Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

MrMusician18

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

That is a major issue. We have had many, many contentious referenda, with a lot of bull**** from both sides, but the referendum commission always does a pretty good job of laying out the basic premise and results of each choice. We have a lot of failings in our political system, a hell of a lot, but there is something to be said about the almost reverence we take to handling the constitution properly.

Oh please, there have been several referendums in Ireland where the result has not been interpreted as a pure rejection of the proposal, but where the electorate has used it as a stick to beat the government: Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 are cases in point.

We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't.

I'm not sure how effective the referendum commission is in getting people to engage with the facts tbh, especially in a disinterested and complacent population.

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Oh please, there have been several referendums in Ireland where the result has not been interpreted as a pure rejection of the proposal, but where the electorate has used it as a stick to beat the government: Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 are cases in point.

We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't.

I'm not sure how effective the referendum commission is in getting people to engage with the facts tbh, especially in a disinterested and complacent population.

I think as a population, we are quite well engaged. Maybe even very well. Doesn't mean that we don't have protest votes, or outside the box candidates gaining popularity but generally speaking we are not bad.

I think that this is because we are smaller and most people know the politicians involved from their locality if not in person.

Even many people who don't vote still have knowledge on a topic and can hold a conversation about it.

RobMc59

If there is to be no 2nd referendum then surely a deal which allows the UK to stay closely allied to the EU which would allow the possibility of rentry to the EU preferable to crashing out,the catastrophic self-inflicted effects of no deal will cause irreversible damage to close ties between Britain and Ireland and the spectre of sectarian extremism will probably rise again.

judeboy101

SNIP. Don't drag the the thread off topic.

Enzokk

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Honestly, the idea that the British Government could 'reset the negotiations' as on the telegraph front page is utterly delusional. The UK doesn't control these negotiations, they never have (due to serious failures in how they approached them), and article 50 started a timer that is due to expire very shortly and will expire unless they get agreement with the entire EU.

You might understand when this process (which was never undertaken before) has a learning curve at the beginning, but at this stage it's frankly mad that they haven't even pretended to have come to terms with what it entails or what it involves.

Yes, the UK had one card in the negotiations and that was when to trigger article 50. They played that card when they weren't ready and it had no strategic plan at all to the date. They should have sorted out what Brexit they wanted before triggering article 50. Then they would have had more power in the negotiations, but because they are still fighting over what they want it is easy for the EU not to buckle as there is really nothing to buckle over.

I get that this means no deal is more likely, but that is out of our control when the other party is the one steering towards the cliff edge.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If May's only hope of getting a deal through is relying on Labour rebels, then I think we are facing no deal. How many Labour rebels would she need? Without the DUP she would need 6, even if every ERG Tory voted for the deal. For every member of the ERG who votes against her deal, she needs either a Labour rebel or some other MP, perhaps she has convinced some of the Lib Dems to support a deal? Even so, there are over 60 in the ERG, if they all vote a deal down, then it is likely that the deal is dead unless you see a massive number of Labour MPs breaking ranks. The deal is looking ever more unlikely.

She has the threat on Labour MPs of allowing no deal to pass, but that seems counter-intuitive when she is at the wheel and steering the bus. She is the one allowing no-deal and her party is in power.

Tell me how wrote: »

Would they rather put their name to a No Deal scenario? Maybe they would given that they are not negotiating but I wouldn't be sure. Surely they might try to make the best of a bad situation at that point. Time is rapidly running out.

They are also going to have to come to terms with themselves that they are there to represent the best interest of their voters but leaving the EU is against their best interest especially in the areas where they are elected.

They will take flak from their voters but lets be honest in most of those areas Labour could run an piece of fruit and they will still win the vote as the voters will not vote Tory. I would think a politician would sleep better knowing they did what is best for their voters even if it doesn't seem like it. If they vote for the deal and they get hit by another round of cuts because, you know Tories cut Labour areas more than their own, how do you think that conversation will go with their voters?

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems that many members of the public in the uK are simply of the view that the delay in a deal is the fault of the EU. They don't understand why they don't just leave. If someone tells them that there is a deal but their local Labour mp is going against the will of the people in the 2016 referendum, they won't stop to query why. They will see them as obstructing Brexit.



Time is running out. They do not now have time to replace May and/or have a GE before the 29th of March. (maybe they could do the former but given that the purpose of getting rid of her would be to replace the deal which she is negotiating, they would still run out of time) They cannot just say "Sorry lads, we're not wuite ready, give us another 6 months." They either sign up to a deal with a transition period or they go with none.

This is on the Conservatives, no matter how much they will try and sell it as Labour's fault. The only time it will be Labour's fault is if they vote for deal that the Conservatives bring to the table.

Jim2007

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't.

I'm not sure how effective the referendum commission is in getting people to engage with the facts tbh, especially in a disinterested and complacent population.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but how much actual experience is it based on?

From my point of view the Irish and the Swiss electorates are much more politically aware than most. It is not that they are more intelligent or anything like that, it is simply because they have a tradition of having to grapple with the kind of issue that most other electorates do not. In Ireland and Switzerland it is 'normal' for voters to think on two levels: strategic - what to I want for the country in the long term and tactical what to I want of the government in the short term.

In both Ireland and Switzerland there is a strong sense of the people owning constitutional decisions and the idea of a PM taking a course of action that would be contrary to the constitution would invoke outrage. Yet in the UK when the PM proposed to by pass the sovereign parliament and invoke A50, the outrage was not targeted against the PM, but the petitioner and the Supreme Court that dared to challenge her.

You cannot expect an electorate who's only experience is voting in a popularity contest as to which government they want, to turn around a make a long term strategic decision - they don't know what the questions should be, let alone pick the right answers.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

I get that this means no deal is more likely, but that is out of our control when the other party is the one steering towards the cliff edge.

I really don't think so. Tory and Labour Remainers don't seem to think so.


I think they will reject May's deal, reject No Deal and insist the PM goes to the EU to look for more time.


Possibly the next PM after May is gone.

McGiver

On Jo Johnson's letter. He seems to indicate that three options would be put on the ballot:
1. No deal
2. May's deal
3. Remain

Now, as I said repeatedly in the past, I don't think any sensible government would put the no deal option on the ballot knowing what kind of damage it would cause. No deal simply isn't an option. How would they explain this to the UK electorate? "If you vote for no deal, the medicines may run out in a month, food availability will be reduced, 1M jobs will be lost, Dover will come to a halt in a week, Kent will transform into a lorry car park, taxes will be raised substantially, public services will be cut."
I mean seriously? And given the state of the UK electorate (brainwashed by Daily Mail for 30 years) many would still ignore this and say that it's Project Fear, We've had enough of the experts, Leave means Leave, Rule Britainia and everything will be grand. There are 30% people like this in UK based on polls, ladies and gentlemen. This realisation is deeply concerning. The scale of Trumpism in the UK we could call it.

It is very possible that Brexiteers would rally behind the "No deal" option given that May's deal is as toxic for them probably as much as Remain.

CelticRambler

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

We have a lot of failings in our political system, a hell of a lot, but there is something to be said about the almost reverence we take to handling the constitution properly.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't.

Well ... d'you know, maybe they are? At least a whole bunch of Americans I met last month (individually) couldn't believe how clued-up we were about politics in general and the US in particular, compared to their own compatriots. That's something I observed myself while living in England more than a decade ago, and working there again last year. A comment that's stuck with me when asking a young colleague what way she voted (Leave) was her answer: "because my parents told me to." :rolleyes:

The two-party, winner-takes-all, system in the UK and the US makes political engagement pretty irrelevant for the majority of the population, so whether we're "more sophisticated" or not, the continental-style Irish electoral system has trained us (as Jim007 says) to treat every vote as our choice - and most of the time we expect to be allowed a second choice too.



Post-Brexit, this is something the DUP will have to take account of. If TM sacrifices them in favour of a United Tory Brexit, their role as guardians of the Britishness of Ulster will be irreperably undermined; alternatively, if their intransigence results in a hard Brexit and the economic collapse of NI, their role as representatives of the people will be irreperably undermined. Facing a bleak future, the only future for the party will be as contenders in a multi-seat constituency under PR, arguing their case in Leinster House rather than Westminster.

Akrasia

McGiver wrote: »

On Jo Johnson's letter. He seems to indicate that three options would be put on the ballot:
1. No deal
2. May's deal
3. Remain

Now, as I said repeatedly in the past, I don't think any sensible government would put the no deal option on the ballot knowing what kind of damage it would cause. No deal simply isn't an option. How would they explain this to the UK electorate? "If you vote for no deal, the medicines may run out in a month, food availability will be reduced, 1M jobs will be lost, Dover will come to a halt in a week, Kent will transform into a lorry car park, taxes will be raised substantially, public services will be cut."
I mean seriously? And given the state of the UK electorate (brainwashed by Daily Mail for 30 years) many would still ignore this and say that it's Project Fear, We've had enough of the experts, Leave means Leave, Rule Britainia and everything will be grand. There are 30% people like this in UK based on polls, ladies and gentlemen. This realisation is deeply concerning. The scale of Trumpism in the UK we could call it.

It is very possible that Brexiteers would rally behind the "No deal" option given that May's deal is as toxic for them probably as much as Remain.

"No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal" Theresa May 2017.

Her own stupid words will haunt her

RobMc59

Akrasia wrote: »

"No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal" Theresa May 2017.

Her own stupid words will haunt her

Wouldn't the same statement apply to the EU?-No deal is better than a bad deal?

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

Wouldn't the same statement apply to the EU?-No deal is better than a bad deal?

Not necessarily. In the event of a no deal the UK is shut off entirely but the sanctity of EU structures are retained. They can tell the remaining 27 our rules have not changed.

But, a bad deal where they are seen to unreasonably bend the rules would lead to the Nigel Farages in each country claiming with increasing volume they too should leave.

Akrasia

RobMc59 wrote: »

Wouldn't the same statement apply to the EU?-No deal is better than a bad deal?

No, No deal is bad for everyone. The EU will be fine because it's so big and can absorb the hit, but for the UK.

For the EU, a no deal scenario might work if it causes a shift in UK sentiment so that they choose to rejoin sooner rather than later, and if they do rejoin, it will be on the EUs terms, but nobody in the EU wants there to be no deal.

For both the EU and the UK, no exit is better than a bad deal, and a even bad deal is better than no deal

Akrasia

Actually on 2nd thought, for the EU, No deal is better than a bad deal depends on who the deal is bad for. No deal is better than a deal that is bad for the EU, but it's not better than a deal that's bad for the UK.

I can't see the EU agreeing to any deal that compromises the integrity of the European project so they'll reluctantly allow the UK to crash out without any deal

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

On Jo Johnson's letter. He seems to indicate that three options would be put on the ballot:
1. No deal
2. May's deal
3. Remain

None of those will get over 50%
So most of the voters will be dissatisfied



Also needs clarification on exactly what May's deal is.


There are some calling for another option.

4. Resume negotiations

Completely missing the points that Article 50 only allows an extension if everyone agrees, and why would the EU even consider this until the deal with the UK is almost complete. And it not nearly complete as the UK still doesn't look like it can past it's own red lines.

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Wouldn't the same statement apply to the EU?-No deal is better than a bad deal?

It only applies to the EU.

Muscles Schultz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

None of those will get over 50%
So most of the voters will be dissatisfied



Also needs clarification on exactly what May's deal is.


There are some calling for another option.

4. Resume negotiations

Completely missing the points that Article 50 only allows an extension if everyone agrees, and why would the EU even consider this until the deal with the UK is almost complete. And it not nearly complete as the UK still doesn't look like it can past it's own red lines.

Needs to be a PR type referendum if more than 2 options

Akrasia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

None of those will get over 50%
So most of the voters will be dissatisfied



Also needs clarification on exactly what May's deal is.


There are some calling for another option.

4. Resume negotiations

Completely missing the points that Article 50 only allows an extension if everyone agrees, and why would the EU even consider this until the deal with the UK is almost complete. And it not nearly complete as the UK still doesn't look like it can past it's own red lines.

The referendum would have have two questions, not a single question with 3 options

The first question would be "Should Britain leave the EU under the terms negotiated in the withdrawal agreement?" Yes/No

The 2nd question should be something like:
In the event of the withdrawal agreement being rejected in the preceding ballot, should the UK continue to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement? Yes/No

CelticRambler

It was pointed out some time ago (can't remember where) that there isn't any "no deal" option. The UK cannot continue to function beyond Brexit-day without deals on just about everything, and it doesn't suit the EU to not be able to do business with the UK (e.g. fly EU planes through UK airspace, or take UK money for EU produce) - so "no deal" in fact means hundreds of micro-deals will have to be arranged for humanitarian reasons if no other.
For the EU, that would be worse than the current mess of arrangements they have with Switzerland and which they vowed never to repeat, so "no deal" wouldn't be better than a bad deal, but as the UK has shown itself incapable of negotiating any kind of deal, the EU probably won't have any choice in the matter.

Akrasia

CelticRambler wrote: »

It was pointed out some time ago (can't remember where) that there isn't any "no deal" option. The UK cannot continue to function beyond Brexit-day without deals on just about everything, and it doesn't suit the EU to not be able to do business with the UK (e.g. fly EU planes through UK airspace, or take UK money for EU produce) - so "no deal" in fact means hundreds of micro-deals will have to be arranged for humanitarian reasons if no other.
For the EU, that would be worse than the current mess of arrangements they have with Switzerland and which they vowed never to repeat, so "no deal" wouldn't be better than a bad deal, but as the UK has shown itself incapable of negotiating any kind of deal, the EU probably won't have any choice in the matter.

No deal isn't an option, it's the default scenario if the UK gets to March 29 without a withdrawal agreement
It's what happens if they can't agree on a deal. And if the fact that it's an utter catastrophe for the UK isn't enough of an incentive for the Tories to get their sh1t together, then that is what will happen.

ArmaniJeanss

Akrasia wrote: »

The referendum would have have two questions, not a single question with 3 options

The first question would be "Should Britain leave the EU under the terms negotiated in the withdrawal agreement?" Yes/No

The 2nd question should be something like:
In the event of the withdrawal agreement being rejected in the preceding ballot, should the UK continue to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement? Yes/No

That is probably the way they'd do it alright, but it's very unsatisfactory.
It potentially disenfranchises both the 'Remain' option and the 'Crash Out' option, either of which could potentially have 50%+ support.
So someone whose actual preferred choice would be 1) 'Remain' and 2) 'accept deal on offer' has a hobsons choice in the first question. Vote Yes and this potentially leads to their preferred choice never being counted, or Vote No and risk their least favoured option being chosen.
Ditto someone whose preferred choice is 1) Crash Out 2) Accept Deal.
The same obviously applies to every combination of 'Ask initital Yes/No question, then split 2 ways for second question'.

Very flawed and I'm not sure the UK courts would uphold it as being a valid format of question to set the public.

prawnsambo

I honestly don't think there should be another referendum. Firstly because yet again, it can only be advisory. Secondlly because there is still no independent commission set up to oversee such a referendum and it will just result in the same old lies being regurgitated with no oversight and thirdly because the time to run one with the requisite time for campaigning and then to run the result through parliament and act upon it is vanishingly small. The onus is on the government and westminster to actually govern, make the hard decisions and stop playing power games with each other. The nonsense of Labour standing clear of their obligations as an opposition is just one of the many manifestations of these games.

Tell me how

prawnsambo wrote: »

I honestly don't think there should be another referendum. Firstly because yet again, it can only be advisory. Secondlly because there is still no independent commission set up to oversee such a referendum and it will just result in the same old lies being regurgitated with no oversight and thirdly because the time to run one with the requisite time for campaigning and then to run the result through parliament and act upon it is vanishingly small. The onus is on the government and westminster to actually govern, make the hard decisions and stop playing power games with each other. The nonsense of Labour standing clear of their obligations as an opposition is just one of the many manifestations of these games.

Yes. On a weekend marking the memorial ceremonies of the end of WW1 it is very troubling when we look around to who we would have considered strong players on the world stage.

The examples of the political sphere in both the UK and America over the last 2 years is worrying when they played such a part in defending our way of life in recent times.

Capt'n Midnight

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Needs to be a PR type referendum if more than 2 options

PR ?

Are you cracked ? :pac:

After a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate" only 13.4% of the electorate voted for the Alternative Vote back in 2011.


I can't imagine the BS and disinformation that will flow from both sides if they tried to explain to the Great British Public how AV would be used on a Brexit referendum.


The information flow on the AV referendum was almost totally about how this would change the results rather than how it allowed people a choice other than voting for the enemy of my enemy.

The titbit that it could only affect marginals and then only in some circumstances was pretty much drowned in the noise.

Also left out was any suggestion that the pendulum could swing back to the incumbent in the case of say protest votes or the local hospital candidate.



The whole debate was about AV was how it would change the result.


The very idea that AV could have benefited the Lib Dems at the expense of Labour and Conservatives means that neither party will want AV or PR appearing on a poll anytime soon*.

* except of course in NI because there's no deviation.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1061554244522778626

Interesting thread. It basically the EU can't move any more. The ball is in the UK's court and it seems unlikely they can return it as they still don't know what they want.

Anthracite

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

That is probably the way they'd do it alright, but it's very unsatisfactory.
It potentially disenfranchises both the 'Remain' option and the 'Crash Out' option, either of which could potentially have 50%+ support.
So someone whose actual preferred choice would be 1) 'Remain' and 2) 'accept deal on offer' has a hobsons choice in the first question. Vote Yes and this potentially leads to their preferred choice never being counted, or Vote No and risk their least favoured option being chosen.
Ditto someone whose preferred choice is 1) Crash Out 2) Accept Deal.
The same obviously applies to every combination of 'Ask initital Yes/No question, then split 2 ways for second question'.

Very flawed and I'm not sure the UK courts would uphold it as being a valid format of question to set the public.

I'm not quite sure that your logic here is correct.

The proposal would be to have two independent votes on the two questions, not one vote for a combination of two choices.

ArmaniJeanss

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm not quite sure that your logic here is correct.

The proposal would be to have two independent votes on the two questions, not one vote for a combination of two choices.

No they aren't independent (in Akrasias post/suggestion #3367), as the second vote only becomes relevant/counted in the event that the first ballot is rejected.
In order to get your first choice counted (whether that's Remain or Crash Out) you have to initially reject your likely second preference of 'accept deal'.

Thats the opposite of independent.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

It was pointed out some time ago (can't remember where) that there isn't any "no deal" option. The UK cannot continue to function beyond Brexit-day without deals on just about everything, and it doesn't suit the EU to not be able to do business with the UK (e.g. fly EU planes through UK airspace, or take UK money for EU produce) - so "no deal" in fact means hundreds of micro-deals will have to be arranged for humanitarian reasons if no other.
For the EU, that would be worse than the current mess of arrangements they have with Switzerland and which they vowed never to repeat, so "no deal" wouldn't be better than a bad deal, but as the UK has shown itself incapable of negotiating any kind of deal, the EU probably won't have any choice in the matter.

The backstop is the WTO.

The UK can unilaterally allow EU planes to land and EU truck drivers to arrive.

There'll be more paperwork and tariffs until the micro deals are done. One huge political decision is how much if any of the cost will be absorbed by the UK government.



Irish citizens have an advantage here thanks to travel rights recognised by all sides. Be interesting to see how many UK transport firms place ads here.



A cold storage firm says it has run out of room because the food industry is stockpiling in the run-up to Brexit.

"It's completely out of sync to how we normally are... We're turning businesses away every day, every single day," Mr Rattenbury said.

The Cardiff warehouse has been full to capacity for four months, he said.

The company has now bought a 12-acre former wrapping paper factory in Aberbargoed and is converting it into another cold storage centre, which will cost £1.7m, with £500,000 over five years coming from the Welsh Government. It aims to employ 120 people within 18 months.

...
"They're worried about the raw ingredients to be able to make ready meals, they're concerned about flour, they're concerned about juices. Everything you can think of that we use for food. Everybody is looking to stockpile."

they're concerned about flour, wow, that stuff is cheap and available worldwide. And can easily be made from grain that can be stored for years.

Anthracite

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

No they aren't independent (in Akrasias post/suggestion #3367), as the second vote only becomes relevant/counted in the event that the first ballot is rejected.
In order to get your first choice counted (whether that's Remain or Crash Out) you have to initially reject your likely second preference of 'accept deal'.

Thats the opposite of independent.

Hmm...re-read the original post and you are of course correct.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

they're concerned about flour, wow, that stuff is cheap and available worldwide. And can easily be made from grain that can be stored for years.

But isn't that the problem? Not availability, but storage space. Delays in shipping and customs require storage to cover extended lead times and these extended lead times can't be forecasted accurately. So the buffer has to be estimated and that requires storage space and storage space is finite and being gobbled up by everyone.