Brexit discussion thread IV

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

kowtow

Boris' speech was very un-theatrical by his own standards, more analytical - I thought - than forward looking.

What he did do, quite effectively, is identify the way the Irish border issue has been developed and treated, by both sides, as the fulcrum around which negotiations have so far failed to balance. He gives quite a good insight, from a Brexiteer point of view, of the point. Whatever ones view there is no question that this point has been highly politically charged, in what has sometimes seemed to be a deliberate move.

Whether that will work out for good or for ill for us here in this Ireland, remains to be seen.

and worst of all we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border

– which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble –

to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate

No one wants a hard border. You couldn’t construct one if you tried

But there certainly can be different rules north and south of the border to reflect the fact that there are two different jurisdictions.

In fact there already are.

There can be checks away from the border, and technical solutions, as the PM described at Mansion House. In fact there already are.

But when I and other colleagues proposed further technical solutions to make customs and regulatory checks remotely

they were never even properly examined

as if such solutions had become intellectually undesirable in the context of the argument

and somehow after the December joint report

– whose backstop arrangement we were all told was entirely provisional, never to be invoked –

it became taboo even to discuss technical fixes.

seamus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

Whatever about the quality of the translations, it reads like election material. The first two paragraphs of the summary;

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 and begin to chart a new course in the world.

The Government will have delivered on the result of the 2016 referendum – the biggest democratic exercise in this country’s history. And it will have reached a key milestone in its principal mission – to build a country that works for everyone. A country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking.

It's so incredibly fluffy, it feels like it was written for a navel-gazing UK audience, not for opening negotiations with an EU one.

judeboy101

May dodged the status of a border post no deal brexit at the committee just now. She was repeatedly asked about it and wouldn't say they would put a border up or wouldn't.

Leroy42

More fantasy stuff from Boris.

Is he really claiming that Ireland should have just sat on our hands whilst the UK fecked about with the GFA and the economy on the island? Of course we made it political, since we are so small economically we needed another angle.

The likes of JRM have stated in the past that we should simply side with the UK because of our relative size. So it was the right way to do things.

But even if we remove his point, the failure lies with the Brexiteers who simply never came up with a solution to the border issue. Clearly they never even thought of it before the vote, and seemed genuinely surprised that others (ie ROI and EU) have taken it so seriously.

The reason why their 'solutions' were rejected were because they were fantasy. This is the man that claimed that the NI border was akin to travelling between London Boroughs! He simply has no concept of the changes that Brexit demands be made.

What effectively Boris is asking for, is that Brexiteers want control of their borders, but the NI one seems very complicated so can we just stick to EU rules for that one!

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This seems open to potential farce when it transpires that they just ran it through google translate. Or more likely that unspotted errors in the translation lead to them giving the Bulgarians a text totally different in meaning to that which the Italians receive. Or a deliberately unfaithful translator.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

Called it two weeks ago, not the most difficult call obviously.

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

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

We are members of the EU, the only border our government would not want to enforce would be with the UK, which is clearly in breach of WTO rules if the UK crashes out.

The UK on the other hand could in theory leave open the border with Ireland if they choose not to enforce a border with the rest of the world also. This would be a nightmare for the UK economey, but would be totally fine as far as the WTO is concerned. Even if they wanted to emulate ireland and only leave open the border with the Republic, then both of us would be in trouble with the WTO, and by extension we would potentially be in trouble with the EU as we are members of the WTO through the EU.

I personally can't see much hope of us not having to enforce a border in the event of a no-deal Brexit, though government might feel it is important not to admit that before Brexit happens.

seamus

kowtow wrote: »

What he did do, quite effectively, is identify the way the Irish border issue has been developed and treated, by both sides, as the fulcrum around which negotiations have so far failed to balance. He gives quite a good insight, from a Brexiteer point of view, of the point. Whatever ones view there is no question that this point has been highly politically charged, in what has sometimes seemed to be a deliberate move.

What he has failed to recognise however is just why that border is the fulcrum of the debate.

He's exasperated that a trifling issue has been allowed to block everything - because he doesn't understand that it's not a trifling issue. He doesn't understand that you can't just steamroll small countries that get in your way so you can deal with the big ones. The Irish border is an EU border, one with complicated rules that the UK agreed to. It can't be put aside to be dealt with "later". If it's not dealt with first, then there is no "later".

Once again, a perfect example of just why the UK has failed to make any progress; because they refuse to recognise the roadblocks that are in the way and kept insisting that they just drive over them.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

Dyr

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

There's no panic lol

They're trying to sound like Corporal Jones when they feel like Corporal Frazer.

While Captain Manwearing Rees-Mogg hufs and puffs from the wings

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

To be fair, it is possible to argue that the worst of the Israli actions in some way resemble the German occupation of some Western European countries during the war, but Israel has not done anything that comes anywhere near to the brutaity that the Nazis exhibited in the east or inflicted on the Jewish community in Europe.

To make a Nazi comparrison, I think, is unjust, and given the history, probably comes from a place of anti-semitisim.

I think I will leave it at that, I don't want to derail the thread.