Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Hurrache

doc_17 wrote: »

I know Tories will vote for her tomorrow. But she’s finished. That madness can’t carry on.

With British politics the way it is, it can, and will.

The DUP and ERG publicly don't agree with May and openly criticise her, there's obviously a bunch of back benchers who feel the same.

But yet they're willing to put party before country in order to keep Labour out of government and have said they'll support her in a no confidence vote before the meaningful vote even happened What a sad bunch they are.

Penn

Christy42 wrote: »

Maybe an info session on what the EU is should have been done a few years ago for all MPs?

At this point I would not mind them passing a pie in the sky deal. They won't get it but it would at least show that there is something they could agree on.

Now it looks like they told May they hate everything she has done in this and will come in later today and tell her they still think she is the right person for the job. Madness!

Agreed. The 120-odd Tory MPs who voted against May in December and who would have also voted against her deal last night will no doubt vote to keep her in power today. Because they don't want to lose their power. It's not about what happens to the country, it's about what happens to them. If they're still in power, whether it's No Deal or the EU gives some concessions to get a new deal, so long as the Tories are still in government they'll be in the best position to profit off it and shape the post-Brexit Britain in their favour.

You cannot say Theresa May is unfit to lead the party and negotiate a deal, vote against May and what appears to be the best deal she could have negotiated, and then the very next day turn around and vote to keep her in power as the one who has to negotiate a deal. It's insane. It's party politics at its sh*ttiest.

Wanderer78

kuro68k wrote: »

I feel quite ashamed of my government.

i wouldnt overly worry about it, most governments are shameful at this stage

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

With British politics the way it is, it can, and will.

The DUP and ERG publicly don't agree with May and openly criticise her, there's obviously a bunch of back benchers who feel the same.

But yet they're willing to put party before country in order to keep Labour out of government and have said they'll support her in a no confidence vote before the meaningful vote even happened What a sad bunch they are.

A new PM won't really help anyone. It's added chaos for the possibility of much of the same from Corbyn.

Berserker

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I'd rather reckon with the UK not requesting an extension but just go full no-deal Brexit by 29th March 2019.

There is no point in requesting an extension. We are leaving with no-deal, so we might as well leave on March 29th on that basis and start to prepare for that. I'm happy to leave on those terms, cut ties with the EU as of now and start preparing in earnest.

Deleted User wrote: »

A new PM won't really help anyone. It's added chaos for the possibility of much of the same from Corbyn.

Corbyn is worse than May. He's got nothing to offer when it comes to Brexit. I reckon he could go before May.

LuckyLloyd

Peregrinus wrote:

What we know about May is that, if she were a superhero, her superpower would be clinging to things with the tenacity of a fossilised limpet.

I apologise for this trivial post, but I feel it important to draw attention to this rather magnificent description!

LeinsterDub

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wouldnt overly worry about it, most governments are shameful at this stage

Most governments aren't actively looking to inflict harm on their own country

Wanderer78

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Most governments aren't actively looking to inflict harm on their own country

oh you could argue that one, austerity comes to mind

VinLieger

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Most governments aren't actively looking to inflict harm on their own country

Thats the thing about the UK most other governments are elected by a majority of the people, thanks to FPP the UK hasnt elected a government with the majority vote for over 50 years

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh you could argue that one, austerity comes to mind

Reducing public expenditure to prevent a country from going bust is not inflicting harm on the country. Sure, it might not feel great for the citizens, but it's actively trying to save the country.

Hurrache

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh you could argue that one, austerity comes to mind

Which wasn't done for the craic.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Reducing public expenditure to prevent a country from going bust is not inflicting harm on the country. Sure, it might not feel great for the citizens, but it's actively trying to save the country.

there no conclusive evidence to support that this actually works, but mounting evidence that shows, it does more harm than good to a society, but we continue to believe this nonsense, according to political scientist mark blyth, there is in fact no evidence anywhere on this planet that supports this idea is beneficial to a society.

robinph

Berserker wrote: »

There is no point in requesting an extension. We are leaving with no-deal, so we might as well leave on March 29th on that basis and start to prepare for that. I'm happy to leave on those terms, cut ties with the EU as of now and start preparing in earnest.

But the majority of the country are not happy to leave on those terms. Only a teeny tiny number of MP's would accept no deal and only a small subset of those who voted leave would be happy with no deal. The vast majority of the population want to either remain or leave with a deal and those are both far more acceptable options.

MarkHenderson

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

MarkHenderson

Berserker wrote: »

There is no point in requesting an extension. We are leaving with no-deal, so we might as well leave on March 29th on that basis and start to prepare for that. I'm happy to leave on those terms, cut ties with the EU as of now and start preparing in earnest.



Corbyn is worse than May. He's got nothing to offer when it comes to Brexit. I reckon he could go before May.

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there no conclusive evidence to support that this actually works, but mounting evidence that shows, it does more harm than good to a society, but we continue to believe this nonsense, according to political scientist mark blyth, there is in fact no evidence anywhere on this planet that supports this idea is beneficial to a society.

Depends on the nature of the problem and what type of austerity is imposed.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/13244.html - not that expensive and available as an ebook. If you'd like to actually do some research and learn that your statement that there is no evidence austerity works is nonsense, you can read it.

Unfortunately, I think most people are content that their opinion is fact.

Captain Obvious

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

And what do you believe those issues are?

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the problem and what type of austerity is imposed.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/13244.html - not that expensive and available as an ebook. If you'd like to actually do some research and learn that your statement that there is no evidence austerity works is nonsense, you can read it.

Unfortunately, I think most people are content that their opinion is fact.

i ll go with blyths research, thanks anyway, austerity is slowly failing across the eu, its also failing here, it has strangely our critical public sectors, its also important to realise, public debt didnt cause the crash of 2008, it was in fact the rapid rise of private debt, and you ll find imposing austerity will have little or no effect on this.

Professor Moriarty

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

Exactly what did the majority vote for?

Enzokk

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

You acknowledge that there are issues behind the Brexit vote that needs to be addressed. All indicators show that leaving the EU will make the UK worse off so addressing these issues will be harder, but you want the country to go ahead with it because if you don't it will lead to more problems.

Seems to me that the country in trouble either way, go ahead with Brexit and you don't address the causes that lead to it and you are making the country poorer. Reverse Brexit and you damage democracy and risk people rising up. This when the result was only 52-48%. What about the 48%? Will they meekly sit by while the 52% rise up? What about those voters that has died in the meantime (older voters who voted to leave) and the youth that have reached voting age in the meantime?

What we have is a mess that is the UK's own making and they are threatening to take us down with them.


This tweet sums up where we are with Brexit and Labour.

https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1085448070337359873

"We know it: Brexit is a broken right-wing failure. But the Labour l'ship seems ok with it, so long as blame for the chaos can be pinned on the Tories. In a grave crisis, it is playing politics, ducking responsibilities it ought to shoulder. If you aspire to power, that's the gig."

Hurrache

Don't just paste links and one-liners please.

It was a comment about the story I linked to. To remove the link to the story and my comment is over the top.

What more do you actually want, stifle debate?


Here's a story worth reading so as to give you an insight, and a sad reflection, of the English voter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-fatigue-it-s-been-two-or-three-years-nearly-we-re-sick-of-it-1.3759103

Christy42

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

That might be preferable. We don't know what they want. If there was a political movement they might get politicians who agree with their views. Then we might now what they want. It is impossible to negotiate when one side is silent aside from repeated No's.

I mean we are told that they don't want checks in the sea, they don't want checks on the border. They don't want to follow EU rules. The only option left is for the UK to dictate Ireland's rules for goods (as an open border can't stop illegal goods from crossing). I am going to presume given their nationalistic bent they don't want to remove another country's sovereignty.

Control is not a specific plan. Tell us what they want and maybe the EU can help facilitate.

LuckyLloyd

Bambi wrote: »

I think the odd thing here is that May has been revealed to have absolutely no game plan whatsoever, not even a Baldrickian cunning plan.

How is this surprising in the least? She never has struck me as a great political strategist. She's good at getting through to the following weekend, but it's all reactions to the voices and noises around her. She hasn't been leading / driving this process in any sort of commanding fashion.

Don't just paste links and one-liners please.

kuro68k

murphaph wrote: »

Bad system -> bad government.

That's what it boils down to. Our system is just incapable of handling this.

It's not designed to handle referendums. It's not designed to handle minority governments. It's not designed to handle fractured parties plagued by in-fighting.

SNIP. No more insults please.

Leroy42

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

You do realise that the whole point of Brexit is that the UK wants to take part in global gloabalisation rather than be tied simply to the EU.

It is globalists (if I understand your term) that are driving Brexit. The likes of JRM doesn't want the EU getting in the way of them getting access to cheap goods flooding the UK market.

Penn

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

Let's say Option D gets 40% of MPs backing it, B gets 30%, the other two get 15% each. If it then went to a Parliamentary vote, surely that still doesn't mean Option D would pass a parliamentary vote because the other 60% could still vote is down.

Basically, I don't think any option will actually pass a vote because there are too many options, too many MPs who still think that willing a better deal into existence will make it happen or that in the event of a No Deal they'll suddenly have all these brand new trade deals in place, too many MPs playing the political game (including Corbyn) and too many MPs who would simply prefer to end up with No Deal regardless of the harm it'd cause the country.

I think at this stage that even if the EU agreed to an end date on the Backstop that the vote wouldn't pass. I think we're looking at an almost certain No Deal scenario.

Leroy42

I think at this stage they need a full debate and non-whip voting on the next step. The Parties, the HoC are totally divided, but they need to come to some sort of position.

So based on Penns 4 options, put them all on the table and have a debate in the HoC about which way to go. Based on yesterday historically bad vote on TM's deal, I think we can remove that from the options.

But openly, and honestly, discuss the remaining options.
Rescind A50. MP's seem to be scared to even discuss this. But at the very least the HoC should hold a vote to take it off the table.
Ask for an extension, but be honest that that in of itself solves nothing, there needs to be a plan
No Deal. Is this really a viable option, we keep hearing that the HoC will not let it happen, so it should be voted to ensure it doesn't (I know there is the whole A50 clock but purely from a starting point it would be good to have it debated).
Hold a second Ref. Like the others, this should be discussed at it is clearly an option. But unlike the 1st, if they go this route they need to have a clear plan of what to do in each eventuality. What doe a no vote mean, does it mean No Deal, only one type of deal etc.

Of course none of this will actually happen. They will simply send TM back to EU and blame them for not giving in to the UK.

LuckyLloyd

Hurrache wrote: »

Here's a story worth reading so as to give you an insight, and a sad reflection, of the English voter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-fatigue-it-s-been-two-or-three-years-nearly-we-re-sick-of-it-1.3759103

That was one of the most insightful parts of the recent Sir Ivan Rogers speech - the UK government has not been in anyway upfront and open with the electorate throughout the negotiation process. The EU has been very transparent and open about positions, process and progress. UK politicians and HMG have failed to break down and inform the public of the main points of negotiation and the compromises and trade offs involved. It's instead a maelstrom of hypothetical nonsense and sloganeering. People were obviously badly informed and switched off from their democratic process to begin with, hence a No vote, and nothing over the last three years has aimed to redress that.

UK societal discourse is failing.

LeinsterDub

Penn wrote: »

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

Let's say Option D gets 40% of MPs backing it, B gets 30%, the other two get 15% each. If it then went to a Parliamentary vote, surely that still doesn't mean Option D would pass a parliamentary vote because the other 60% could still vote is down.

Basically, I don't think any option will actually pass a vote because there are too many options, too many MPs who still think that willing a better deal into existence will make it happen or that in the event of a No Deal they'll suddenly have all these brand new trade deals in place, too many MPs playing the political game (including Corbyn) and too many MPs who would simply prefer to end up with No Deal regardless of the harm it'd cause the country.

I think at this stage that even if the EU agreed to an end date on the Backstop that the vote wouldn't pass. I think we're looking at an almost certain No Deal scenario.

Option D isn't on the cards according to the EU and would also require option C