Brexit discussion thread IV

Trasna1

Sam Russell wrote: »

If David Cameron had tried a CA approach to see how Brexit could be achieved or scrapped, he might have kept the UK out of its current mess.

The CA to everyone's surprise worked very well.

1. They were randomly selected with a set of views that were supposed to be representative of the nation. [Difficult to do].

2. They were informed by experts in the field they were trying to advise on.

3. They had open discussions between tables of 10 people, with facillitators.

4. Following these discussions, they voted on questions related to the discussions.

Now that is what I call democracy.

They weren't randomly selected, some were mates of those working in the polling company. The biggest problem is the overall number and self exclusion. 99 people, cannot, ever, be representative of a population of 4m people -you need a sample at least 10 times that.

10 Saturdays in Dublin is a big commitment - not everyone has the luxury to give up that kind of time. So you end up getting a cohort of the politically interested with lots of free time at weekends.

What Cameron should have done was produce a realistic white paper on exit before the referendum outlining what would happen afterwards -like what happened here on abortion and divorce (we do do some things well here). Instead they left a blank page for everyone to sell their wish list on.

If after all that the UK still wanted to go - well then that is the will of the electorate.

An Ciarraioch

Yvette Cooper gets reply from Raab that "the NI backstop" (EU's or UK's?) will be included in the White Paper legislation:

https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1021758214097039360

zapitastas

Trasna1 wrote: »

Hearing public's opinions is good, outsourcing the setting of public policy is not.

Last post on this, because it's important. Whether or not my views aligned with the assemblies recommendations is not relevant. I'm critical of it because it was designed as a political smokescreen for Fine Gael under the pretense of listening to the people. FG were reasonably confident that there would be a majority for reform of the abortion laws among the general population but not among their older grassroots supporters. The CA was designed to give FG political cover so those in the socially liberal wing of FG would get their referendum without alienating their older base.

FG should have been brave enough to put a referendum in their manifesto and to call the referendum without the BS of representative CA - something with only 99 politically interested citizens with the ability to give 10 Saturdays in Dublin could never be.

The CA actually went a lot further with the recommendations than anyone expected, and probably further than any political party would have suggested

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

No, it means you believe that god created the world/universe. Hinduism, Islam, judaism and Christianity have the creation at the core of their beliefs.some sects within those religions have very specific ideas of the creation e.g "creationists" but all believe in a creation

No creationists believe absolutely in a literal interpretation of the bible and refute quite a bit of scientific fact. They are an extreme fundamentalist section of cathlicism and trying to compare them to other religions who have creation in their belief system but no longer take it as literal interpretation is disingenuous and ignorant.

Much like trying say the slapstick idiots in the independents are there same as the wantonly and dangerously ignorant DUP

Water John

Something like 30/40% of GOP voters are creationists. Not much chance of them not voting GOP/Trump. Waste of time even discussing it. You park them, take their vote as a given. It's nowhere near the vote that gets a GOP or Trump over the line. Trump has made the essential error of focussing solely on them since the election.
The Dems chase all the others and get their own core out to vote in high numbers.

badtoro

Trasna1 wrote: »

FG should have been brave enough

Reminds me of Sir Humphrey "Brave decision Minister!" when he wanted Hacker to think he'd stepped on a political landmine. Cuteness will always win out over bravery in Irish politics. Win win & eat yer cake.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He's an extremely lukewarm remainer at best.

I think if an election was run again he will have to campaign again for remain. He knows the benefits of staying in the EU outweighs the negatives. But seeing as he didn't call the referendum, the result was not what he campaigned for and if he just sits quietly in the corner he will get to rid himself of EU regulations against state aid and he will still become PM, it makes it clear why he isn't jumping up and down for a second referendum. Call it cowardly but he is playing the game to his advantage. He gets what he wants and he has to sacrifice nothing in the eyes of his supporters and gets to blame the Tories for the mess even after he takes over. We lose out though.

uptherebels

Trasna1 wrote: »

They weren't randomly selected, some were mates of those working in the polling company.

Evidence please that those selected to the CA that made recommendations on abortion were mates of those in the company.

jm08

uptherebels wrote: »

Evidence please that those selected to the CA that made recommendations on abortion were mates of those in the company.

One recruiter didn't follow the correct procedure of selected 7 people. They were dropped and had no material affect on the recommendations of the CA (just on 4 questions for one of the sessions).

Question 7: In the event of more than one referendum at the same time, the Assembly voted that the maximum number should be no more than two (41.7%);
Question 8b: 52% voted in favour that when there are more than two options on the ballot paper in a constitutional referendum the outcome should be decided by PR STV;
Question 10a: In 10a the Assembly voted in favour of early voting in the weeks before the poll.
Question 10b: In 10b the Assembly voted in favour of extended voting over a number of days (51%)

http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-recruiting-3864094-Feb2018/

McGiver

Now, this what I call a Conservative British (meaning pragmatic) politician.
I wonder how many of MPs are there in there in the Conservative Party. Surely, there's more of them than Moggers?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-second-referendum-eu-theresa-may-deal-trade-talks-immigration-a8461076.html

Water John

Saw a tabloid journalist trying to savage him on TV. She was castigating him for having spoken to Tory Remainers. He kept his dignity and so she looked a fool.

Rhineshark

Trasna1 wrote: »

Oh please, less of the back slapping. PR-STV was a British imposition at the time of the Anglo Irish treaty to ensure Protestants wouldn't be crowded our of representation. FF tried twice and failed in both referendums to get FPTP installed here - so it's not like it's always had the backing of the political system.

PR-STV is very representative, and that is one of it's biggest flaws. Because politicians always have to be looking to protect their vote, it often means they neglect national issues in favour of local ones and indeed often work against the national interest.

That's an interesting point and a failing. There's argument for local needs vs national needs and what a politician can do for his - fairly small - region affects whether he gets re-elected, which can encourage neglecting national needs in favour of populist ones.

Mind you, what it does still do is encourage consensus politics and stymie polarisation of the sort we've seen in FPTP systems and we are getting a good view of what can happen more easily in deeply polarised winner-takes-all one. On balance I prefer that local approach as a small country although we could work on improving the issues.

And as for the Citizens assembly, that was a total joke. It's only purpose was to insulate FG from the decision to call an abortion referendum which they wanted to call. If there is never another citizens assembly, it will be too soon. We shouldn't be outsourcing public policy to an unaccountable body - that's Governments job.

Far as I'm aware, the government is advised by one when it's convened, it is not the arbritrar of public policy. As with every other set of advisors the government uses. All of them give different viewpoints that the government takes into account.

What the Citizens Council appears to give in terms of insight is how people will take to it. A - so far effective - bellwether. And, politics being what it is, it ultimately comes down to " what the people will accept". It is, when you think about it, similar to the jury system - trial by peers. Control study :P. Which is not a bad thing before going to the people.

Also, I do agree with the opinion that Irish politics is more conservative than the people. The government is shaped in part by the traditions of the state, which is showing itself to be somewhat behind modern Irish society. It tends to be reluctant on doing the whole referendum thing on contentious topics. A CC gives an idea of whether it is the right time or not.

The reason Ireland is good at negotiation on Europe is because it is experienced. As a small country, it had always had to build alliances to meet it's goals, which is not always true of large powerful ones- who can steamroll their way.

Also a valid argument, I'd accept it along with actually having to politic as a norm rather than getting into power and the stompy foot being the first resort, which it generally is. Both conditions are likely to play into the calibre of politician when tested by sudden and prolonged need for intense international diplomacy with stupidly high stakes.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1021866968620695554

BonnieSituation

McGiver wrote: »

Now, this what I call a Conservative British (meaning pragmatic) politician.
I wonder how many of MPs are there in there in the Conservative Party. Surely, there's more of them than Moggers?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-second-referendum-eu-theresa-may-deal-trade-talks-immigration-a8461076.html

He wasn't very pragamatic and reasonable when he went and voted with the govt last month after TM gave him "assurances".

Hurrache

Brexiteer Brendan O'Neil, editor of Spiked Online (l(never heard of it) on the Sky paper review claiming that the fear of food rationing is nothing but middle class fantasy as part of project fear, despite it being pointed out to him that a member of the Tory government, a Brexiteer, has said it. He said it's all the fault of the EU pushing back on it all because they just don't like the democratic will of the people.

Thankfully he's being called out on his bull**** by the other reviewer, Scarlett MccGwire, saying that every time someone suggests the harshness of brexit people like him claim it's project fear.

That fella O'Neil is some eejit.

Edit, did a bit of checking on who he is, not surprised to see such recent tweets as this after listening to him
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1021817318555504646?s=19

Thargor

http://uk.businessinsider.com/all-the-bad-news-theresa-may-government-tried-to-bury-take-out-trash-2018-7/#raf-bases-will-be-sold-off-2

Interesting article, Mays government quietly slipping in the news that EU law will apply for years after Brexit before they slip off on holidays.

The last paragraph in the article is one of the more pathetic stories you'll read today. Thatcher was called the Milk Snatcher for similar activities, I suppose people these days just accept this sh1t without question though.

Anthracite

Hurrache wrote: »

Brexiteer Brendan O'Neil, editor of Spiked Online (l(never heard of it) on the Sky paper review claiming that the fear of food rationing is nothing but middle class fantasy as part of project fear, despite it being pointed out to him that a member of the Tory government, a Brexiteer, has said it. He said it's all the fault of the EU pushing back on it all because they just don't like the democratic will of the people.

Thankfully he's being called out on his bull**** by the other reviewer, Scarlett MccGwire, saying that every time someone suggests the harshness of brexit people like him claim it's project fear.

That fella O'Neil is some eejit.

Edit, did a bit of checking on who he is, not surprised to see such recent tweets as this after listening to him
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1021817318555504646?s=19

This just goes to show how the Brexit faith cuts deeper than the usual allegiances: Farage is the absolute epitome of everything a Leninist/Trostskyite like O'Neill hates - a privately educated, old-boy networked, city trader, white, privileged male. But because he's the patron saint of Brexit, suddenly pointing these details out about Farage makes you an 'entitled middle-class activist' engaged in McCarthyism.

Hilarious/weird.

Roanmore

Hurrache wrote: »

Brexiteer Brendan O'Neil, editor of Spiked Online (l(never heard of it) on the Sky paper review claiming that the fear of food rationing is nothing but middle class fantasy as part of project fear, despite it being pointed out to him that a member of the Tory government, a Brexiteer, has said it. He said it's all the fault of the EU pushing back on it all because they just don't like the democratic will of the people.

Thankfully he's being called out on his bull**** by the other reviewer, Scarlett MccGwire, saying that every time someone suggests the harshness of brexit people like him claim it's project fear.

That fella O'Neil is some eejit.

Edit, did a bit of checking on who he is, not surprised to see such recent tweets as this after listening to him
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1021817318555504646?s=19

I saw that this morning (it's replayed at half 5), he launched straight in to an attack, using all the usual terms like Remoaners, etc. He seemed rattled.
Him and Carol Malone, no facts just the usual terms like Project Fear, taking back control.

judeboy101

So the DoFA are sitting on a report showing that Irish reunification will result in a near balance budget for NI. Won't release it due to brexit negotiations.

http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

So the DoFA are sitting on a report showing that Irish reunification will result in a near balance budget for NI. Won't release it due to brexit negotiations.

http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/

The reports are scant on details and leave out key things like security costs and the increase of everyone in NI's dole cheque etc but im still very interested to read this

EdgeCase

Roanmore wrote: »

I saw that this morning (it's replayed at half 5), he launched straight in to an attack, using all the usual terms like Remoaners, etc. He seemed rattled.
Him and Carol Malone, no facts just the usual terms like Project Fear, taking back control.

I think they’re going to become increasingly rattled as they now have to somehow do the impossible: translate all the Brexiteer rhetoric into a coherent and functional set of economic and trade policies that have work in the real world. Given that they’re based on completely ignoring all expert advice and any shunning any fact that doesn’t fit the dogma of Brexit, they are in for a rather unpleasant encounter with reality.

Leroy42

The fact that the UK is actively preparing to stockpile "adequate food" along with medicines, blood etc.

This is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, during the longest period of peacetime in their history, and this is where they are heading to? And my their own decision?

And the fact that you still have a large amount of people demanding that Brexit be delivered no matter what just makes it even more insane.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)

And the fact that you still have a large amount of people demanding that Brexit be delivered no matter what just makes it even more insane.

For these, it’s dogma lapped up all the way over to fundamentalism, tbh.

And regrettably, we’ve all seen how realistic it is, to try and conduct negotiations with fundies.

But I’m still very befuddled at how this highly-vocal minority (and yes, it is a minority) is left essentially unmolested by what I can only describe as ‘apathy’ from the mainstream.

Where the F are the 48% plus the ( expectedly non-trivial) contingent amongst the 52% who wanted an ‘out but not that far out’ outcome? Still nowhere to be seen.

UsedToWait

The fact that Mrs May has taken over as chief negotiator for Brexit, when she ran away from debating her political opponents in her disastrous snap election campaign, is odd to say the least.

The only conclusion I can draw is she is prepared to accede to whatever is required to avoid the disaster of no deal, in the hope that sufficient MPs will back her, as the dawning realisation of the crisis looming becomes ever clearer.

Brexit means Brexit, as we know, and only Mrs May can provide the Strong and Stable leadership to ensure that it does.

Leroy42

I thought Osbornes Tweet (can't link to it for here) was the best yesterday. Basically the announcement that TM was taking over the responsibility for the negotiations was met with a simple;

"News Who was in charge before?"

sums it all up. What has she been doing all this time? She stated recently that she had suspended collective cabinet responsibility to allow all sides freedom to debate, so does that mean that Davies was on a solo run in the EU negotiations. That he was busy pushing a hard brexit (very different that a no-deal) agenda whilst May was at home on another path?

Its quite ridiculous.

Nody

UsedToWait wrote: »

The fact that Mrs May has taken over as chief negotiator for Brexit, when she ran away from debating her political opponents in her disastrous snap election campaign, is odd to say the least.

The only conclusion I can draw is she is prepared to accede to whatever is required to avoid the disaster of no deal, in the hope that sufficient MPs will back her, as the dawning realisation of the crisis looming becomes ever clearer.

Brexit means Brexit, as we know, and only Mrs May can provide the Strong and Stable leadership to ensure that it does.

But we already had that fiasco with the phase 1 of the negotiations and the cancelled conference etc. due to it. Why would this time suddenly turn out to be different esp. as May has shown zero spine in standing up to anyone giving her opposition at home?

UsedToWait

Nody wrote: »

But we already had that fiasco with the phase 1 of the negotiations and the cancelled conference etc. due to it. Why would this time suddenly turn out to be different esp. as May has shown zero spine in standing up to anyone giving her opposition at home?

I really don't know.
My only theory is that this will go to the very last minute 'nothing is agreed till everything'..
until it becomes a fait accompli..
Maybe that's what the meeting with Mrs Merkel was about?

It's head scratching stuff.

Rhineshark

ambro25 wrote: »

For these, it’s dogma lapped up all the way over to fundamentalism, tbh.

And regrettably, we’ve all seen how realistic it is, to try and conduct negotiations with fundies.

But I’m still very befuddled at how this highly-vocal minority (and yes, it is a minority) is left essentially unmolested by what I can only describe as ‘apathy’ from the mainstream.

Where the F are the 48% plus the ( expectedly non-trivial) contingent amongst the 52% who wanted an ‘out but not that far out’ outcome? Still nowhere to be seen.

Starting to see Brexiters switching sides, they've been doing it quietly for a bit (by the highly scientific "watching forums" method of analysis!) But a few are starting to say it publically, which backs up the idea that the support base is shrinking.

It may be too little too late by now, but there is movement.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/bbaschuk/status/1021869965539008518

It looks like the UK is in for a major fight in the WTO . If you can listen back to James O'Brien on LBC app from about 11.55 . To paraphase Bryce "There are no sharks in lake Geneva but their are plenty in the WTO and they smell blood in the water"

Professor Moriarty

Rhineshark wrote: »

Starting to see Brexiters switching sides, they've been doing it quietly for a bit (by the highly scientific "watching forums" method of analysis!) But a few are starting to say it publically, which backs up the idea that the support base is shrinking.

It may be too little too late by now, but there is movement.

The switch, if it comes, will be when corporate donors start telling the Tories what time it is.