Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Infini

Firblog wrote: »

Forgive me if this has been asked previously; if a 2nd referendum were to take place and the result was 'remain', can that actually happen? Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

Theres a question going before the courts wether the UK can unilaterally cancel prior to Brexit day. I would say the EU would not object to this so long as the issue is never revisited again. I honestly think the likes of mogg have been whinging the last few days because they secretly fear their chance to leave being lost for good expecially since all their arguments have been blown aoart as bare faced lies and BS. There might not be a 2nd referendum due to lack of time so the more likely option of parliment cancelling it instead due to being undeliverable is a definate possibility. Could also see reforms being introduced as well as criminal proceedings launched into the leave campaign proper too as theres definately some skeletons in the closet.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is only one time limited extension available in the WA. I would think the maximum transition could be 4 years.

Yeah, and Sweden will be joining the Euro any day now, it's only been 23 years since they started.



Norway's application to join the EU was never withdrawn, it is just stalled. For the last 24 years.


The EU never saw a can so big that it couldn't be kicked down the road.

Zubeneschamali

Firblog wrote: »

Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

Legally, Parliament can do whatever it likes in the UK.


Would the EU allow it? We don't know. Brexit is lose-lose, both the UK and EU will be poorer for it.


It is possible that the EU has lost trust in the UK enough to think that withdrawing A50 might just be a temporary stunt, and the whole Brexit charade might start again soon, and that it would be better just to get it done.


However, since the Rejoin the EU campaign will start the day after Brexit, I don't think it makes sense to burn all that money when the issue will not be settled in any case.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At the end of the day, if a People's Vote is achieved and the electorate votes to Remain in the EU it only serves to restore the status quo which is what lead to Brexit to begin with.

While I am still in favor of remaining with or without a new plebiscite, at best it will be a first step to fixing the problems the UK faces and, in some instances has created for itself; namely appalling economic inequality, deep divisions in society with a widespread and not terribly off the mark feeling that the system is rigged in favor of elites, the impact of austerity cuts which have left some local public services shocking under-resourced (just one example) and an utterly broken democracy where membership of the upper house can be bought and is wholly unelected while the lower house can be won with little over a third of the popular vote and don't even start me on this foodbank business.

Which leaves an opening for a new political party to address this. There is clearly appetite for it.

Scapegoating the EU has not worked, a reversal will restore the market access but provide an opening for a political solution to those internal issues

Tell me how

listermint wrote: »

Which leaves an opening for a new political party to address this. There is clearly appetite for it.

Scapegoating the EU has not worked, a reversal will restore the market access but provide an opening for a political solution to those internal issues

I wondered the same, if anyone in UK actively was considering if there's appetite for a new party.
The Lib Dems have said that they're against Brexit but they seen to have gained zero traction for having such a position. What platform could a new party hold now without uniting all incumbents against them.

The performance of the elected representatives (opposition included) should be worrying to the general population. Every facet of their system of government is coming out of this looking bad.

No one has provided any element of leadership since the referendum was announced.

The UK should be worried that it is their performance which has the rest of the world looking at them pitifully as opposed to any sense of psychotic glee at the state of affairs.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

Which leaves an opening for a new political party to address this. There is clearly appetite for it.

Scapegoating the EU has not worked, a reversal will restore the market access but provide an opening for a political solution to those internal issues

It does and it doesn't. A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition.

If it were at all possible, I would say that disaffected Labour and Conservative centrists would have done so by now but they know that they would have Britain's dysfunctional and propagandist media on both left and right to hammer them much as the Liberal Democrats do now.

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

I wondered the same, if anyone in UK actively was considering if there's appetite for a new party.
The Lib Dems have said that they're against Brexit but they seen to have gained zero traction for having such a position. What platform could a new party hold now without uniting all incumbents against them.

The performance of the elected representatives (opposition included) should be worrying to the general population. Every facet of their system of government is coming out of this looking bad.

No one has provided any element of leadership since the referendum was announced.

The UK should be worried that it is their performance which has the rest of the world looking at them pitifully as opposed to any sense of psychotic glee at the state of affairs.

It's to be hoped that if brexit is cancelled the UK realises the benefits of being in the EU and makes a go of it instead of all the self delusional clap trap and moaning-the advantages of membership is clear to see-strength in unity being the main one imo.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's to be hoped that if brexit is cancelled the UK realises the benefits of being in the EU and makes a go of it instead of all the self delusional clap trap and moaning-the advantages of membership is clear to see-strength in unity being the main one imo.

I honestly don't see that happening. The commentary is still very much that all of this is down to EU being a bully, using NI to 'keep the UK in the EU'.

A cancellation of Brexit will, IMO, only exacerbate those opinions and give a free get out of jail card to the likes of Davis, Raab, JRM, Farage and of course Johnson. They will be able to continue on with their narrative that everything would have been fine if only for those pesky unbelievers. TM sold them out, and any and every problem that arises in the UK will be the fault of the EU and the lack of a true Brexit.

Whilst there might be some 'acceptance' of the TM deal, it will only be a staging post, a rest, on the road and the fight will be taken up again.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At the end of the day, if a People's Vote is achieved and the electorate votes to Remain in the EU it only serves to restore the status quo which is what lead to Brexit to begin with.

On a side note, I don't think "People's Vote" should be a term that's used as Brexiteers seem to regard it as an attempt to rebrand a second referendum and make it an easier pill to swallow, and I think they're certainly right that it is a rebrand. It would be a referendum. Might as well call a spade a spade on that.

Anthracite

briany wrote: »

On a side note, I don't think "People's Vote" should be a term that's used as Brexiteers seem to regard it as an attempt to rebrand a second referendum and make it an easier pill to swallow, and I think they're certainly right that it is a rebrand. It would be a referendum. Might as well call a spade a spade on that.

Yes, and they have been so scrupulously honest at all stages, the anti-Brexit side should do the same...

An Ciarraioch

Nicola Sturgeon appears to have the most coherent Brexit policy - push to stay in the EEA and CU if that can get through Parliament, and only aim for a second vote if that proves impossible:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/britain-deserves-better-brexit-may-peoples-vote

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition.

Not as absurd as all that. You only have to look across the English Channel to see how it was done by the French. Emmanuel Macron came from "nowhere" during a single campaign to not only win the presidency for himself, but also to take control of the lower house of parliament with a new "third way" party made up of centrists and people who'd never before held political office.

BUT - and I think this is a critical difference - most people in France consider themselves firstly as "of their province" (the well-known rebellious Bretons from Brittany and Corsicans from Corsica; but others self-identifying from the less notorious Berry, Gascogne, Limousin, Ardèche, etc); and then French and European in equal measure. The Irish are similar in that respect: since 1973, Europe has been an increasingly accessible extension of our home turf. For many English, though, Europe is somewhere as familiar but foreign as the US or Australia.

The fact that one can stand on the cliffs at Dover and see France across the water doesn't make it any closer emotionally if you've been reared in a tradition of believing that it's a strange and dangerous place.(*) I'm not sure the depth of that disconnect is really appreciated by the Irish in Ireland, because we just don't have the same sort of mental block about the outside world. We have our island to call home, but whole world is our playground.

(*) As was the case for MrsCR, about 25 years ago on her first visit to Germany, who was literally pale and shaking as we drove across the border.

seamus wrote: »

Subsequent votes where there was a big concern about further right-wing shifts, didn't materialise because the majority mobilised themselves to get out and vote.

This was illustrated in the perfectly-timed French presidential election, where Le Pen was polling as the front-runner around the time that Brexit happened and Trump got elected.
...
She got flattened. Because people came out in large numbers to cast their vote, after seeing just how easy it was for a single vote to change the course of a country.

In the interests of accuracy, the people abstained in record numbers in that election. I would not be too optimistic about the motivation of any electorate while voters continue to live in their social media bubbles.

An Ciarraioch

CelticRambler wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition.

Not as absurd as all that. You only have to look across the English Channel to see how it was done by the French. Emmanuel Macron came from "nowhere" during a single campaign to not only win the presidency for himself, but also to take control of the lower house of parliament with a new "third way" party made up of centrists and people who'd never before held political office.

BUT - and I think this is a critical difference - most people in France consider themselves firstly as "of their province" (the well-known rebellious Bretons from Brittany and Corsicans from Corsica; but others self-identifying from the less notorious Berry, Gascogne, Limousin, Ardèche, etc); and then French and European in equal measure. The Irish are similar in that respect: since 1973, Europe has been an increasingly accessible extension of our home turf. For many English, though, Europe is somewhere as familiar but foreign as the US or Australia.

The fact that one can stand on the cliffs at Dover and see France across the water doesn't make it any closer emotionally if you've been reared in a tradition of believing that it's a strange and dangerous place.(*) I'm not sure the depth of that disconnect is really appreciated by the Irish in Ireland, because we just don't have the same sort of mental block about the outside world. We have our island to call home, but whole world is our playground.

(*) As was the case for MrsCR, about 25 years ago on her first visit to Germany, who was literally pale and shaking as we drove across the border.

seamus wrote: »

Subsequent votes where there was a big concern about further right-wing shifts, didn't materialise because the majority mobilised themselves to get out and vote.

This was illustrated in the perfectly-timed French presidential election, where Le Pen was polling as the front-runner around the time that Brexit happened and Trump got elected.
...
She got flattened. Because people came out in large numbers to cast their vote, after seeing just how easy it was for a single vote to change the course of a country.

In the interests of accuracy, the people abstained in record numbers in that election. I would not be too optimistic about the motivation of any electorate while voters continue to live in their social media bubbles.

Of course, it's easier for third parties to emerge from nowhere in France, because of the national tradition of a "strong leader" both pre- and post-Revolution: Louis XVI, Napoleons I and III, Petain, and the Gaullist creation of the Fifth Republic, which saw De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, Mitterrand and now Macron essentially create brand new parties as personality vehicles.

As for the presidential election, Le Pen imploded in the final debate, when questioned on her idea about an internal franc and an external euro, and her renamed party appears to be rowing back both on leaving the EU and the single currency. France Insoumise appears to be in a similar muddle - wanting to hold negotiations with Brussels, but unclear as to what would follow if talks failed.

Rjd2

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the interests of accuracy, the people abstained in record numbers in that election. I would not be too optimistic about the motivation of any electorate while voters continue to live in their social media bubbles.

Le Pen was never considered a serious contender to be fair by anyone following it that closely, it was just bookies running scared and press of both right and especially left who loved writing about her because she was great copy.

It was annoying though explaining this to people and screaming " BREXIT...TRUMP@~!" whcih were utterly irrelevant when discussing the French election.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does and it doesn't. A new party needs to build up a huge following in a tiny space of time and ensure that such a following is sufficiently concentrated such that they actually win seats. Accomplishing that task in a decade would be nigh on impossible. Doing it by the next GE is an absurd proposition.

If it were at all possible, I would say that disaffected Labour and Conservative centrists would have done so by now but they know that they would have Britain's dysfunctional and propagandist media on both left and right to hammer them much as the Liberal Democrats do now.

Lib Dems are not a serious party. Just drastically poor leadership.

There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them.

People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.

briany

Anthracite wrote: »

Yes, and they have been so scrupulously honest at all stages, the anti-Brexit side should do the same...

I don't think one side acting disingenuously gives license to the other side to do the same. I mean you could take it that way, but it'll just lead ever deepening polarisation and suspicion of the other side.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

Lib Dems are not a serious party. Just drastically poor leadership.

What constitutes a serious party? They were in government from 2010-2015.

listermint wrote: »

There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them.

People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that FPTP makes that all but impossible. All such a party would do now is split the anti-Tory vote and hand them more seats on a silver platter than they'd win otherwise.

Anthracite

briany wrote: »

I don't think one side acting disingenuously gives license to the other side to do the same. I mean you could take it that way, but it'll just lead ever deepening polarisation and suspicion of the other side.

I don't think that alienating brextremists is something we really need to worry about - they are a self-radicalised group.

serfboard

Justine Greening was on Channel 4 News last night and said that, as regards Parliament:

- There is no majority for the Deal
- There is no majority for No Deal, and
- There is no majority for Remain.

So Parliament is stuck.

Her solution? A second referendum/People's Vote.

In a way the public has to bail out the politicians who are afraid to move one way or the other.

cml387

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon appears to have the most coherent Brexit policy - push to stay in the EEA and CU if that can get through Parliament, and only aim for a second vote if that proves impossible:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/britain-deserves-better-brexit-may-peoples-vote

Nick Bowles (MP,Con,remainer) is actually canvassing for this outcome.

His scenario outlined on BBC4 PM this evening is as follows:

Current withdrawal deal rejected in Commons (although he's voting yes).
Vote of no confidence defeated
Vote for another referendum defeated.

Only alternative agreeable to a majority: Norway style EEA, staying in single market and customs union.

Infini

serfboard wrote: »

Justine Greening was on Channel 4 News last night and said that, as regards Parliament:

- There is no majority for the Deal
- There is no majority for No Deal, and
- There is no majority for Remain.

So Parliament is stuck.

Her solution? A second referendum/People's Vote.

In a way the public has to bail out the politicians who are afraid to move one way or the other.

The last one isnt fully true many MPs are remain leaning but have supported Brexit because of party lines and the result itself. However if the proverbial gun is put to their heads and the WA fails to pass then the ONLY option to prevent a crash out would be for parliment to halt Brexit. There will be howlers like moggles and co but theres ALOT of information there right now to the dodgy dealings of both leave and the brexiteers. They had 2 years to get a proper deal and they made a mess of it there would be a pretty good case to hammer them over that alone.

Water John

Nick Bowles line is the most likely. Just shows how TM's Florence 3 red lines were a disaster, pandering to the ERG a non entity.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them.

People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What constitutes a serious party? They were in government from 2010-2015.

technically speaking the DUP could be in government.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that FPTP makes that all but impossible. All such a party would do now is split the anti-Tory vote and hand them more seats on a silver platter than they'd win otherwise.

In Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of West Wales you have concentrated support which wins seats for small parties.

There is no chance for a new or centrist party in England and most of Wales.

In 2015 UKIP , the Greens and the LibDems between them got 6,408,618 votes*, 24.1% of the total. The Tories got 36.8%.

But it translated into just 10 seats out of 650.

Single seat FPTP means there is no third choice unless there is large local support.




* In 2015 both the LibDems and DUP got 8 seats.
One party got 2,415,916 votes, the other 184,260

The Greens got 1seat from 1,111,603 votes
UKIP got 1 seat from 3,881,099 votes ( the SNP got 56 seats from less than half of that )

Thargor

listermint wrote: »

Lib Dems are not a serious party. Just drastically poor leadership.

There is an opening for a centrist party there. All you hear consistently from UK residents is that there is no party that represents them.

People may not like the sound of it but a Blair style party with a reasonably intelligent leader alla Sturgeon would do very well.

Ed Balls posts pictures of cakes he's baking and books he's reading on his Twitter these days and all the replies are just people begging him to come back or form a centrist party.

Cookie_Monster

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU, along with the leaders of multiple member states have said on numerous occasions that Brexit can be reversed. Brexit isn't good for anyone save for Putin and the moneymen behind Farage & co. I believe that member states would only be too happy for this fell project to be binned for good. It's bad for Europeans, bad for the British and bad for EU members though the UK most of all and Ireland second.

Lord Kerr, the British architect of Article 50 thinks that not only can its triggering be withdrawn but that it can be done so unilaterally. A European Court will be deciding this on the 27th November.

I would imagine though the like of Farage would challenge the legality of either the referendum or the interpretation of Art50 in order to try and continue with Brexit for his and his pals own gain?
I really don't see it as simply cancelling Brexit and everything goes on as was if a referendum passes.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1065369738853916672



These TDs voted against Ireland's national interest tonight.

briany

serfboard wrote: »

Justine Greening was on Channel 4 News last night and said that, as regards Parliament:

- There is no majority for the Deal
- There is no majority for No Deal, and
- There is no majority for Remain.

So Parliament is stuck.

Her solution? A second referendum/People's Vote.

In a way the public has to bail out the politicians who are afraid to move one way or the other.

There may not be a majority in favour of a no deal, but all Brexiteers have to do, if they're no deal inclined, is let the deadlock remain while the country goes off the cliff.

Frank Bullitt

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1065369738853916672



These TDs voted against Ireland's national interest tonight.

Those names pop up on pretty much any common sense issue in the Dail, and are always against it.

Water John

It's strange how there seems to be no objection to the Deal being put to the HoC twice, knowing it will lose the first time and great objection and how it undermines democracy to have a 2nd Referendum.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1065369738853916672



These TDs voted against Ireland's national interest tonight.

Did they have any rationale for doing this? Or was it just so they could be contrarian.