Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

I'm selectively quoting you here as I agree with the rest.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, you don't have to listen to them but they shouldn't be silenced. How do you know what they are going to say if you don't first listen to them.

Because these people are vetted before they come on. They are specifically chosen to come on shows to provide "balance" but sometimes there is no balance - particularly when it's facts vs opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but the EU have been doing everything they can for 2 years to avoid a No Deal. They have given plenty in the negotiations. What will an extension achieve?

The last two years have shown, and it is TM strategy, that the only time anything happen is when a deadline approaches. Even the UK leading Brexiteers rely on the idea that the EU will cave on 29th. So any extension will simply see TM kick the can down the road a few more weeks and nothing will actually change.

There is a deal on the table. A deal agreed by both sides in the negotiations. TM can either get the deal through or she can't. IF she can't now, then what will change in an extension? The only thing that could change is the EU position, so why would the EU agree to that?

+1


The only thing achieved by a GE is (presumably but certainly not a certainty) a new Government with a perceived new mandate to re-negotiate with the EU. We've been through this already - will they want another 2 years to hash out what has already been confined to the dustbin?!

hill16bhoy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, you don't have to listen to them but they shouldn't be silenced. How do you know what they are going to say if you don't first listen to them.

I agree that before, for example, a flat earther, is allowed on they should be asked what new information they have, where they sourced it from and how has it been verified. They shouldn't simply be allowed to drag up the old, already refuted, talking points.

For example with regards to the interview this morning, Coleman should have pointed out that the UK being bullied by the EU was simply his (Brendans) opinion. It is not a fact, it hasn't been stated by anybody involved in the negotiations. But Brendan, Johnson, JRM etc are allowed too often to simply state opinions as facts. IDS continuously says that their is nothing to fear from a No Deal...and the interveiwer should clarify that that is his opinion. He cannot possibly guarantee that. And they should ask him what he would do if the problems do happen, would he vote to rejoin?

Allowing the likes of O'Neill a platform is a dreadful idea.

Interviewers on morning news programmes etc. have to cover a large amount of topics, and the reality is that unless they are exceptionally well briefed and versed on the topic at hand, they will not be not armed with facts to fire back immediately at somebody who is not debating in good faith and is merely there to fire out lie after lie after lie.

The best case scenario for an interviewer in this situation is that it becomes a game of whack a mole.

O'Neill and others specifically prepare for these sorts of interviews by coming up with a list of new bogus "talking points" and lies, and they ruthlessly overpower their interviewer by firing them out, one by one.

It's the media equivalent of a six on one mismatch in rugby.

People like O'Neill who have a proven record of bad faith "debating", firing out alt-right (far right) cliches and lying, should not be given a platform.

They will always "win" any encounter, because they are trolling.

intellectual dosser

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but the EU have been doing everything they can for 2 years to avoid a No Deal. They have given plenty in the negotiations. What will an extension achieve?

The last two years have shown, and it is TM strategy, that the only time anything happen is when a deadline approaches. Even the UK leading Brexiteers rely on the idea that the EU will cave on 29th. So any extension will simply see TM kick the can down the road a few more weeks and nothing will actually change.

There is a deal on the table. A deal agreed by both sides in the negotiations. TM can either get the deal through or she can't. IF she can't now, then what will change in an extension? The only thing that could change is the EU position, so why would the EU agree to that?

I'd certainly agree that an extension of A50 would require a good reason, such as a GE or a second referendum, and that the EU's interest would be that it would serve is to find a mandate for the UK accept the EU deal.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The EU has no clue what the UK are asking for and I don't see any reason why the Commission would agree to extend Article 50 (presumably indefinitely) to wait for a new government to form to discuss again the same proposals which were rejected by the EU and end up in the same place.

There is no point to an extension of Article 50, as we will always end up in the same place. The deal is the deal.

Yes, no deal would have negative impacts - mainly on Ireland - but an indefinite extension to Art 50 would have significant implications on the fundamental nature of the 2-year period for Art 50. It would allow all Member States to threaten to leave and work out new independent deals with the EU and keep kicking the can down the road. The EC will be well aware of this and unless there is going to be a real prospect of a deal / no brexit scenario, I don't see the 27 Commission members voting unanimously to extend Art 50 for a GE (all moot since UK hasn't even asked for an extension yet).

I'm certainly not advocating an indefinite extension, I dont think anyone is, three months is what seems to be getting tossed around.

The EU needs to be careful that if we're going down a No Deal scenario that its giving the UK enough rope to hang itself, and not being labelled as part of the problem by denying a brief extension to A50 to allow for further democratic exerxises like a referendum or a GE. It would have repercussions in future trade negotiations as well as creating a miserable atmosphere with our closest neighbour.

FreudianSlippers

I think this is probably getting off-topic, but the shift of the news from being about providing factual information to people to being about opening up "the debate" to people has been one of the most significant negative shifts in public discourse and has direct links to the rise of Trump and Brexit.

I don't see why the news or quasi-news programmes should be allowing facts to be debated as if they were opinion?

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There will be around 70 days once the deal is struck down and the 3-day period elapses. That's plenty of time to hold another referendum, although probably not enough for GE.

but as Seamus mentioned earlier, how long will it take them to agree on what the referendum should be about and then to canvas for it?

Leroy42

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Allowing the likes of O'Neill a platform is a dreadful idea.

Interviewers on morning news programmes etc. have to cover a large amount of topics, and the reality is that unless they are exceptionally well briefed and versed on the topic at hand, they will not be not armed with facts to fire back immediately at somebody who is not debating in good faith and is merely there to fire out lie after lie after lie.

The best case scenario for an interviewer in this situation is that it becomes a game of whack a mole.

O'Neill and others specifically prepare for these sorts of interviews by coming up with a list of new bogus "talking points" and lies, and they ruthlessly overpower their interviewer by firing them out, one by one.

It's the media equivalent of a six on one mismatch in rugby.

People like O'Neill who have a proven record of bad faith "debating", firing out alt-right (far right) cliches and lying, should not be given a platform.

They will always "win" any encounter, because they are trolling.

But I am specifically saying that people like O'Neill should not be given the access. Not because of their views as such, but because their views have already been discredited. O'Neill has zero credibility, zero objectivity and has shown before that he is not on to debate the facts but rather to push his side of the position.

FreudianSlippers

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I'd certainly agree that an extension of A50 would require a good reason, such as a GE or a second referendum, and that the EU's interest would be that it would serve is to find a mandate for the UK accept the EU deal.

Look, I'll be blunt here as you seem to be avoiding the point: What is the point of allowing time for a GE? What possible outcome might arise that is different than what we have now?

I'm certainly not advocating an indefinite extension, I dont think anyone is, three months is what seems to be getting tossed around.

Three months for what though? Potentially a new government but not guaranteed - what's going to change with that new government? Some magic new negotiator in the UK that will negotiate a new deal?

The EU needs to be careful that if we're going down a No Deal scenario that its giving the UK enough rope to hang itself,

Two years hasn't been sufficient?

and not being labelled as part of the problem by denying a brief extension to A50 to allow for further democratic exerxises like a referendum or a GE. It would have repercussions in future trade negotiations as well as creating a miserable atmosphere with our closest neighbour.

They have had 2 years and a GE within that time period - the UK is still clueless as to what they want internally. The deal is agreed - the EU might be labelled as anything that the UK wants, but that doesn't make it accurate or true. I don't see how this could in any way impact future trade negotiations.

FreudianSlippers

Seth Brundle wrote: »

but as Seamus mentioned earlier, how long will it take them to agree on what the referendum should be about and then to canvas for it?

It should be achievable within 70 days to be honest. If, within that 70 days, they UK government can decide what the referendum would be (etc.) then I would agree to an Art 50 extension to allow for the referendum to occur on the basis that the results are implemented promptly.

The referendum should be as I outlined an MP said earlier:
1) Take the deal;
2) No deal;
3) Stay in the EU

70 days is plenty of time to get this in place and done though - 2 weeks canvassing is more than enough.

josip

70 days would be enough, were everyone in the UK pulling together.
However, as we have seen, Labour, Brexiters and Teresa May all want to procrastinate and drag things out to further their own agendas.
As things currently stand, a 70 day turn around for a 2nd referendum is impossible.

intellectual dosser

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Look, I'll be blunt here as you seem to be avoiding the point: What is the point of allowing time for a GE? What possible outcome might arise that is different than what we have now?

The referendum happened 2.5 years ago. Since then the reality of what Brexit means has become apparent to those who didnt know what they were voting for. This has lead to the complete impotence of those in UK government who can't seem to bring themselves to chop their nations head off. A government lead by a remainer, an opposition lead by a remainer. Should we be surprised its gotten as bad as it is?

Will a GE solve the problem? Maybe and maybe not. The EU have made it clear the deal is closed to negotation, so a GE would be fought on three options; deal, no deal or 2nd referendum. Maybe one party will get enough seats to form a government and implement their manifesto, and then for better or worse we would have our path forward. Or maybe we'd be left with a hung parliament, but would that be any worse than what we have today?

So, from an EU perspective - if it gets to a stage where its a no deal Brexit or a three month extension of A50 for a GE - why not go with the extension, what have we got to lose?

Calina

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The referendum happened 2.5 years ago. Since then the reality of what Brexit means has become apparent to those who didnt know what they were voting for.

Really, it hasn't.

josip

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The referendum happened 2.5 years ago. Since then the reality of what Brexit means has become apparent to those who didnt know what they were voting for. This has lead to the complete impotence of those in UK government who can't seem to bring themselves to chop their nations head off. A government lead by a remainer, an opposition lead by a remainer. Should we be surprised its gotten as bad as it is?

Will a GE solve the problem? Maybe and maybe not. The EU have made it clear the deal is closed to negotation, so a GE would be fought on three options; deal, no deal or 2nd referendum. Maybe one party will get enough seats to form a government and implement their manifesto, and then for better or worse we would have our path forward. Or maybe we'd be left with a hung parliament, but would that be any worse than what we have today?

So, from an EU perspective - if it gets to a stage where its a no deal Brexit or a three month extension of A50 for a GE - why not go with the extension, what have we got to lose?

Because nothing would change.
Jeremy Corbyn wants out of the EU as much as the Brexiters, so unless there's a change of Labour leadership going into the election a GE won't change anything.
Would a new referendum even change anything?
I constantly hear how it's 2 years and people now realise this isn't what they voted for.
But where have been the mass Remain protests?
The French seem to care more about a few cent on the price of diesel than the purported 50%+ of the UK who don't want to crash out of the EU.
Silence of the Lambs.

Bit cynical

josip wrote: »

70 days would be enough, were everyone in the UK pulling together.
However, as we have seen, Labour, Brexiters and Teresa May all want to procrastinate and drag things out to further their own agendas.
As things currently stand, a 70 day turn around for a 2nd referendum is impossible.

I don't think May should be included in that list. She would like to have the deal she made with the EU passed as soon as possible. She only delayed it until now because a Commons majority was unlikely last December.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The referendum should be as I outlined an MP said earlier:
1) Take the deal;
2) No deal;
3) Stay in the EU

70 days is plenty of time to get this in place and done though - 2 weeks canvassing is more than enough.

I don't think those options would be feasible since they split the vote of those who voted Leave in the last referendum. Even if there were still a majority wishing to leave the EU by whatever means, option 3 would win.


Great for us here in Ireland who want the EU to stay but, of course, that is not the issue.

josip

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think those options would be feasible since they split the vote of those who voted Leave in the last referendum. Even if there were still a majority wishing to leave the EU by whatever means, option 3 would win.


Great for us here in Ireland who want the EU to stay but, of course, that is not the issue.

Yes, the EU are in dangerous position if they agree an extension to A50 subject to a 2nd referendum and subject to options they approve of.
They would be seen to be interfering in domestic politics.
At this stage considering all the EU members, not just Ireland, over the medium to long term it would be preferable for the UK to leave in any way, than to remain in the EU as an obstructionist, belligerent member.

FreudianSlippers

josip wrote: »

Yes, the EU are in dangerous position if they agree an extension to A50 subject to a 2nd referendum and subject to options they approve of.
They would be seen to be interfering in domestic politics.
At this stage considering all the EU members, not just Ireland, over the medium to long term it would be preferable for the UK to leave in any way, than to remain in the EU as an obstructionist, belligerent member.

I don't think the EU would need to approve of the options, merely that the Commission are sufficiently convinced that there mere act of a second referendum / people's vote is a good reason to allow for an extension (if sought but the UK).

I believe it is likely that the 27 Commissioners would agree to extension for referendum but not for a GE.

Bit cynical

josip wrote: »

Yes, the EU are in dangerous position if they agree an extension to A50 subject to a 2nd referendum and subject to options they approve of.
They would be seen to be interfering in domestic politics.
At this stage considering all the EU members, not just Ireland, over the medium to long term it would be preferable for the UK to leave in any way, than to remain in the EU as an obstructionist, belligerent member.

Not the position of Ireland though as far as I can make out from public pronouncements of Varadkar, Coveney etc. We would prefer if Brexit had never happened of course, but failing that, that the EU/May deal is accepted by the UK Parliament. That is why it has been said on a number of occasions, that Ireland would not object to an extension of A50.

seamus

josip wrote: »

70 days would be enough, were everyone in the UK pulling together.

This. I don't disagree that a 70-day turnaround is theoretically achievable.

But it would require that everyone in parliament (or at least a majority) agrees that this is an emergency, is the only issue of importance and focuses on that and that alone.

The EU could suggest that an A50 extension is on the table for a second referendum, but that's playing with fire IMO. The best interests of the EU right now are in just standing back and letting the UK burn, hoping for the deal to go through but preparing for none.

Anything else has the potential to be twisted into an "EU is the bad guy" narrative.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not the position of Ireland though as far as I can make out from public pronouncements of Varadkar, Coveney etc. We would prefer if Brexit had never happened of course, but failing that, that the EU/May deal is accepted by the UK Parliament. That is why it has been said on a number of occasions, that Ireland would not object to an extension of A50.

These statements by Coveney (not sure Varadkar has said it, but could be wrong) are extremely harmful in my opinion. Nobody else is mentioning extensions, let alone the UK.

It's also irrelevant - there are plenty of reasons for the other 26 Commission members to object to an extension which serves no purpose (i.e. a GE)

seamus wrote: »

This. I don't disagree that a 70-day turnaround is theoretically achievable.

But it would require that everyone in parliament (or at least a majority) agrees that this is an emergency, is the only issue of importance and focuses on that and that alone.

The EU could suggest that an A50 extension is on the table for a second referendum, but that's playing with fire IMO. The best interests of the EU right now are in just standing back and letting the UK burn, hoping for the deal to go through but preparing for none.

Anything else has the potential to be twisted into an "EU is the bad guy" narrative.

Absolutely correct, talks about extension are premature until the UK formally asks for one or it becomes apparent by their actions that they will need to request one (i.e. a referendum or GE; the former of which I believe we should agree to and the latter not so much).

Ireland and/or the EU pre-emptively talking about extensions will be seen (and will be correctly seen) as EU interference in UK national politics.

MrMusician18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It should be achievable within 70 days to be honest. If, within that 70 days, they UK government can decide what the referendum would be (etc.) then I would agree to an Art 50 extension to allow for the referendum to occur on the basis that the results are implemented promptly.

The referendum should be as I outlined an MP said earlier:
1) Take the deal;
2) No deal;
3) Stay in the EU

70 days is plenty of time to get this in place and done though - 2 weeks canvassing is more than enough.

I doubt they'll be stupid enough to put no deal on the ballot.

It will be Mays deal or remain.

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody else is mentioning extensions, let alone the UK.

The shadown Brexit secretary has said in parliament that it's inevitable.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I doubt they'll be stupid enough to put no deal on the ballot.

It will be Mays deal or remain.

I think that's probably correct, but it will take longer in that case to get through Parliament and agree to a referendum... meaning extension would be inevitable. I still don't believe there is a point in extension to facilitate a GE though.

FreudianSlippers

Hurrache wrote: »

The shadown Brexit secretary has said in parliament that it's inevitable.

I should have been clearer, nobody of any relevance! I agree with the shadow Brexit secretary, but it's not an official position by any stretch.

Calina

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think the EU would need to approve of the options, merely that the Commission are sufficiently convinced that there mere act of a second referendum / people's vote is a good reason to allow for an extension (if sought but the UK).

I believe it is likely that the 27 Commissioners would agree to extension for referendum but not for a GE.

Any extension has to be approved by the member states. Not the European Commissioners. It is the 27 governments who would have to be convinced.

demfad

Calina wrote: »

Any extension has to be approved by the member states. Not the European Commissioners. It is the 27 governments who would have to be convinced.

It would not even get to the 27 without a commitment to a referendum and possibly a commitment that the UK Gov will campaign to remain (or stay neutral at least).

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I doubt they'll be stupid enough to put no deal on the ballot.

It will be Mays deal or remain.

I wonder what the legality of asking the public to vote for No Deal would be, it would be a most peculiar thing to vote on (as it would represent a chaotic and poisonous falling out between the UK and EU).

20silkcut

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It should be achievable within 70 days to be honest. If, within that 70 days, they UK government can decide what the referendum would be (etc.) then I would agree to an Art 50 extension to allow for the referendum to occur on the basis that the results are implemented promptly.

The referendum should be as I outlined an MP said earlier:
1) Take the deal;
2) No deal;
3) Stay in the EU

70 days is plenty of time to get this in place and done though - 2 weeks canvassing is more than enough.

Your splitting the sane voters.
No deal loonies win. They are 40 per cent.

lawred2

20silkcut wrote: »

Your splitting the sane voters.
No deal loonies win. They are 40 per cent.

Three options would require two referendums

20silkcut

lawred2 wrote: »

Three options would require two referendums

Hard to see how any referendum is a good idea ever again.
If people can be targeted on social media what is the point?
Always found it deeply unsettling that the 2011 presidential election here was settled by a fake tweet.
If IT systems can basically decide who wins what is the point you’d wonder.
I’d rather see parliament just stop Brexit.