Brexit discussion thread IV

Water John

There are very high standards maintained by our Dept of Ag on the shipping of live animals. Not sure if any finished or store cattle are presently shipped to the UK. If any go it would simply be in lorries.

devnull

Deleted User wrote: »

Got I hate listening to May. She just passes off every bump as if it were all part of the plan.

I also remember after the Health and Social care bill last year when she kept saying "Nothing has changed, Nothing has changed."

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Oh dear, Paisley's trip to Sri Lanka could mean a by-election in North Antrim!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44869627

Northern Ireland's chance to underscore their desire to Remain if he stands again?

Interesting.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Stats not my thing, but am I right in my reading that basically all those that would like a leave with a deal, if no deal is available would opt for no deal leaving?

A deal looks increasingly unlikely and as such the UK is still pretty much split down the middle on which way to go.

But nearly half are ok with crashing out

52% voted to leave the EU in 2016. I doubt many of those were concerned about an exit deal.

Only 45% are prepared to do so now according to that poll.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland's chance to underscore their desire to Remain if he stands again?

Interesting.

Its only a suspension, and although I don't know the rules regarding bi-elections, I doubt very much the TM would be moving to call one anytime soon.

Water John

Even if half the pop want to crash out, it's beholden on Parliament to do what is in the best interests of the country and its people. That is what you are elected to do, even going back to what Edmund Burke said on the issue.

An Ciarraioch

Conservative Home deluding themselves that a temporary stay in EEA is a viable Plan B, even though their own voters appear to consider even Chequers anathema:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-conservative-brexit-choice-seek-to-park-the-uk-in-the-eea-under-a-new-tory-leader-or-press-on.html

El Weirdo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its only a suspension, and although I don't know the rules regarding bi-elections, I doubt very much the TM would be moving to call one anytime soon.

It's not up to TM according to the link.

The 30-day ban, if accepted, could trigger a Recall Petition by which an MP can lose their seat if 10% of the eligible electorate in their constituency signs a petition.

But the MP would be free to stand again in the subsequent by-election and it is understood Ian Paisley has indicated he would do so.

Under the Recall of MPs Act, which came into effect in 2016, MPs who are convicted of a criminal offence and jailed, barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or convicted of providing false information on allowance claims can lose their seat if there is a successful petition to recall them.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its only a suspension, and although I don't know the rules regarding bi-elections, I doubt very much the TM would be moving to call one anytime soon.

Independent process now I believe.

It could be just what NI needs now.

Mezcita

lawred2 wrote: »

52% voted to leave the EU in 2016. I doubt many of those were concerned about an exit deal.

Only 45% are prepared to do so now according to that poll.

As per their second preference though. So the first preference of 50% of people is to still to leave with or without a deal.

VinLieger

Mezcita wrote: »

As per their second preference though. So the first preference of 50% of people is to still to leave with or without a deal.

That is nowhere near what the poll says. 33% wish to leave without a deal and 17% with a deal. Claiming the entire 50% want to leave regardless as first preference is simply a deliberate lie and misrepresentation of the poll.

lawred2

Mezcita wrote: »

As per their second preference though. So the first preference of 50% of people is to still to leave with or without a deal.

what it says to me is that where no deal is on the table - the leave with a deal cohort is split between remaining and leaving without a deal.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But haven't the Uk already said that they have no intention of changing regulations, that is the whole basis for the common rule book.

They want to keep the right to write their own legislation "which would have an equal effect" as the EU law; that does not mean it has to be EU law.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

no only 33% are prepared to leave without a deal

If there are 3 options.

If only two options, remain of no deal leave, then they go with leave.

And that is increasingly looking like the reality, ie only two options.

Given that it appears that there is, at best, a slight majority that want to remain. That is no even close to enough to call a 2nd ref.

We (the royal we) need to face the fact that the UK wants to leave the EU and pretty much happy to do so whatever the consequences.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

If there are 3 options.

If only two options, remain of no deal leave, then they go with leave.

No then only 45% then go with leave

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

If there are 3 options.

If only two options, remain of no deal leave, then they go with leave.

And that is increasingly looking like the reality, ie only two options.

Given that it appears that there is, at best, a slight majority that want to remain. That is no even close to enough to call a 2nd ref.

that cohort splits between leaving and abandoning the Brexit process altogether

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

If there are 3 options.

If only two options, remain of no deal leave, then they go with leave.

And that is increasingly looking like the reality, ie only two options.

Given that it appears that there is, at best, a slight majority that want to remain. That is no even close to enough to call a 2nd ref.

We (the royal we) need to face the fact that the UK wants to leave the EU and pretty much happy to do so whatever the consequences.

but fine to proceed with Brexit?

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

No then only 45% then go with leave

Only 45% is not insubstantial though. Since the original ref was lost, one would really need to show a clear calling for a 2nd one or to remain. That poll, IMO, doesn't go anywhere close to that.

JRM is right, people want out. They voted to leave, they have seen what has come out since, and they still want to leave. If that means no deal, then so be it.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

but fine to proceed with Brexit?

Yes, because that is what they voted for.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only 45% is not insubstantial though. Since the original ref was lost, one would really need to show a clear calling for a 2nd one or to remain. That poll, IMO, doesn't go anywhere close to that.

JRM is right, people want out. They voted to leave, they have seen what has come out since, and they still want to leave. If that means no deal, then so be it.

Did they vote for the 350m that won't be going into the NHS?

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, because that is what they voted for.

and democracy can't allow for mind change?

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, because that is what they voted for.

Its not though, there are sooo many reasons people voted leave, some wanted no deal, some wanted a norway deal, some wanted the customs union, some wanted several other options, some did it as a protest vote. Saying everyone voted for a binary version of brexit or remain is disingenuous and basically repeating the lies of the campaign all over again.

Mezcita

VinLieger wrote: »

That is nowhere near what the poll says. 33% wish to leave without a deal and 17% with a deal. Claiming the entire 50% want to leave regardless as first preference is simply a deliberate lie and misrepresentation of the poll.

Who is lying? The reality is that there is not a huge drop in support for those people who want the UK to leave the EU.

VinLieger

Mezcita wrote: »

Who is lying? The reality is that there is not a huge drop in support for those people who want the UK to leave the EU.

Saying 50% want to leave deal or no deal is a lie based on those poll results

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

and democracy can't allow for mind change?

Yes of course it does, happens every 5 years in a GE. But they only asked the question 2 years ago, and the numbers in the polls do not signify a massive swing.

Polls show changes in party support all the time, we don't rerun votes at the drop of every new poll number.

But even if a new ref was to be run, the number indicate that at best you would get a small majority for remain. But then the Leave would be asking for a rerun.

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not though, there are sooo many reasons people voted leave, some wanted no deal, some wanted a norway deal, some wanted the customs union, some wanted several other options, some did it as a protest vote. Saying everyone voted for a binary version of brexit or remain is disingenuous and basically repeating the lies of the campaign all over again.

But the poll is showing that 45% of people would opt for No deal if they had only two options, so this would seem to suggest that a great split within the leave doesn't exist. I agree that leave voters had many different reasons and expectations for voting leave, but the poll suggests that, if run again they would still vote leave regardless of the options

Nate--IRL--

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not though, there are sooo many reasons people voted leave, some wanted no deal, some wanted a norway deal, some wanted the customs union, some wanted several other options, some did it as a protest vote. Saying everyone voted for a binary version of brexit or remain...............

That is literally what they voted for. The reason they did so is another matter, it was a binary choice on the ballot paper.


Nate

There really isn't a case for a rerun. Parliament and polls show everything is close.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

If there are 3 options.

If only two options, remain of no deal leave, then they go with leave.

And that is increasingly looking like the reality, ie only two options.

Given that it appears that there is, at best, a slight majority that want to remain. That is no even close to enough to call a 2nd ref.

We (the royal we) need to face the fact that the UK wants to leave the EU and pretty much happy to do so whatever the consequences.

No, the poll was a three way question, in such a referendum the option with the least votes is eliminated and the second pref votes of that option are distributed.

50% want to remain,
17% want to leave with a deal
33% want to leave with no deal

When option 2 is eliminated, the second preference of those voters is distributed between remain and leave with no deal.

On the second round, once leave with a deal is eliminated, remain goes to 55% and leave with no deal goes to 45%.

It's still 50/50 between leave and remain, but clearly people would rather remain than leave with no deal.

CORRECTION: Having found the source of the data, it seems that the final split is 55/45 after leave with a deal has been distributed.

An Ciarraioch

Breakdown by party:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1019523159714926596

Leroy42

Sorry you've lost me. I get the first round of numbers.

And I get the 55/45. Where are you getting this second round? Is there ever likely to be a second round? And why would people vote differently in a second round than what their 2nd pref in the 1st round was, given that is still available?

VinLieger

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

That is literally what they voted for. The reason they did so is another matter, it was a binary choice on the ballot paper.


Nate

If you sat 10 brexit voters down in a room and asked them what they though voting for brexit meant you would likely get 10 different answers that each was incompatible with the others.



Pretending that the binary question on such an insanely complex issue means everyone voted for the same thing is what was wrong with such a referendum in the first place

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Breakdown by party:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1019523159714926596

And still more data:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1019555547975208962/photo/1

ArmaniJeanss

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me. I get the first round of numbers.

And I get the 55/45. Where are you getting this second round? Is there ever likely to be a second round? And why would people vote differently in a second round than what their 2nd pref in the 1st round was, given that is still available?

They are basically using our STV system as it would happen in a by-election.
If no-one gets 50% (+1 vote) you eliminate last place, distribute their votes via next choice, rinse and repeat until someone has 50%+1.

Rjd2

EdgeCase wrote: »

She basically just spins, deflects, spins, attacks Corbyn, attacks Labour for alleged antisemitism, mentions "the will of the people" several times ... rinse and repeat.

It’s not that different from Trump’s approach, just colder and spoken with a more polished accent.

https://twitter.com/DMiliband/status/1019566779855724544

Nothing wrong with bringing up the fact that Corbyn is an antimsemite to be fair. The other stuff is obviously cliched bollocks which mean nothing.

I don't think a second referendum would be worth the hassle it would cause, but it would force a lot of people like May and Corbyn to say where there allegiances lie and stop trying to play both sides terribly.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me. I get the first round of numbers.

And I get the 55/45. Where are you getting this second round? Is there ever likely to be a second round? And why would people vote differently in a second round than what their 2nd pref in the 1st round was, given that is still available?

The second round is not a new vote, it's the distribution of the second preference votes from the eliminated last place candidate. In elections here you can get to 8+ rounds as candidates are eliminated and their 2nd, 3rd etc preference votes are distributed.

Imreoir2

Rjd2 wrote: »

I don't think a second referendum would be worth the hassle it would cause, but it would force a lot of people like May and Corbyn to say where there allegiances lie and stop trying to play both sides terribly.

Going by the poll, given a choice between remain and leave with no deal, the majority would opt to remain. Then again, if such a referendum were to be held, the argument is bound to be made that the EU/Remoaners blocked a deal to force the UK to abandon Brexit.

Infini

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-gears-up-for-showdown-with-wto-on-future-of-soft-border-37130111.html

Meanwhile at the WTO major clashes will be expected since putting a hard border in will not simply be politically unpalatable it just wont work period. Could be really messy in this regard considering how volatile trying to enforce one would be.

judeboy101

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DMiliband/status/1019566779855724544

Nothing wrong with bringing up the fact that Corbyn is an antimsemite to be fair. The other stuff is obviously cliched bollocks which mean nothing.

I don't think a second referendum would be worth the hassle it would cause, but it would force a lot of people like May and Corbyn to say where there allegiances lie and stop trying to play both sides terribly.

Anti semite or anti Israeli?

devnull

Boris appearing to suggest that there won't be a hard border, but as per usual not saying how he will avoid one. Pie in the Sky stuff where you just say it and you get it almost seems to be some of their beliefs.

The Tory party really is clueless, they keep coming out with all these phrases and claims of what they are going to do, but the moment you ask them for detail and how they are going to do it, they are unable to give any detail whatsoever.

He's also claiming that there is self-doubt in the belief of it all, calling for a complete change of tack.

Rjd2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Going by the poll, given a choice between remain and leave with no deal, the majority would opt to remain. Then again, if such a referendum were to be held, the argument is bound to be made that the EU/Remoaners blocked a deal to force the UK to abandon Brexit.

I'd fancy Remain to win, but its not the cert that some think. The Tories grass roots would get behind leave, Farage would be back and what Corbyn would do would be fascinating. I do think he is a leaver, would he have the confidence this time round to campaign for leave? Very interesting indeed.

lawred2

Infini wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-gears-up-for-showdown-with-wto-on-future-of-soft-border-37130111.html

Meanwhile at the WTO major clashes will be expected since putting a hard border in will not simply be politically unpalatable it just wont work period. Could be really messy in this regard considering how volatile trying to enforce one would be.

why is it our government that is expected to face a fight with the WTO?

judeboy101

Decent speech by Boris, didn't slip the knife in. But imho came across quite "pm" like lol

devnull

judeboy101 wrote: »

Decent speech by Boris, didn't slip the knife in. But imho came across quite "pm" like lol

Didn't stick the knife in as much as I thought but he's still completely detached from reality.

Probably most memorable line was

"a strong independent self-governing Britain that is open to the world, not the miserable permanent limbo of Chequers."

Rjd2

judeboy101 wrote: »

Anti semite or anti Israeli?

Both. Plenty of people in the Labour party would agree. He may not be an antisemite, but the party most certainly has an issue with it and he has zero interest in dealing with it. Before someone points out the obvious, yep The Tories have a similar issue with Muslims and have even less interest in tacking it.

Taytoland

Good speech. Hopefully now the letters will go in after the summer and she can go.

devnull

Surprisingly last nights Customs Bill is going down as a Supply Bill which means the chance for the Lords rejecting as a whole it is a bit easier than it would have been if it was a standard Money Bil.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1019578120549085187

DrumSteve

Well that was devoid of anything resembling a plan, the brexiteers will lap it up though.

Ellian

Rjd2 wrote: »

Both. Plenty of people in the Labour party would agree. He may not be an antisemite, but the party most certainly has an issue with it and he has zero interest in dealing with it. Before someone points out the obvious, yep The Tories have a similar issue with Muslims and have even less interest in tacking it.

Possibly a bit of a sidebar but the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism includes the following.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

.....

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

As I understand it, that is the bit that Corbyn specifically has an issue with and I think he may have a point.

Consider for example, that in the documentary The Gatekeepers, the former head of the Shin Bet, Avraham Shalom made this statement.

“We’ve become cruel. To ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population.” Our army has become “a brutal occupation force, similar to the Germans in World War II. Similar, not identical.”

By that above definition, would his statement be considered anti-Semitic?

Personally, I think it's a stick that Corbyn keeps getting hit with, and he makes it to easy, but I also recognise that there is a political need to be able to criticise the actions of Israel without the censure of that particular accusation.

Professor Moriarty

Ellian wrote: »

Possibly a bit of a sidebar but the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism includes the following.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

.....

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

As I understand it, that is the bit that Corbyn specifically has an issue with and I think he may have a point.

Consider for example, that in the documentary The Gatekeepers, the former head of the Shin Bet, Avraham Shalom made this statement.

“We’ve become cruel. To ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population.” Our army has become “a brutal occupation force, similar to the Germans in World War II. Similar, not identical.”

By that above definition, would his statement be considered anti-Semitic?

Personally, I think it's a stick that Corbyn keeps getting hit with, and he makes it to easy, but I also recognise that there is a political need to be able to criticise the actions of Israel without the censure of that particular accusation.

Criticism of Israel by Corbyn in that regard is reasonable. Only three days ago, Netanyahu's party proposed a bill that would allow for Jewish only communities, some Jewish religious laws to be implemented and removal of Arabic as an official language. Anti-Semitism should be rightly condemned but the actions of a far right party should be equally condemned.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1019339412583403520


White paper translated into various EU languages . Irish not one of them nor is Swedish. Dutch and German translations called a joke