Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Silent Running

There's a lot of talk about a people's vote being one solution. But what if it isn't? What if the people get another vote and it's 50/50? That won't solve anything. Also, knowing the British attitude, it's quite possible that they would double down on the leave side. A second people's vote is still a risky move.

The only true solutions at this point are to cancel the whole thing, or hunker down for a no-deal exit.

J Mysterio

DOCARCH wrote: »

Certainly seems that way in the case of the DUP! No deal would suit their ideology nicely!

And hasten it's demise at the same time.

Nody

Silent Running wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about a people's vote being one solution. But what if it isn't? What if the people get another vote and it's 50/50? That won't solve anything. Also, knowing the British attitude, it's quite possible that they would double down on the leave side. A second people's vote is still a risky move.

The only true solutions at this point are to cancel the whole thing, or hunker down for a no-deal exit.

But neither of those options will resolve it either as it will piss off +/- 50% of the population by doing "the wrong thing". At least a people's vote has a chance to deliver direction as to what the UK population of today wants; it may still be a 50/50 split but at least the politicians have asked them compared to reading the tea leafs from the previous unclear choices.

Wheres Me Jumper?

murphaph wrote: »

I would like to imagine that even in the unlikely event that the Commission and Council pushed for a removal of the backstop, that the parliament would reject the deal without it.

I see nothing but overwhelming support for Ireland and the peace process by the EU. I think May (given her language yesterday) has already been told that the member states are not about to throw Ireland under the bus at the last minute.

This whistle stop tour of May's is pure theatre.

not quite sure what type of theatre you frequent, but it aint that.
i would put in the category of very piss-poor pantomine.
as a british person i would be so embarrassed to see my "leader" supplicate herself in this manner.:o

MrMusician18

Nody wrote: »

Well we got what May is supposedly asking for...

I mean why not tack on that EU will pay UK 350MM GBP a week to NHS while she's at it? It's as likely to go through so might as well go big after all.

I don't see where the strategy is in that. Unless they've found something in the EU to drive a wedge into, the EU is not going to essentially abandon the backstop.

Maybe it's to blame the EU for being intransigent (in their eyes) so as to avoid taking the blame for the fallout, but that still isn't a desirable outcome for the UK.

Or it could be all domestic, a ploy to run the clock down further and force the HoC to accept the deal. That though is the highest stakes strategy and risks the PM being out maneuvered by another actor or events. Literally any outcome is possible if that is the strategy.

robinph

If the EU were to give in on the backstop then the whole thing should just instantly disband. They cannot change position on it or one of the central points of the EU existing disappears. If the EU has a problem with the backstop then their only solution would be to kick Ireland out of the club, and that ain't happening just because the UK is trying to screw things up for itself.

The best that May will come back with from the EU is a slightly more flowery version of "We hope that the backstop doesn't have to be implemented, but it's still there if things don't work out".

robinph

Nody wrote: »

Well we got what May is supposedly asking for...

I mean why not tack on that EU will pay UK 350MM GBP a week to NHS while she's at it? It's as likely to go through so might as well go big after all.

They already have the power to implement the backstop or not. The options being find another solution, or the backstop kicks in.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Nody wrote: »

But neither of those options will resolve it either as it will piss off +/- 50% of the population by doing "the wrong thing". At least a people's vote has a chance to deliver direction as to what the UK population of today wants; it may still be a 50/50 split but at least the politicians have asked them compared to reading the tea leafs from the previous unclear choices.

the people's vote eh?

so the first/only vote was what? must have been aliens, spiritual entities, or holograms who voted in that one?
why not have the best of 3?
or maybe best of 5?

lawred2

monkeybutter wrote: »

Does it specifically say there can't be a border?

Realistically what does this border need to be in the first place. Just put some customs on the main entrances, if you then try to get into the UK or out without the right paperwork, well you don't get on the boat.

Same goes on the way out of Ireland.

It's all about trade. Who wants to illegally enter the North in the first place. You still need passports/visas etc to get on the boat or plane if you look half foreign

They haven't been shyytin on about leaving since before they joined, so let them off

it's not going to be the disaster predicted, Europe wants to sell to the UK and vice versa, they still will

once you have customs borders - security borders inevitably follow - in an area of extreme sensitivity - security forces on borders lead to inflamed tensions lead to targets for belligerents and hey presto we're back 50 years..

FreudianSlippers

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the people's vote eh?

so the first/only vote was what? must have been aliens, spiritual entities, or holograms who voted in that one?
why not have the best of 3?
or maybe best of 5?

It is clear that the public were uninformed at best (misled more likely) and therefore the democratic legitimacy of the first referendum is in question.

briany

"Ah, come on now, lads. It's just Ireland, like. We've thrown it under the bus loads of times. It's great. Give it a try." - T. May

lawred2

Nody wrote: »

Well we got what May is supposedly asking for...

I mean why not tack on that EU will pay UK 350MM GBP a week to NHS while she's at it? It's as likely to go through so might as well go big after all.

MPs can decide not to enact the backstop?

She must know what the answer to that is right?

briany

MPs can decide whether or not to enact the backstop by voting May's deal up or down.

FreudianSlippers

lawred2 wrote: »

MPs can decide not to enact the backstop?

She must know what the answer to that is right?

A non-backstop-backstop. This truly is the dumbest timeline.

Skelet0n

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the people's vote eh?

so the first/only vote was what? must have been aliens, spiritual entities, or holograms who voted in that one?
why not have the best of 3?
or maybe best of 5?

This is one of the more bizarre view points of brexit.
It's not voting on the same thing again, it'd be voting on the deal that is on the table not some abstract concept.

You can't have too much democracy, the real reason this line is being touted is because they're afraid that they'll lose the vote without the help of Putin and the biting reality of brexit being self-imposed economic sanctions.

Shelga

Silent Running wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about a people's vote being one solution. But what if it isn't? What if the people get another vote and it's 50/50? That won't solve anything. Also, knowing the British attitude, it's quite possible that they would double down on the leave side. A second people's vote is still a risky move.

The only true solutions at this point are to cancel the whole thing, or hunker down for a no-deal exit.

They have to do something. No Deal is utter madness. Only other option is a people’s vote.

J Mysterio

briany wrote: »

"Ah, come on now, lads. It's just Ireland, like. We've thrown it under the bus loads of times. It's great. Give it a try." - T. May

While I realise this is a joke, you should use apostrophe's rather than quotation marks.

Thia could be considered real by some given all the shıte that has been said.

Wheres Me Jumper?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It is clear that the public were uninformed at best (mislead more likely) and therefore the democratic legitimacy of the first referendum is in question.

you could say the same about 90% of these votes.
did you read the Nice Treaty cover to cover? if you did fair play to ya.

lawred2

briany wrote: »

"Ah, come on now, lads. It's just Ireland, like. We've thrown it under the bus loads of times. It's great. Give it a try." - T. May

this is the core of it... they can not adjust to a reality where Ireland can not be freely shafted.. The Paddies with diplomatic weight behind them.. Can't be having the potato munchers getting above themselves...

they still believe that all it takes is a chat behind closed doors with the right type of "big boys" and all will be good.. Paddy will be in his place

J Mysterio

lawred2 wrote: »

this is the core of it... they can not adjust to a reality where Ireland can not be freely shafted.. The Paddies with diplomatic weight behind them.. Can't be having the potato munchers getting above themselves...

they still believe that all it takes is a chat behind closed doors with the right type of "big boys" and all will be good.. Paddy will be in his place

Well, May did go to the trouble of ringing Varadkar and everything.

Akrasia

Silent Running wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about a people's vote being one solution. But what if it isn't? What if the people get another vote and it's 50/50? That won't solve anything. Also, knowing the British attitude, it's quite possible that they would double down on the leave side. A second people's vote is still a risky move.

The only true solutions at this point are to cancel the whole thing, or hunker down for a no-deal exit.

If they vote again to leave then so be it. But its definitely worthwhile asking them to confirm the deal now that they have more information about what they're voting for

FreudianSlippers

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

you could say the same about 90% of these votes.

Uninformed, perhaps; misled, no.

did you read the Nice Treaty cover to cover? if you did fair play to ya.

I did. I also discussed it on this website in this forum and explained the changes that were made between the first and second referenda.

Wheres Me Jumper?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Uninformed, perhaps; mislead, no.


I did. I also discussed it on this website in this forum and explained the changes that were made between the first and second referenda.

well as i said fair play to ya, but i didn't.
was i misinformed, misled, or uninformed, or lied to?

we could open up all those referendums again, and not just the EU ones? don't know about you, but i really feel lied to regarding that whole Gay marraige fiasco.

A Dub in Glasgo

Shelga wrote: »

Is she actually going to be allowed to delay and delay for another month?

That is her intention, to close off a GE or 2nd vote and put an ultimatum to Parliament - this deal or no deal

lawred2

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

well as i said fair play to ya, but i didn't.
was i misinformed, misled, or uninformed, or lied to?

we could open up all those referendums again, and not just the EU ones? don't know about you, but i really feel lied to regarding that whole Gay marraige fiasco.

wut?

dr.fuzzenstein

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the people's vote eh?

so the first/only vote was what? must have been aliens, spiritual entities, or holograms who voted in that one?
why not have the best of 3?
or maybe best of 5?

Imagine a train. Imagine that for some reason the line splits and a democratic vote is taken amongst the passengers which way to go and they voted for left.
After a short distance it turns out that going left leads to a straight 100 meter plunge off a cliff, but turning right takes them safely to their destination.
Is it unreasonable to hold a second vote which will yield a different outcome based on new information that wasn't available at the first vote?
I think not.
Of course there will always be the ones that will sit with crossed arms and mutter "still think we should have gone left" as the train pulls into the station, but there will always be crazies that would rather plunge 100 meters to their death rather than admit they got it wrong.
Humankind has survived because we don't rigidly stick to a course of action once it has been decided, even if it means our doom, but because we have this nifty ability to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.
At the very leats it was voted to go left instead of right and the train got bogged down on the way to the cliff.

Wheres Me Jumper?

lawred2 wrote: »

wut?

ya and what about the poor Scots?
they were misled and lied to also.

https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/issues/16-march-2017/dwp-admits-misleading-public-scottish-independence/

that whole project fear was a disgrace.

i think they deserve a "people's" vote, or is that only reserved for the english?

Wheres Me Jumper?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine a train. Imagine that for some reason the line splits and a democratic vote is taken amongst the passengers which way to go and they voted for left.
After a short distance it turns out that going left leads to a straight 100 meter plunge off a cliff, but turning right takes them safely to their destination.
Is it unreasonable to hold a second vote which will yield a different outcome based on new information that wasn't available at the first vote?
I think not.
Of course there will always be the ones that will sit with crossed arms and mutter "still think we should have gone right" as the train pulls into the station, but there will always be crazies that would rather plunge 100 meters to their death rather than admit they got it wrong.
Humankind has survived because we don't rigidly stick to a course of action once it has been decided, even if it means our doom, but because we have this nifty ability to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.
At the very leats it was voted to go left instead of right and the train got bogged down on the way to the cliff.

but Brexiters do not swallow your apocalyptic prediction?
as far as they are concerned this choo choo of yours heading to the promised land.

hill16bhoy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is her intention, to close off a GE or 2nd vote and put an ultimatum to Parliament - this deal or no deal

One other point of view I read last night was that May buying time could force Corbyn and Labour's hands one way or the other.

If Corbyn falls in with the majority view within Labour, which is for a People's Vote, May can then spin it that Labour have "betrayed" their Brexiteer voters and she (or whichever Tory eventuallly replaces her) can use this against them going forward.

If Corbyn continues to obfuscate, Labour could move against him, or at least continue with the shambles where the clear majority of the party are anti-Brexit yet the leadership is effectively pro-Brexit, and widespread disenchantment among the majority of Labour voters who are pro-Remain sets in.

Either way, May might be betting that it could basically drag Labour down with her.

I think this is only a by-product of what she's doing, though.

Zubeneschamali

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

we could open up all those referendums again, and not just the EU ones? don't know about you, but i really feel lied to regarding that whole Gay marraige fiasco.

Feel free to agitate for one - but we both know the reason there will not be a 2nd is because the result would be another crushing win for Yes, and it would be a waste of time.


The Brexiteers want to prevent a 2nd referendum because they would lose. They only fluked the 1st one because no-one thought they would win and it seemed a safe protest vote.