Trump has been ?

The remain campaign lost by something like a million votes. Remain lost fair and square,

If there was outside interference then the result clearly wasn’t either fair or square.

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Brexit was influenced by the Russians and it swung a million people to vote for Brexit including myself (wish I had seen this propaganda at the time) then I can only thank Putin for helping us out of the EU.

Or, in other words, I couldn’t care less about what the will of the British people really is, merely that I got the result that I wanted and if that means siding with a foreign power over my own country to acheive it, then I am all for it.

Provide the evidence that a million people got influenced by Russian bots ordered on the instructions of Vladimir Putin to ruin Western elections so he can continue to under mine Western democracies and continue his destiny to rule the world.

I am not the one making the claims about this. My point is that it should concern all people in Britain - who care enough about their democracy and their nation that is - whether the result was “fair and square” or not.

It is people like May who are making the accusations against Russia. I presume that you trust the person leading Brexit to be attempting to act in what they perceive as being Britain’s best interest?

Why would I trust Theresa May who was a remainer and believes in globalism? I don't believe anything she says.

I didn’t ask whether you trusted May.

I asked whether you trusted whether May is attempting to act in what she perceives as being in Britain’s best interest.

That’s an entirely different question.

swampgas

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's fundamentalist alright, I believes the spoils of victory should go to the winning side and I want to see Brexit delivered and I don't care how it's done except the fundamentals on the SM and CU. Theresa May is weak and comes across as such and as she doesn't believe in it, it's time to get rid of her.

That's not exactly how most democracies work - they usually try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What you're describing would be closer to Genghis Khan slaughtering everyone who stood in his way.

Do you think that 52% should be able to steamroll the 48% just because they have a majority? Do you fear that's what would happen to you if you were ever in the minority?

I'm genuinely curious ...

Really Interested

A Little Pony wrote: »

Doesn't matter who it is, the only requirement is they must believe in Brexit. And then preferably get rid of the remain squad.

Borris only believes in Borris and in his mind is the reincarnation of Churchill.

solodeogloria

swampgas wrote: »

That's not exactly how most democracies work - they usually try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What you're describing would be closer to Genghis Khan slaughtering everyone who stood in his way.

Do you think that 52% should be able to steamroll the 48% just because they have a majority? Do you fear that's what would happen to you if you were ever in the minority?

I'm genuinely curious ...

Good evening!

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

I wouldn't be, and if you wouldn't then this is just hypocrisy surely?

Brexit is happening, and of course MPs will represent constituents along the way. Hardly tyranny in any case.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

swampgas wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Doesn't matter who it is, the only requirement is they must believe in Brexit. And then preferably get rid of the remain squad.

There's a fundamentalist, isolationist, quasi-religious vibe to statements like that.

Almost like you want to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of the world and hunker down in your bunker in case you get infected by strange foreign ideas and lose your sense of identity.

Is it wrong/perverse to wish for either Boris or Rees-Mogg to get into no.10, when I read a post like A Little Pony's?

The global and collective 'WTF' at that occasion, would be something to behold! :pac:

Nody

ambro25 wrote: »

Is it wrong/perverse to wish for either Boris or Rees-Mogg to get into no.10, when I read a post like A Little Pony's?

The global and collective 'WTF' at that occasion, would be something to behold! :pac:

Sorry but wishing Boris as PM on a country is a tier worse than wishing them Trump for president

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

I wouldn't be, and if you wouldn't then this is just hypocrisy surely?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A close vote (either way) should be a wake up call that there are serious issues that are not being addressed. If remain had won by a similarly narrow margin, I would still be very concerned that almost half the country felt so dissatisfied with the status quo.

I think wedge issues that divide a country, especially when the divide is approx 50:50, are very damaging for nation states. The US and the UK are two countries very divided right now. People get split out into factions and start to see themselves as "teams", and their team has to beat the other team. MLP's quote is a classic example of that.

Part of the problem (IMO) is over a hundred years of first past the post politics. It leads to two party politics and extremism.

IMO Brexit is a symptom of the fractured state of the British people, of their politics, and of their sense of identity. The very fact that Brexit is being discussed in such partisan them-and-us language reflects that. Instead of finding common ground they are dehumanising each other.

Unfortunately there is not much scope for finding any middle ground in the current poisonous political atmosphere. But common ground and consensus will be needed if the UK is ever to recover, never mind thrive.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

I wouldn't be, and if you wouldn't then this is just hypocrisy surely?

Brexit is happening, and of course MPs will represent constituents along the way. Hardly tyranny in any case.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You wouldn't be here if remain won.

If you recall you voted remain.

Or did you....



..... ..

murphaph

A Little Pony wrote: »

They will have to accept it, NI is part of the UK, we go with the "deal" with the rest of the UK. Everyone in the UK had a vote on the issue and the majority decided to leave.

You have no idea how precarious Brexit makes the union. NI will soon be the focus of the same "why do we send so much money there?" mentality that drove Brexit.

GB is going to batten down the hatches as the economy contracts due to Brexit. There simply won't be the same money around to prop up NI.

Water John

You will also have the reorganisation of Westminister where reps from Wales, Scotland and NI won't be allowed have a vote on UK issues.
Those areas will be of little concern to the UK Cabinet.

Calina

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/930439097319067651

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

Not sure we need to wait for the sectoral analysis for automotive...

Anthracite

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!


Respectfully I disagree. The referendum was won on the basis of taking back control of borders, laws and money. Feel free to look at the Lord Ashcroft poll of leave and remain voters that ancapailldorcha keeps posting. The EEA option is a bad deal. It effectively means that Britain hasn't left the European Union. It is subject to its strictures without having regained any control. The opposite of what won the referendum.

Nonsense. None of that was what people voted on. They voted on whether the UK should be in or out of the EU.

Your post-hoc rationalisations of why 52% of voters voted in a certain manner are pure speculation and are most certainly incorrect. People voted out for a thousand different reasons - some of them undoubtedly to quit all cooperative organisations, others because they wanted the UK in the EFTA.

This matters nothing - the vote was on leaving the EU and nothing more.

blanch152

Calina wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/930439097319067651

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

Not sure we need to wait for the sectoral analysis for automotive...

Reading that is dispiriting for Irish car owners. If the UK adopt different standards to the EU, we are a very small market for RHD EU standard vehicles.

Nate--IRL--

Calina wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/930439097319067651

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

Not sure we need to wait for the sectoral analysis for automotive...

Honda UK are screwed. 1 hour of stock? Even if Brexit went well, Customs are going to destroy their supply chain.

Nate

listermint

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Honda UK are screwed. 1 hour of stock? Even if Brexit went well, Customs are going to destroy their supply chain.

Nate

Lean system. It's the method most Lean manufacturers have to deploy its efficiency and cost saving

ambro25

listermint wrote: »

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Honda UK are screwed. 1 hour of stock? Even if Brexit went well, Customs are going to destroy their supply chain.

Nate

Lean system. It's the method most Lean manufacturers have to deploy its efficiency and cost saving

I was going to opine, I bet it's no different at most other UK car plants.

Makes me wonder if Ghosn is going to leak soon, what he & Theresa spoke of back in October 2016...

Nate--IRL--

listermint wrote: »

Lean system. It's the method most Lean manufacturers have to deploy its efficiency and cost saving

I can understand the necessity for lean manufacturing. However it's difficult to imagine it would deal with supply constraints, especially on the magnitude of a no-deal Brexit, particularly well.

Nate

Charles Babbage

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think a lot of the more fundamentalist unionists have seized upon Brexit as their last play in trying to lock in partition and reverse the soft unification of Ireland that a friction-less border and the GFA engendered.

It won't work, if anything it would bring forward a pro-UI vote.

As the recent Lucidtalk poll shows it will bring forward a pro-UI vote.
The problem is that if you wreck the NI economy then you make an economic model for unity hard to propose in the short term. You could have a poorer NI not happy with its lot, but where the sums make successful unity difficult. And nearly a year and half after the Brexit vote it is very very unclear what will happen.

Nody

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I can understand the necessity for lean manufacturing. However it's difficult to imagine it would deal with supply constraints, especially on the magnitude of a no-deal Brexit, particularly well.

It does not; I've run a chain with a bit more leeway (up to 8h delay without problem and plant stop at 100k an hour after that) and when something goes horrible wrong (bad winter storm in Europe is one coming directly to mind) and things will shut down and very senior people will be having very short conversations to the tune of "Get that **** running again or you're fired" with the people on the ground. If there are any delays the whole supply chain will be rejigged to minimize it inc. the relocation of work because it saves that much money going lean.

Capt'n Midnight

blanch152 wrote: »

Reading that is dispiriting for Irish car owners. If the UK adopt different standards to the EU, we are a very small market for RHD EU standard vehicles.

No worries.

You just have to love the EU for stuff like this, EU dealers can't discriminate based on right hand drive. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-89-638_en.htm


Also at this stage all the UK car makers with any sort of volume are foreign owned. So really it's down to WTO tariff on a subset of cars that couldn't be made elsewhere.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

But there is no passport checks when you travel from Dublin to the UK (as far as I remember) so while other people may have no right to use the CTA, who will stop them as no one should be checking who comes into the UK from Ireland?

If you fly into Dublin you need to go through passport control. However as we are in the CTA you can use your driving licence.

If you fly Ryanair you MUST have a passport or (or foreign ID card). Aer Lingus will let fly on a driving licence.

Been a while since I went by boat but you've to go through security there too.

And anecdotally the more foreign you look the more likely you are to be stopped for a check, works the other way too, if you look like a stereotypical bogger you are more likely to get stopped in the UK.

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Charles Babbage

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Going into Beldast city centre required a search, but not necessarily ID.
Going over the border never required ID.

View

blanch152 wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/930439097319067651

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

Not sure we need to wait for the sectoral analysis for automotive...

Reading that is dispiriting for Irish car owners. If the UK adopt different standards to the EU, we are a very small market for RHD EU standard vehicles.

So?

We switch to LHD just as countries like Sweden did back in the late 60s.

Just make LHD vehicles VRT free and people will be beating down the doors to garages in the rush to switch. :-)

A Little Pony

swampgas;105266473

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's fundamentalist alright, I believes the spoils of victory should go to the winning side and I want to see Brexit delivered and I don't care how it's done except the fundamentals on the SM and CU. Theresa May is weak and comes across as such and as she doesn't believe in it, it's time to get rid of her.

That's not exactly how most democracies work - they usually try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  What you're describing would be closer to Genghis Khan slaughtering everyone who stood in his way.

Do you think that 52% should be able to steamroll the 48% just because they have a majority?   Do you fear that's what would happen to you if you were ever in the minority?

I'm genuinely curious ...


I expect the winning side (Brexit) to actually see Brexit delivered, what the people voted for. That's all.

Really Interested

A Little Pony wrote: »

swampgas;105266473


That's not exactly how most democracies work - they usually try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What you're describing would be closer to Genghis Khan slaughtering everyone who stood in his way.

Do you think that 52% should be able to steamroll the 48% just because they have a majority? Do you fear that's what would happen to you if you were ever in the minority?

I'm genuinely curious ...


I expect the winning side (Brexit) to actually see Brexit delivered, what the people voted for. That's all.

What do you mean by Brexit, is that Brexit with no trade deal with EU, is that Brexit where the UK remains part of FTA, or remains in Customs union? Is that Brexit where all EU citizens in UK retain the rights they had pre the Vote, is it Brexit where UK citizens in EU retain all rights they had or lose them. Genuinely curious.

Junkyard Tom

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You could have a poorer NI not happy with its lot, but where the sums make successful unity difficult.

I would envision a gradual reduction of Britain's £10bn, over maybe 10 years, with a synchronisation/hybridisation of the north-south economy and public sector aided by the EU too.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

I wouldn't be, and if you wouldn't then this is just hypocrisy surely?

Brexit is happening, and of course MPs will represent constituents along the way. Hardly tyranny in any case.

But Nigel himself said if the result is close there should be a second referendum.

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

So I would suggest telling people to just get on with it is pure hypocrisy when you know a close result should not be a hard red line.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you fly into Dublin you need to go through passport control. However as we are in the CTA you can use your driving licence.

If you fly Ryanair you MUST have a passport or (or foreign ID card). Aer Lingus will let fly on a driving licence.

Been a while since I went by boat but you've to go through security there too.

And anecdotally the more foreign you look the more likely you are to be stopped for a check, works the other way too, if you look like a stereotypical bogger you are more likely to get stopped in the UK.

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Which is all a very soft way to ensure "control" that people seem to think is all important, leaving your immigration control to a check in agent in Dublin. But I suspect most reasonable people know this struggle to square that circle.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you fly into Dublin you need to go through passport control. However as we are in the CTA you can use your driving licence.

If you fly Ryanair you MUST have a passport or (or foreign ID card). Aer Lingus will let fly on a driving licence.

Been a while since I went by boat but you've to go through security there too.

And anecdotally the more foreign you look the more likely you are to be stopped for a check, works the other way too, if you look like a stereotypical bogger you are more likely to get stopped in the UK.

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Good morning!

In Dublin they accept drivers licences at the border in any case for flights that have originated in the UK. Really it would be much better if they followed the British approach which is to have a dedicated exit for CTA flights. If the CTA is a genuine free travel area checks should only happen on its frontier. I.E when someone arrives in the CTA from outside.

On the ferry I didn't have my passport checked once in either direction. The car boot was checked once from Holyhead to Dublin but not on the return journey. Comparing this to crossing the Channel after having driven back from Amsterdam on the other hand which involved questioning and being stopped in a unit by the Border Force, passport check and a search of my car in Calais is a different kettle of fish.

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

The Leave side openly said that if it was close they would keep campaigning to Leave.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Sam Russell

Really Interested wrote: »

What do you mean by Brexit, is that Brexit with no trade deal with EU, is that Brexit where the UK remains part of FTA, or remains in Customs union? Is that Brexit where all EU citizens in UK retain the rights they had pre the Vote, is it Brexit where UK citizens in EU retain all rights they had or lose them. Genuinely curious.

I think he might mean the Brexit that gives GB£350 million to the NHS. Or perhaps the Brexit that brings back control of the UK borders so they can deny entry to all those EU citizens that come to work in the NHS and other vital ares of the economy but the Brexit that does not deny entry to all those many more that come from the rest of the world. Or the Brexit that will ground all aircraft in the UK in April 2019, and will close the car industry. Or the Brexit that will bring chlorinated chicken to the UK diet.

Oh, nobody actually campaigned for any of that, but I am sure every voter for Brexit understood that was what they voted for, especially those in Sunderland, Grimsby, Cornwall and Swindon.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

You like ignoring or waving away points that goes against your arguments. Look at the trade the UK has with the EU, you have been vocal to point out that there is more trade from outside the EU, but when it is shown to you that gold skews the figures (say it with me, the UK doesn't produce gold and you shouldn't count that towards their figures) you still insist it counts because the argument for leaving is weakened when you deal with reality.

The same situation here. You are naive to think if remain won by 52-48 that the issue would have been put to bed. It would only have reinforced the beliefs of those that want to leave the EU that they could win the argument. But because you are full hard-on for leave you wish the discussion would go away.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

How many different proposals were there on how the UK would trade with the EU after Brexit? You could have 3 different scenarios from 3 different people campaigning for Leave. The most obvious example is the £350m per week for the NHS. As soon as the results were confirmed and Nigel Farage were cornered with it he was able to disown it as he didn't say it. The fact that it helped his cause is neither here nor there for him and not his problem.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Good morning!

The Government were campaigning for remain. This is why they didn't outline how they wanted to leave the EU.

The Government opened a process for choosing the campaigns that would take the Leave and Remain side forward. Stronger In and Vote Leave prevailed in that process.

The Government couldn't have pre-empted the exact nature of the negotiations and what they would receive. This is what makes it a very different kind of referendum to the Irish same-sex marriage referendum.

Moreover, the Government didn't choose the question. David Cameron's question was overruled by the referendum commission because it was deemed to be begging an outcome. You can see their findings here.

The reality is that the Leave campaign was won on the basis of taking back control over borders, laws and money. The Lord Ashcroft poll after the referendum broadly agrees with this conclusion.We also had a general election whereby leaving the single market and customs union was the stated policy of both Labour and the Conservative party who got 85% of the vote between them in June in what may have been the weirdest election we've seen in a long time.

I don't buy that the people support an EEA (EU membership by the back door model) which gives them a worse position than today as opposed to a FTA providing a greater deal of control which is in Britain's long term interests. There has to be a tangible change after this referendum otherwise there was no point in having it.

I'm pretty confident that if Theresa May came back saying nothing has changed and the terms are going to be worse from these negotiations she wouldn't have support and there would be growing calls to have her out on her ear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government couldn't have pre-empted the exact nature of the negotiations and what they would receive. This is what makes it a very different kind of referendum to the Irish same-sex marriage referendum.

No, but they could have outlined an agenda for a scenario in which Leave won. It would have been the responsible thing to do.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reality is that the Leave campaign was won on the basis of taking back control over borders, laws and money. The Lord Ashcroft poll after the referendum broadly agrees with this conclusion.We also had a general election whereby leaving the single market and customs union was the stated policy of both Labour and the Conservative party who got 85% of the vote between them in June in what may have been the weirdest election we've seen in a long time.

Depends on how you slice it. If you look at individual MP's, in 2016 they were overwhelmingly pro-remain. I don't have data for the 2017 election but I can't imaging that there were too many candidate changes. From the BBC:

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't buy that the people support an EEA (EU membership by the back door model) which gives them a worse position than today as opposed to a FTA providing a greater deal of control which is in Britain's long term interests. There has to be a tangible change after this referendum otherwise there was no point in having it.

But this is just your opinion. This should have been on the ballot. You could have had a variety of options for Leave all of which would have been counted together but would have given a more holistic opinion of what the electorate thought.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm pretty confident that if Theresa May came back saying nothing has changed and the terms are going to be worse from these negotiations she wouldn't have support and there would be growing calls to have her out on her ear.

Theresa May now has to come up with a deal that satisfies her Paleosceptics and her market liberals. This is impossible given that she needs every MP to approve the deal along with the DUP.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But you changed your mind. Or. So you've said.

Why are you allowed to do so, and others are not.


In detail please.

Ellian

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening.

I don't believe that is true. For one thing the second line of the referendum itself clearly stated. "It (this bill) does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, not set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented" Also as An Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution points out "The sole legal right of the electors under the English constitution is to elect members of Parliament.....no court will consider for a moment, the argument that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate (p.57). And again "the law will know nothing of any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed in an act of parliament" (p.71)

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

As if I actually care about this?

All issues that I have been in agreement about for years. So Russia used bots to try and influence me on things I already agreed with. What a waste of time that is. Although I do find it rather funny Westerners complaining about apparent Russian interference in elections/referendum when the US (no doubt helped by British intelligence)  is constantly trying to overthrow regimes and influence elections around the world and has been doing so for decades.

So now you are OK with Russia subverting your democracy because The UK was involved in subverting other democracies?

The problem with that is that Brexit is not cast in stone, it was advisory and the parliament can take it back. Your old arguments about this being 'undemocratic' are defunct because you've just more or less said you don't mind that the EU Referendum was subverted.

Manipulating and subverting elections is wrong. The UK may be hypocritical to self righteously attack Russia over it. But it has every right to undo the subversion.

It was a 52/48 result of an advisory referendum that was subverted by illegal actions by US billionaires and (increasingly likely) by Russian operations.

I think this is leading to a rerun of the referendum on the departure terms, with no subversion.
As a democrat you cant complain if this comes to pass?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It very much does matter, and you are oh-so-wrong. For long-standing constitutional reasons, no less.

And that is because MPs are representatives of their electors, not delegates of their electors:

Members of the House of Commons hold, in effect, a triple mandate. They represent all the people of their constituency, their party and the interests of the country. It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

This is not a matter open to opinion or debate, it is fact.

I can't be sure, nor arsed to look through the thread, but I have a feeling that this fairly fundamental difference has already been explained -to you or to another Leave supporter- before.

solodeogloria

ambro25 wrote: »

It very much does matter, and you are oh-so-wrong. For long-standing constitutional reasons, no less.

And that is because MPs are representatives of their electors, not delegates of their electors:
This is not a matter open to opinion or debate, it is fact.

I can't be sure, nor arsed to look through the thread, but I have a feeling that this fairly fundamental difference has already been explained -to you or to another Leave supporter- before.

Good morning!

Last post for today.

My point is - it doesn't matter. Before and during the referendum there were clear promises to respect and implement the result in the case of leave.

MPs voted to trigger Article 50. Most MPs feel that Brexit has to happen in some shape or form.

The likelihood of a u-turn on implementing Brexit is zilch. MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 last night.

The questions are now firmly around the process of how, not if.

Any other suggestion comes from cloud cuckoo land considering where the country actually is on these issues.

The posters who are advocating for a u-turn, wouldn't be advocating for a u-turn in the event of a remain vote. That's why it is really just plain old hypocrisy and essentially being a sore loser to advocate rubbishing the democratic will of the people.

From what I can see - most remainers understand this too apart from the hardened few clinging on to the hope of EU membership.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Good morning!

The Government were campaigning for remain.

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

solodeogloria

View wrote: »

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

Good morning!

I couldn't leave this hanging.

Can you please point out any referendum in England or Wales where an EU citizen could vote (apart from Irish or Cypriot or Maltese)?

This is electoral law in England and Wales. It wasn't put in place just because of this referendum. The same is true for general elections.

I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad

UK cyber-defence chief accuses Russia of hack attacks

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), has said that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system".
At the same event the Times released a study showing over 156,000 (!!!) Russian based accounts were active on the topic of Brexit on SM in the days leading up to the election.

One of the UK's cyber-defence chiefs has accused Russia of having attacked Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.
His comments were made at an event organised by the Times newspaper.
Ahead of the speech, the paper reported that one of the attacks had targeted the UK's power supply on election day.
......
Mr Martin's accusations follow Prime Minister Theresa May's own claim that Russia had "mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption".
....
"The prime minister made the point on Monday night - international order as we know it is in danger of being eroded," he said.
....
To coincide with its event, the Times also published details of a new study into how Russia used Twitter to influence 2016's Brexit referendum.
The research indicates that more than 156,000 Russia-based accounts - many of them automated bots - mentioned #Brexit in original posts or retweets in the days surrounding the vote.
......The academics involved believed the posts were seen hundreds of millions of times.
......
"Ukraine experienced [a similar] information war in 2014 - and if it worked in Ukraine it can also work in Western democracies," said Prof Sasha Talavera from Swansea University.
"One can use it to split society and marginalise groups. Social media nowadays is a powerful tool."
He added that some form of regulation of the large social media firms might now be required.
The Guardian reports details of a separate University of Edinburgh study that also presents evidence of Russia using Twitter to sway opinion in the lead-up to the Brexit vote.
The Kremlin has previously denied trying to meddle in the referendum.
But the chairman of the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Damian Collins, said he now wanted Twitter to share examples of tweets linked to a Russian "troll factory", known as the Internet Research Agency, about British politics.

Here is the front page of todays times:



And here is a threatening sounding tweet by the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs against the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May in reaction to her condemning Russian Cyber warfare 2 days ago:

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/930424654858244096

Any ideas what this could mean?

Calina

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Vronsky

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

Calina

Vronsky wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

He excluded NI as well.