Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

I'm not sure how this would be a "compromise". Ireland rejoining the UK involves Ireland leaving the EU (unless this is part of a larger deal in which the UK abandons Brexit).

Akrasia

cml387 wrote: »

Is it possible that there will be no vote next Tuesday?
If the whips feel it's a hopeless task, would it be better to give up.
May can go back to Brussels saying I can't do this, you'll have to come up with a better deal.

if she goes back to Brussels with no ideas and no domestic support she'll be sent packing in no uncertain terms.

The EU will agree to an extension for a 2nd referendum. Or possibly an extension for new terms that are in effect a softer brexit than the one May wants, but there is zero chance that they'll re-negotiate with May based on her inability to get this deal through her own parliament.

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

Is it possible that there will be no vote next Tuesday?
If the whips feel it's a hopeless task, would it be better to give up.
May can go back to Brussels saying I can't do this, you'll have to come up with a better deal.

Why would Brussels do that? Their priorities, negotiating objectives, etc will nto have changed.

Cosmetic tweaks to the deal might be possible to help get it over the line, but any substantive change would have to be a change which makes it more attractive to the EU than it already is - so, a softer Brexit, not a harder one. And how is May going to get that through the Commons?

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

The UK does not do joint sovereignty. No one watching the current events should be naive enough to trust them until devolution for England happens and proportional representation is implemented. Also, Ireland is a republic. I do not want a monarch as head of state.

Not a good idea.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

Over 80% of us would have to change our desire to be in the EU in order to go over what we think is a cliff with the UK? How do you propose making sense of that one?

cml387

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would Brussels do that? Their priorities, negotiating objectives, etc will nto have changed.

Cosmetic tweaks to the deal might be possible to help get it over the line, but any substantive change would have to be a change which makes it more attractive to the EU than it already is - so, a softer Brexit, not a harder one. And how is May going to get that through the Commons?

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

Sure, May might decide not to put the deal to a vote. But what will her next step be? Certainly not to go back to Brussels to ask them to give up something in the current deal; that would certainly lead to rejection and humiliation, and why would she think that would help her situation any?

So she's going to have to find a different next step. This might be:

(a) resign, since she clearly doesn't command the support of Parliament - the deal she negotiated on the UK's behalf is utterly unacceptable to them; or

(b) try to go over the heads of MPs by putting the deal to the people in a referendum. Problem here is that she needs Parliament to pass legislation to hold the referendum. Other problem is that she has very firmly ruled out another referendum, so she's be seen as weak, and having lost control; or

(c) commit to a no-deal crash-out Brexit. Again, she'd be seen as weak and not in control, and simply pretending that the only course open to her is one actually her preference. Plus, no-deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK, in every way; while there is currently no majority in the House of Commons for any particular form of Brexit, the form that enjoys least support, for good reason, is no-deal Brexit. Only lunatics advocate this sincerely.

If May concludes that the deal she negotiates is not only not going to get through the Commons, but in fact is so unpopular that she cannot even put it to the Commons because of the crushing majority by which it would be rejected, I honestly think she has to resign. I don't she how even May, whose superpower is clinging to office like a limpet, can carry on in that situation.

kuro68k

cml387 wrote: »

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

May has a nasty habit of somehow getting these things through. She will be hoping she can threaten her MPs with a general election and whip them into voting for her deal.

It's her last chance to secure a legacy that isn't utter failure, so she won't back down.

cml387

The Telegraph has leaked opinion of Ollie Robbins, that he thinks the deal is bad because of the backstop.

There is such a growing, visceral dislike of the Withdrawal agreement among MP's that it is a dead deal.

God knows what happens next.

Zubeneschamali

I think she will put it to a vote, lose, and cling on.


Several things could happen - as No Deal looms, the City could go into meltdown; this might encourage Remainers to back the deal instead of Chaos.


Or she might threaten a referendum with this deal or No brexit, and the Brexiteers might suddenly like this deal more.


Or she might threaten an election, and facing defeat the Tories might agree to pass the WA and fight about the Future Relationship later.



Or with no consensus in Parliament, she might beg the EU to extend A50 or withdraw it temporarily.



She might very well look weak doing these things, but she would be weak in #10 and no-one wants her job until this is settled one way or another, so I think she is safe for now.



She needs another 80 days in office to move up to #36, and 180 to catch Gordon Brown.

cml387

Maybe the referendum would be between this deal or no deal.

May could say, the will of the people is still being upheld in that the vote to leave the EU is being followed up, now it's just the terms to be decided.

Bigus

It might be May's clever plot to stay in the EU after all , we've been speculating here since article 50 was invoked what the hell was the logic , perhaps she knew what she was doing all along as a remainer. No deal , no Brexit , crashing out shoved off the table next week by consensus ?

prawnsambo

I still don't think another referendum is a good idea. There still isn't anything like an overwhleming majority in favour of remaining evident in opinion polls and that could easily mean another tight decision that I wouldn't be brave enough to call.

Revoke the Article 50 notice and take the medicine. It's coming anyway, so may as well head it off at the pass. Or alternatively, jump off the cliff and show the people who would still prefer the long fall, that it's not the fall that hurts, but the sudden stop.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

I still don't think another referendum is a good idea. There still isn't anything like an overwhleming majority in favour of remaining evident in opinion polls and that could easily mean another tight decision that I wouldn't be brave enough to call.

Revoke the Article 50 notice and take the medicine. It's coming anyway, so may as well head it off at the pass. Or alternatively, jump off the cliff and show the people who would still prefer the long fall, that it's not the fall that hurts, but the sudden stop.

That would be fine except we'd be heading off the cliff too. Personally, I think a binary referendum would be won by Remain albeit not by a great margin. Similarly, a vote on three options would definitely see Remain win but probably not with a 50% majority.

Akrasia

cml387 wrote: »

Maybe the referendum would be between this deal or no deal.

May could say, the will of the people is still being upheld in that the vote to leave the EU is being followed up, now it's just the terms to be decided.

Having a 2nd referendum to decide between two options that each have less than 50% popular support would be an absolute kick in the teeth and a total affront to democracy especially when both options would guarantee that the UK would be worse off economically and diplomatically than the status quo (which like it or not, is to remain)

Econ__

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I find podcasts are a good way of educating myself on the subject.
I listen to more than this but these two are pretty good.

Tony Connellys Brexit Republic.

Fog in the Channel is also good from a French persons point of view.

Cakewatch - This is from the perspective of a couple of anti Brexit beaureaucrats. But they know their stuff as to how the EU works and they've worked in drafting agreements.

There's also "3 Blokes in a pub" on Youtube. They take a different topic each week and try to have an expert on the subject so they're not just waffling on about it.


I know the last two are anti Brexit. I tried listening to the pro Brexit side of the podcasts but they don't typically try to get any expert opinion. You'll have somebody from the Telegraph or a Brexiter telling you how it's all going to be a land of milk and honey or it's the EUs fault. If somebody has any suggestions of a pro Brexit podcast that tries to present the Brexit side with some evidence or facts I wouldn't mind listening to it.

BBC Brexitcast

FT Politics

Coffee House Shots


The above are all really good if you want to understand the domestic situation in Britain. The last two are not exclusively about Brexit but probably cover it 70-80% of the time.


If you want to learn about it from scratch, I'd recommend the BBC's 'Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed'

Akrasia

I like the Remaniacs podcast. It features Ian Dunt from politics.co.uk and he seems to know what he's talking about

Econ__

Akrasia wrote: »

I like the Remaniacs podcast. It features Ian Dunt from politics.co.uk and he seems to know what he's talking about

Yeah it’s good for a laugh. Ian Dunt is generally the only who delivers cutting edge analysis in it though, the rest are more interested in taking the piss out of all things Brexit.

demfad

Akrasia wrote: »

I like the Remaniacs podcast. It features Ian Dunt from politics.co.uk and he seems to know what he's talking about

He has been by far the best, most accurate, knowledgable all round commentator on the politics and economics around Brexit. He's funny too!

Leroy42

They can't cancel art 50 as this would effectively be going against the ref result.

People want to leave the EU. The problem, as I see it, is that HMG has never taken the decision to truthfully lay out the options that vote gave them and more importantly the costs or benefits associated with the different scenarios.

Even last week the government won't fully take ownership and back the reports from DOF and BoE. Is there any wonder why so many people still deem Brexit a good idea, as they haven't been shown that it isn't?

If TM wants to win the vote it is actually pretty easy. Simply lay out the real costs of no deal. The job losses, the fall in investment, Stu falling. Basically what the BoE said last week. Lay out the cost in terms of average per household and the impact of fall off in foreign nurses in the NHS.

So I have no time for all those you try to paint TM as somehow being a sane voice in the wilderness. This should be the easiest vote in the history of the Hoc not anything like it is being painted.

josip

Bigus wrote: »

It might be May's clever plot to stay in the EU after all , we've been speculating here since article 50 was invoked what the hell was the logic , perhaps she knew what she was doing all along as a remainer. No deal , no Brexit , crashing out shoved off the table next week by consensus ?

I've believed that for some time now, it would explain a lot.
But I get the feeling that most people think this idea belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

bamayang

Probably off topic, but could someone recommend a couple of good pro-brexiteers on Twitter to follow? Over time my following has fallen towards remain people and I often wonder am I in an echo chamber of 'lets laugh at those brexiteer ejits'.

Will try have a listen to the podcasts mentioned above, but if anyone could recommend a couple of good twitterers, I would appreciate it.

Sam Russell

josip wrote: »

Bigus wrote: »

It might be May's clever plot to stay in the EU after all , we've been speculating here since article 50 was invoked what the hell was the logic , perhaps she knew what she was doing all along as a remainer. No deal , no Brexit , crashing out shoved off the table next week by consensus ?

I've believed that for some time now, it would explain a lot.
But I get the feeling that most people think this idea belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

Why assign cunning motives and long term planning to a situation where a complete cockup and gross incompetence is a good enough explanation.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

They can't cancel art 50 as this would effectively be going against the ref result.

People want to leave the EU. The problem, as I see it, is that HMG has never taken the decision to truthfully lay out the options that vote gave them and more importantly the costs or benefits associated with the different scenarios.

Even last week the government won't fully take ownership and back the reports from DOF and BoE. Is there any wonder why so many people still deem Brexit a good idea, as they haven't been shown that it isn't?

If TM wants to win the vote it is actually pretty easy. Simply lay out the real costs of no deal. The job losses, the fall in investment, Stu falling. Basically what the BoE said last week. Lay out the cost in terms of average per household and the impact of fall off in foreign nurses in the NHS.

So I have no time for all those you try to paint TM as somehow being a sane voice in the wilderness. This should be the easiest vote in the history of the Hoc not anything like it is being painted.

They can certainly do it on the basis that the only options available are either hugely damaging to the economy or merely badly damaging to the economy. This is a government decision. Are they so far down the rabbit hole that they can't actually take a decision that prevents serious economic harm to the country?


That's a rhetorical question btw. Of course I wouldn't put it past this government to willingly pull the trigger on a mass economic suicide. But it's their mess, their decision and of course the referndum was advisory and not binding as we were told right from the start. They'll probably have to do it without Theresa May, but as has been stated time and again on this thread, parliament can't bind itself.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They can't cancel art 50 as this would effectively be going against the ref result.

The referendum is neither here nor there, it was not binding, just advisory. Parliament can ignore it if they decide to.

A question does arise if the UK want to withdraw A50 - can they do it alone, do they need unanimous support to withdraw it from the other 27?

kowtow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The referendum is neither here nor there, it was not binding, just advisory. Parliament can ignore it if they decide to.

A question does arise if the UK want to withdraw A50 - can they do it alone, do they need unanimous support to withdraw it from the other 27?

I think that question is to be answered by the ECJ this week?

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

Why assign cunning motives and long term planning to a situation where a complete cockup and gross incompetence is a good enough explanation.

That's Hanlon's Razor, actually: never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

FreudianSlippers

kowtow wrote: »

I think that question is to be answered by the ECJ this week?

Tomorrow - I have heard that it's likely that the ruling will be that they can unilaterally withdraw Art. 50 notification.

Econ__

josip wrote: »

I've believed that for some time now, it would explain a lot.
But I get the feeling that most people think this idea belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

I personally don't buy it but you will enjoy this thread - https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1039194312221896704

briany

What are the chances of organised and persistent political violence on UK streets if no Brexit is to be had?

You must figure that No Brexit is the outcome Nigel Farage secretly wants because it would enable his party to take so much of the Brexit vote that he could find his party doing an electoral performance similar to the Lib Dems in 2010, and going into coalition government.