Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

briany

bilston wrote: »

First try and get a Parliament in place whereby a majority for one outcome or the other exists. To do that you need a General Election. If that doesn't work then go back to the people.

If the people of the UK cannot broadly agree on whether the UK should leave the EU or not, and they're supposed to elect MPs who represent their views, then how can the UK have a parliament who finds itself in broad agreement? And so long as both main parties are compromised by the Brexit division, they see that weakness as a chance to wrest power from the other, lessening still the ability of the UK parliament to find broad agreement.

I think the only thing that their parliament could broadly agree on (ERG contingent aside) is that they don't want to be held accountable for a no deal. Therefore, if May does hold a vote on her deal and it fails, the only real option left seems to be to put a Remain/No Deal vote back to the people. At least that way, the fallout can sit somewhat more on the public than its politicians.

McGiver

Corbyn as deluded as the Tories.

The government has decided Theresa May’s Brexit deal is so disastrous that it has taken the desperate step of delaying its own vote at the eleventh hour.

We have known for at least two weeks that Theresa May’s worst of all worlds deal was going to be rejected by parliament because it is damaging for Britain. Instead, she ploughed ahead when she should have gone back to Brussels to renegotiate or called an election so the public could elect a new government that could do so.

We don’t have a functioning government. While Theresa May continues to botch Brexit, our public services are at breaking point and our communities suffer from dire under-investment. What renegotiation is he talking about? The time is up. Game over.

Labour’s alternative plan for a jobs first deal must take centre stage in any future talks with Brussels.

I concur with his take on public services etc. but he is either totally deluded or crooked if he thinks renegotiation is possible at this stage. What renegotiation? Game over, time is up.

Rjd2

briany wrote: »

If the people of the UK cannot broadly agree on whether the UK should leave the EU or not, and they're supposed to elect MPs who represent their views, then how can the UK have a parliament who finds itself in broad agreement? And so long as both main parties are compromised by the Brexit division, they see that weakness as a chance to wrest power from the other, lessening still the ability of the UK parliament to find broad agreement.

I think the only thing that their parliament could broadly agree on (ERG contingent aside) is that they don't want to be held accountable for a no deal. Therefore, if May does hold a vote on her deal and it fails, the only real option left seems to be to put a Remain/No Deal vote back to the people. At least that way, the fallout can sit somewhat more on the public than its politicians.

I think a second vote makes more sense than a general election. Its likely that many MPS will be returned and their stance will be the exact same as it was in 2017. You will still have the same divisions in both parties regarding MPS and voters.

A second vote which is something that I loathed initially but might be the least damaging idea. The ERG mob may oppose it, but they have shown no signs of compromise regarding the initial result which was close which is a key reason why its deadlock at the moment.

Akrasia

McGiver wrote: »

Not unless it's decided by a referendum. But I agree regardless of the outcome, the country remains divided and politically broken. And the Brexiteers won't go away ever, they'll keep poisoning the British politics. While important issues are not addressed (NHS, austeriry, stagnating wages, immigration reform, poverty, inequality, backward regions, constitutional arrangement etc.).

The brexiteers won't go away even if they end up leaving.

If they accept May's deal, the brexiteers will continue banging on about being a 'vassal state'. If they crash out with no deal, they'll blame the EU for all the sh1t that would inevitably come their way as the economy grinds to a halt and there are food shortages etc

The UK should do what's best for the UK without trying to appease these brextremists. If they decide to stay, it should be based on the benefits of EU membership not the costs of a bad brexit.

Akrasia

seamus wrote: »

It's not been that private at all tbh. Coveney and Varadkar have been talking for months about working towards a good while also preparing for Brexit. I expect plenty of the finer details have been kept low-key, especially anything being put in place along the border regions.

Over the weekend I was speaking to two Irish fund-type people who work in London, who've said that they've been out the door busy with companies shoring up their financial situation; renewing financing deals, transferring assets etc now. Nobody wants to be caught short in March, they're placing their bets now and just seeing what happens.
Apparently Jan-March is usually their busy time (before the UK year end I suppose), but they have comparatively very little work lined up for the new year 2019.

This is all the stuff happening in the background that the media isn't really talking about.

Seems like the most likely outcome tbh. A referendum has too much room for conflict. One way or another, one "side" gets what they want, the other gets ignored.
A general election, while it would by default be a new Brexit referendum, at least nobody on either side would feel "unrepresented" by the outcome.

A new election won't resolve anything if the Tories campaign on a platform of pursuing brexit and labour campaign on a platform of still pursuing brexit but in a form that Corbyn thinks he can negotiate (despite anynot providing evidence that he could deliver it)

The remain side, about 50% of the british public, would be totally sidelined and while the parties pushing for remain would probably pick up votes, the FPTP system means that either of the Tories or Labour will be the majority after the election.

Rjd2

Jobs first Brexit from Labour has the potential to annoy even more than "the will of the people" from Mogg etc the more I hear it. Utter bollocks.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1072121925227438080

Not even sure she can postpone it, maybe she can but why she left it so late when the result was obvious for weeks is very poor planning indeed.

Water John

Hard core Brexiteers have less than 10% of MPs. They should, like all hard right parties in Europe, not left near the levers of power.

serfboard

briany wrote: »

If the people of the UK cannot broadly agree on whether the UK should leave the EU or not, and they're supposed to elect MPs who represent their views, then how can the UK have a parliament who finds itself in broad agreement? And so long as both main parties are compromised by the Brexit division, they see that weakness as a chance to wrest power from the other, lessening still the ability of the UK parliament to find broad agreement.

McGiver wrote: »

Corbyn as deluded as the Tories.

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think a second vote makes more sense than a general election. Its likely that many MPS will be returned and their stance will be the exact same as it was in 2017. You will still have the same divisions in both parties regarding MPS and voters.

Sorry folks, for those who think a GE more likely than Ref2, the reasons above are why I think it won't work.

The election would be all about Brexit. In that case, what platforms will the parties run on? The "better deal" platform? Nonsense.

It's Ref2 with three options (pick one) for me: Deal, No Deal, Remain.

Yes, people will be disaffected. But Ref1 only passed because of obscenely unchallenged lies, promises of (NHS) jam tomorrow, less foreign-types about the place etc. etc.

Now that the public can actually see what's involved, they can properly decide.

Leavers promised you a brand new Ferrari Testarossa - instead they're now offering you either a sh1tty Mark 1 Ford Escort, or a Lada with no engine, and telling you to take your pick.

briany

Water John wrote: »

Hard core Brexiteers have less than 10% of MPs.

And yet Theresa May had been letting them hold huge sway over the course of Brexit.

ancapailldorcha

The calls for an election from Labour are simply a ploy to get into power. That's it.

The better Brexit rhetoric is simply nonsense. We know the outcomes now. Gardiner's prattling last night on Channel 4 just shows how desperate Labour is to have its cake and eat it.

McGiver

Water John wrote: »

Hard core Brexiteers have less than 10% of MPs. They should, like all hard right parties in Europe, not left near the levers of power.

Exactly, and that's kind of a normal state, about 10%. They need to be isolated, exposed and driven out by systematic challenge and opposition. BBC is highly complicit in not doing this at all, all their lies are left unchallenged in the sake of "balance".
Lies and fantasies unsupported by facts (or many times supported by lies) are still lies and cannot ever balance the truth. This is not difference of opinions based on facts, this is lies vs facts.

LeinsterDub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The calls for an election from Labour are simply a ploy to get into power. That's it.

The better Brexit rhetoric is simply nonsense. We know the outcomes now. Gardiner's prattling last night on Channel 4 just shows how desperate Labour is to have its cake and eat it.

Sturgeon seems keen to call their bluff.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1072119477758758917

Professor Moriarty

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly, and that's kind of a normal state, about 10%. They need to be isolated, exposed and driven out by systematic challenge and opposition. BBC is highly complicit in not doing this at all, all their lies are left unchallenged in the sake of "balance".
Lies and fantasies unsupported by facts (or many times supported by lies) are still lies and cannot ever balance the truth. This is not difference of opinions based on facts, this is lies vs facts.

I dunno. Boris got a torrid time from Marr on Sunday. In particular, he got him to accept full responsibility for consequences of Brexit.

McGiver

serfboard wrote: »

But Ref1 only passed because of obscenely unchallenged lies, promises of (NHS) jam tomorrow, less foreign-types about the place etc. etc.

Don't forget illegal money and foreign hostile power collusion (Russia) - Russian bots and social media disinformation campaign done by Kremlin. This was a big factor imho. The driving factor that could swing the few % to the leave side.

Water John

Look likes some Tories will not vote for the change of business in the HoC, forcing the Brexit vote to be held.
That is what should happen. Seems they have come up with a mechanism to avoid that vote too, cowards.

briany

serfboard wrote: »

It's Ref2 with three options (pick one) for me: Deal, No Deal, Remain.

Yes, people will be disaffected. But Ref1 only passed because of obscenely unchallenged lies, promises of (NHS) jam tomorrow, less foreign-types about the place etc. etc.

Now that the public can actually see what's involved, they can properly decide.

Leavers promised you a brand new Ferrari Testarossa - instead they're now offering you either a sh1tty Mark 1 Ford Escort, or a Lada with no engine, and telling you to take your pick.

You can't have a referendum with 3 options because you invite the potential scenario where Remain wins but only has an explicit mandate from, say, 40 percent of the electorate. You better believe that every single Brexiteer of influence would have a year of field days with that. And Remainers would make a similar political noise if Leave won with 40 percent. Disaffected wouldn't be a strong enough adjective for the level of anger when a clear minority gets to decide the course of the UK, possibly for the foreseeable future.

Maybe in a less-charged issue you could have 3 choices, but not this one.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

You can't have a referendum with 3 options because you invite the potential scenario where Remain wins but only has an explicit mandate from, say, 40 percent of the electorate. You better believe that every single Brexiteer of influence would have a year of field days with that. And Remainers would make a similar political noise if Leave won with 40 percent.

Maybe in a less-charged issue you could have 3 choices, but not this one.

They should have had three choices in the first place.

VinLieger

briany wrote: »

You can't have a referendum with 3 options because you invite the potential scenario where Remain wins but only has an explicit mandate from, say, 40 percent of the electorate. You better believe that every single Brexiteer of influence would have a year of field days with that. And Remainers would make a similar political noise if Leave won with 40 percent. Disaffected wouldn't be a strong enough adjective for the level of anger when a clear minority gets to decide the course of the UK, possibly for the foreseeable future.

Maybe in a less-charged issue you could have 3 choices, but not this one.

Indeed, it has to be remain or leave(with current deal)

Russman

serfboard wrote: »

It's Ref2 with three options (pick one) for me: Deal, No Deal, Remain.

If they were to do that, would one of the options need to command 50% + 1, or would it be like their general elections with first past post ? I can't see something that only got, say, 40% commanding much authority when the other options would have 60% between them.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They should have had three choices in the first place.

Considering that everyone who voted to leave voted for something slightly different, they should have had more like 21 choices, remain and the 20 or so different brexit options

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Considering that everyone who voted to leave voted for something slightly different, they should have had more like 21 choices, remain and the 20 or so different brexit options

True! The 2016 referendum would have far more validity if a negotiated deal had also been included. But that horse has bolted.

briany

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed, it has to be remain or leave(with current deal)

That depends on whether UK parliament gets around to voting on May's deal themselves. If they shoot it down, then the choice should be a straight one between No Deal or Remain, IMO.

Rjd2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The calls for an election from Labour are simply a ploy to get into power. That's it.

The better Brexit rhetoric is simply nonsense. We know the outcomes now. Gardiner's prattling last night on Channel 4 just shows how desperate Labour is to have its cake and eat it.

I actually think Labour pleading for a general election here is doing them no favors, its looks as self-serving and cynical as what Johnson has been doing over the last few years. The vast majority of Tories want Brexit in one shape or other so May and any other leader has to commit to that, but that's not the case for Labour, their is no political hay to be made with their current stance.

Its all very odd to watch indeed.

J Mysterio

This is chaos. The 3:30pm statement is May's final throw of the dice.

I think she will call a second referendum - her deal or no Brexit - but who knows?

Rjd2

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is chaos. The 3:30pm statement is May's final throw of the dice.

I think she will call a second referendum - her deal or no Brexit - but who knows?

She won't call a second referendum yet, heck any Tory leader who would do such a thing would be lynched. Its not implausible that given how chaotic things are the vote might even have to go ahead.

briany

VinLieger wrote: »

Considering that everyone who voted to leave voted for something slightly different, they should have had more like 21 choices, remain and the 20 or so different brexit options

If there'd been an order of preference and a transferable vote, then *maybe* that could have worked, but UK voters on average wouldn't have the patience or political education to research all the choices on offer.

ECO_Mental

Just reading an article on the BBC and came across this quote from an anonymous source within the Democratic Unionist Party, in Northern Ireland about this whole Brexit and sums it up all very nicely the DUP

"This is a battle of who blinks first - and we've cut off our eyelids." :D that would be hilarious only for this being so serious

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46488619

You cant win with these DUP guys with attitudes like this.

listermint

bilston wrote: »

A second referendum could be very dangerous. While it may become the only option, I think other alternatives need to be looked at first...and I say that as a Remainer. A narrow Remain victory could leave some very angry people out there who might mobilise behind the likes of Yaxley Lennon.

First try and get a Parliament in place whereby a majority for one outcome or the other exists. To do that you need a General Election. If that doesn't work then go back to the people.

There is no evidence of wide spread or even some spread of support for UKIP or that little ignorant half Irish man whos name i shalt not repeat. Despite numerous attempts at organising demonstrations or rallies over the last year they simply cannot get the numbers at all .

Anyone claiming that UK IP will suddenly get widespread backing doesn't have a clue about the reality of it.

devnull

May is going to demand removal of the backstop according to reports or say there will be no deal.

Some Tory MPs are going to try and stop her calling off the vote.

Meanwhile, Labour are still living in fantasy land and talking about being in government on Wednesday.

Honestly, at this stage it's laughable.