Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The shennanigans in Westminster are entertaining but largely irrelevant.
The simple fact here is the UK cannot have the Brexit they want ( one that hurts northern Ireland) because the EU have listened. I have shown in the links posted above that SF were standing up for the people long before FG were and even the EU.

It is just factually wrong to say they have no influence. The DUP have been complaining from before the GFA about the influence they have.

The influence of SF on Brexit is just 'marginal' if not to say non-existing cos a hard Brexit and in consequence of that the break up of the UK in order to leave NI with no other option but to vote for a UI is what SF is just waiting for.

SF is just watching this Circus and waiting for the end of it which will be a hard Brexit that in the mid to long run makes way for a UI.

As for the DUP, they've shown for years that they are not fit for government cos they are regressive and more so since Mrs Foster has taken over the leadership of that party. Now the whole UK can see what sort of people they are but unfortunately there are certainly still a lot of people in NI that vote for them, no matter what.

EdgeCase

Fundamentally this is a Tory civil war and May sees herself as the Tory Leader before she sees herself as the Prime Minister.

I don't think many British PMs really make the leap from being their party leader to being "The Prime Minister" and taking on that real national leadership role. She certainly hasn't. She's deeply embedded in internal party politics and isn't really stepping up to the plate.

I think it'll be a crash out - the leadership across the board is either weak or dogmatic. None of them are really seeing the risk or the big picture beyond the Westminster bubble.

I also genuinely don't think most British people and a huge section of the British media understand or appreciate just how seismic this could be. They've been used to very stable economics and trade for decades and just assume that it's all a big fuss about nothing and it'll be business as usual come the first Monday after March 29th.

Thomas_IV

Russman wrote: »

I agree a second Ref is what's needed to clear the logjam somewhat. If MPs can be asked to vote again, why not the people who put them there ?
I'm not convinced the DUP voters will vote for another party though. Up there its pretty much a sectarian headcount regardless of policies.

You're quite right there and I see it the same way as you do and more so in regards of the DUP a Party which is in my considered opinion the real curse of NI and now it is for the whole UK. They are worse than the Shinners and always have been. I was always suspicious about the 'chuckle brothers' cos I never trusted that old hatepreacher Paisley, I rather trusted McGuinness.

That doesn't make me a Shinner but one knew that in his own way, he was at least some upright character (by all his faults regarding his past). Paisley was always the devil with the bible in his hands to me. I never bought in this change of this man cos the mentality that shaped his Party by himself and his leadership of it right from the start is still to see up to this day by his successors of which Mrs Foster is the worst of them and she proves that always.

I just came across some article about her yesterday, just reading the headline of it. It was about that she said that 'there was never a hard border in Northern Ireland'. What an utter stupid ly this line is and one could wonder where she had been all her life if not in NI and knowing about the past in which she herself lived. The other chap of her Party joined in yesterday claiming that the border in NI was only due to Republicans. Utter Unionist-BS-Propaganda cos the first thing the NI govt did in 1922 was to 'secure' the border between NI and the Irish Free State.

Well, I am not saying that the govt of the Irish Free State in its early years didn't want to remove that border and the IRA had their border campaigns as well. But to say like this other DUPper that this was only due to Republicans isn't right cos they wanted that border themselves as well. I suspect that in secret, they still want to have it like they still dream of the past days of the Stormont Regime like their fellow diehard Brexiters of the ERG still dream of the BE. Dinosaurs the lot of them and that is why there is this stalemate in Brexit on the UK side.

Russman

EdgeCase wrote: »

None of them are really seeing the risk or the big picture beyond the Westminster bubble.

I also genuinely don't think most British people and a huge section of the British media understand or appreciate just how seismic this could be. They've been used to very stable economics and trade for decades and just assume that it's all a big fuss about nothing and it'll be business as usual come the first Monday after March 29th.

That's the really worrying point. I still struggle to see how they appear to have this blind faith that "it'll be alright on the night". I just can't get my head around it tbh. I suppose when you have the likes of Davis and JRM and tabloid darlings like BoJo telling them it'll be grand, a good portion see them as their "leaders" or there's at least a degree of gravitas (however subconscious) attached to being an MP, its maybe easier to see how they've been duped.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've never had a referendum on leaving the EU, so the question of who campaigned to leave doesn't really come up. CHBS's claim was not that they had campaigned to leave the EU but that they had campaigned against the EU - an important distinction.

And i don't know about "eurosceptic at times"; I'm old enough to remember that Sinn Fein was soligly eurosceptic for decades. As you point out they opposed Ireland's accession to the EU. They opposed the Single European Act in 1987, which they saw as a "surrender of power" to "the NATO-dominated EEC". They opposed the Amsterdam Treaty. They opposed the Maastricht Treaty. They opposed the Nice Treaty (both times).

For a long time this was just a visceral attitude, based on a traditional nationalist conception of what European integration would mean. I think it was really only in the 2000s, as a result of their pivot towards electoral politics and with the dawning realisation of the signficance of EU institutions and EU elections as all-Ireland political realities, that SF really began to reconsider this and engage more constructively but, even with that, they campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the European Fiscal Compact in 2012. They've never had an affiliation with any European political party.

In fact, I'm happy to be corrected here, but I struggle to think of any campaign in which Sinn Fein has taken a pro-European or pro-EU stance.

There was no referendum until there was a referendum in the UK but there were plenty campaigning to leave. There is no history of SF capaigning to leave that I can see.

Many Irish people have problems with the EU and have expressed that scepticism at the ballot box.
SF take their seats in the EU...an EU that has come to see the importance of Special Status for northern Ireland. Like FG they didn't always see it that way.
Who convinced/influenced both (FG and the EU), to my mind the people who has that view from the very start of this process have to be in the frame.

Thomas_IV

Russman wrote: »

That's the really worrying point. I still struggle to see how they appear to have this blind faith that "it'll be alright on the night". I just can't get my head around it tbh. I suppose when you have the likes of Davis and JRM and tabloid darlings like BoJo telling them it'll be grand, a good portion see them as their "leaders" or there's at least a degree of gravitas (however subconscious) attached to being an MP, its maybe easier to see how they've been duped.

It's quite the same with the Trump voters in the USA, all the same pattern and Twatter and Facebook contributed a lot to his election. For me Twatter and Facebook are the same like the tabloids in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland are, utter rubbish press the lot of them. It wouldn't be that worse if it wasn't for the people who fall for their lies and exaggerations.

Akrasia

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

Akrasia

Just to add, the motion should also state that article 50 can only be enacted again following a referendum.

This is a way of getting the 2nd Referendum by the back door and guaranteeing there can be no crash out

Leroy42

As Ken Clarke said yesterday (I think it was yesterday, its all becoming a blur) that actually the WA is the easy bit. In basically involved 3 items (NI, citizens rights and the financial obligation) and yet they have spent 2+ years and ended up with the biggest defeat in HoC history.

How they think they have any chance of concluding a trade deal in a time frame even close to that is beyond a joke.

Thomas_IV

Akrasia wrote: »

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

Akrasia wrote: »

Just to add, the motion should also state that article 50 can only be enacted again following a referendum.

This is a way of getting the 2nd Referendum by the back door and guaranteeing there can be no crash out

Although all that makes sense, I doubt that this is going to happen. The Brits can see themselves lucky enough if they get a BrexitRef2. The chances for that would be better if Corbyn wasn't leader of the LP.

One never knows what change might come at the last minute, but until then and as it looks these days, it's rather more probable that it'll be a hard Brexit in the end. This political mess is leading to it. This because the Brits won't change their red lines (as requested by the EU for altering the WA) and the EU is by now really fed up with this Brexit Circus.

It's entirely up to the Brits to change their mind and if they don't, the preparations for this no-deal Brexit will be implemented. It really needs a change in the leadership of both parties, the Tories and Labour to have more pragmatic leaders replacing the currently acting to get a change. It doesn't look like this is going to happen soon.

I think that the point is already reached by many to say enough is enough and it is this deal or nothing. Better to stay in the EU but this option can only prevail if there is a BrexitRef2 and as a result of it a majority for Remain. I am really not optimistic on that and I fear that the hardliners will have their way by default and the incapability of the moderates to prevail.

Corbyn has his fair share in all this as he could do otherwise but he's as stubborn like the other Brexiters and just to demand from the govt to take a no-deal Brexit off the table is not enough. It is in fact nothing but hot air he's spouting as he always does. Otherwise he would back up a BrexitRef2 and go for it. But unless he's forced to act in that direction he won't Support it.

FrancieBrady

Akrasia wrote: »

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

I can see how she is snookered on that one. Brexiteers would lose the plot and I dare say a few remainers (faced with having to eventually face their constituents) would have a problem with it too.
Corbyn knows he is calling for something that can't be given I think or playing politics in other words.

spitonmedickie

Rookie Brexit thread poster here - have tried to google it but when the Taoiseach speaks about the "24 hour rule" and the border here what does he mean?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-ministers-shocked-by-rosss-gaffe-over-border-37720614.html

EdgeCase

Thomas_IV wrote: »

It's quite the same with the Trump voters in the USA, all the same pattern and Twatter and Facebook contributed a lot to his election. For me Twatter and Facebook are the same like the tabloids in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland are, utter rubbish press the lot of them. It wouldn't be that worse if it wasn't for the people who fall for their lies and exaggerations.

The problem is that the US is a superpower. The UK absolutely is not but has never really accepted or understood that. It's living in a fantasy about how it was a century ago.

Whatever happens with Trump, the US has enormous momentum in terms of the scale of its economy and global influence. He can do damage, but he's unlikely to sink the ship.

The UK however could sink. It's a very much smaller, more narrowly focused economy that's hugely dependent on being a hub of trade. It's cutting off it's biggest and deepest trading relationship due to nationalist politics and isolationism being rebranded as globalism.

The politics may be similar but it's like comparing a nuclear powered massive scale aircraft carrier and a car ferry. You possibly don't want to arrogantly take on China in a car ferry.

Leroy42

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

Thomas_IV

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is that the US is a superpower. The UK absolutely is not but has never really accepted or understood that. It's living in a fantasy about how it was a century ago.

Whatever happens with Trump, the US has enormous momentum in terms of the scale of its economy and global influence. He can do damage, but he's unlikely to sink the ship.

The UK however could sink. It's a very much smaller, more narrowly focused economy that's hugely dependent on being a hub of trade. It's cutting off it's biggest and deepest trading relationship due to nationalist politics and isolationism being rebranded as globalism.

The politics may be similar but it's like comparing a nuclear powered massive scale aircraft carrier and a car ferry. You possibly don't want to arrogantly take on China in a car ferry.

Agreed.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

They have all boxed themselves into a corner by continually stating the lines about will of the people and respecting the referendum that it would now be difficult to get the idea of a referendum sold to the people.

As long as the question isn't "remain or leave" again, but is more specific for the leave option and states exactly what that means. Then despite still thinking the rest of the country are idiots if they vote the leave option again, I could at least accept they they were voting for an actual thing, rather than just a vague notion of getting away from the bad EU but without any idea of how or why.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:

All Conservative MPs (total: 317)
Remain — 176
Leave — 138
Not disclosed — 3

New intake (total: 32)
Remain — 18
Leave — 13
Not disclosed — 1

Source.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

Thomas_IV

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

There is no certainty which side will win in a BrexitRef2. There is some consideration that not less of those who voted Leave in 2016 might now already had or might have a change of mind and would vote Remain as it has become more clear in the past 2 1/2 years what leaving without a deal would bring in consequences. There is of course the odd Chance that Leave might win again, but for that it would had to go the same way it went in 2016 when some Remainers trusted that Remain would win anyway and didn't go to the polling stations to cast their vote. Those in favour of Remain shouldn't repeat this mistake from 2016 and get up their chairs and go to the polling stations to cast their vote.

If Leave would win again, then the Remainers would have lost the whole plot themselves probably for the very reasons I mentioned before. There is no guarantee for either side to win, but the least would be to have it done by all the facts now clearly in front of the electorate. But I am also Aware of the high emotions this matter is still stiring among People and the hate still spread by the tabloids is contributing to that.

As for the stubbornness of the Brits, well, this time they are utterly wrong and they should look at themselves in the mirrow and reflect on their own half-hearted commitment in the past decades as EU members. There is much in all that which is of their own making, their own reluctance and their own crude view on Europe as a whole. Those member states who are more committed to the European Project which is the EU have more influence in it and can do more to convince other member states to make progress and determin the direction of the future. The Brits were more often sitting at the fence, watching them and criticising them but with less of no alternative suggestions which would benefit the whole of the club members.

The Brits were always seen by myself as sitting between two chairs. On the one side their EU Membership from which they benefitted themselves and on the other the 'special relationship' with the USA. In the first they were always seen as equal partners, in the second they often came across like the 'poodle' of Uncle Sam. Now they have lost a big deal of reputation internationally and of course among the EU member states as well. This Brexit Charade has brought up the picture of a political weak UK and Trump as the big egotistical Egoist had no problem to exploit that for himself. The way he treated May on various occasions speaks for itself. For me he was just doing his show but also showed some contempt towards her.

Brexiteers, like Farage at the top of them equal with Boris Johnson who both creeped up on Trump (the first already before the BrexitRef and the second right from the start of it) know how this 'MAGA' Trump looks at them. But for the many Brexiteers it doesn't matter cos they put all their 'bright future' on that special relationship card and in fact would rather become the poodle of Trump (more than in the past with other US Presidents) than to think again and drop Brexit.

This stubbornness has proved itself to be in fact real helpless stupidity and worse to that deliberate ignorance on the consequences of a hard Brexit. This suits Trump and it also suits Putin, the Chinese might also welcome that for their own interests. But it doesn't serve the Brits in the way they dream of by Brexit.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

Norway has already stated last month that they don't want to have the Brits coming into EFTA once again and they would veto such a solution. You see by that announcement from the Norwegian govt how much the reputation of the UK has been damaged. Due to this Brexit charade and the way the UK govt was performing in this Brexit negotiation period, it has made the Brits look like unreliable, untrustworthy and a bunch of unrealistic selfish egotistical dreamers. A country one can't take as reliable is not worthy to strike trade deals with. But because the Brexiteers are all inward looking and staunch ignorants on what comes from the outside of their own bubble, they don't realise the damage this Brexit idiocy has already done and how the UK is not just seen but also rated in the international community.

The Brits are by now seen as trouble makers. This of course applies for all the Brexiteers, but unfortunately the whole reputation of the Brits as a nation is already suffering from that.

I think that the voting down of this WA was the last straw the Brits could have redeemed their damaged reputation if a majority had voted for it. But this is gone by now and the no-confidence vote of yesterday which May only one cos nobody likes to see Corbyn getting into No 10 as PM did the rest to show the world that the UK remains an uncertain and unreliable country. That by now negative reputation will last for a long time and it will make the Brexiteers bubble burst as soon as the UK exits the EU without a deal. I can't really believe that after all this there will be many economical strong countries lining up to strike trade Agreements with them. In case of the USA under Trump, the Brits will be the ones who either have to take it or leave it what is on offer and the content of such an offer will be dictated by the Americans. One can forget about equal partnership with a character like Trump in the WH.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:



Source.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

Leroy42

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

Thomas_IV

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:



Source.

They might be that, but they didn't had the means to stop the radicals within their party from doing all the damage caused.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

They also know how and when to transfer their wealth to other places and I think that many of them already have done it and don't wait until the ultimate hard Brexit kicks in.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

It might as well turn out at the end that his Momentum chums were just good enough for him to have him elected as leader of the LP but not have much influence on himself. I wouldn't underestimate him.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

That is all quite right just I wouldn't let Corbyn get away scot-free cos he has let the Remain camp down and refused to co-operate with the other opposition parties in the Commons. This is his and his alone responsibility and for that as well as his own long standing anti-EU record he is a proven Brexiter himself to me. 'Soft Brexiter' doesn't make much of a difference to me, in fact none at all.

Tacitus Kilgore

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

I completely agree with this, to use idioms - The horse has bolted, we are too far down the rabbit hole, we are through the looking glass, we're not in Kansas anymore...


Irreversible things have been set in motion - the biggest being the psyche of the people of the UK being built up for the last 40 years by a disgusting domestic media. Remaining will not fix the issues, only leaving will show the UK who's fault their problems really are - and to be honest, they'll most likely still blame the EU.


It's a horrible disaster, a disaster that we don't even get a say in, all we can do is watch

Macy0161

As they love first past the post, could it not be Deal/ No Deal/ Remain? Given the original "leave" vote meant so many different things to so many different people, the option that actually had the most votes was "Remain". It was a binary question, but the answer on the Leave side wasn't.

_Puma_

Another way of looking at this is the House of Commons currently has a majority that will never allow a Labour government until 2022 at the earliest. Talk of Corbyns leadership of the Labour party, a second ref, an early General Election, Brexit in essence is all secondary to this fact.

The Tory/DUP coalition will never relinquish power in any way (An early General Election, 2nd Referendum, no confidence votes) no matter what, so people are seriously barking up the wrong tree regarding this narrative been spun out by the British press regarding Corbyn. The fact there were no Tory "rebels" in the no confidence in May merely reflects the reality that there never was any. It's party before country and will be until the bitter end. A second ref in the current political climate over there will likely lead to a greater majority for leave as I see May now increasingly beholden to the ERG/DUP/Hard Brexiters.

The only hope I can see at this stage to avoid catastrophe (worse for the Brits in the long run)is some sort of pragmatism on both sides. Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point. I would still fully expect to end this extension at the same juncture as where we are today but we at the very least now know exactly what we are dealing with with the current Tory/DUP government and can prepare accordingly.

It will make the British government make a decision on their position of the GFA/Stormont rather than this fence sitting we see now. Let them pull down the GFA if that is really their wish but let them do it in a way for all the world to see, not this rubbish about "Red lines" in some fantasy withdrawal agreement.

Who knows in this time maybe even the remain movement over in there can crystallize into a political movement with some clout. But as I see it 40 years of misinformation regarding the EU from the British establishment has led to this juncture, the Brits want out and the only cure for Brexit is Brexit. Giving them another chance to get their house in order is a win win for both sides.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

Do you think the ERG would have been quiet if remain had won 52%-48%? Do you think they would have remained quiet if they had lost 60%-40%? Did those that lost the recent referendum on abortion stay quiet after they lost by 67%-32%? And finally, do you think there would be more chaos than we find ourselves in now if there is a second referendum?

At the very least it would allow the UK to get back what is important, their struggling NHS and social services, their crumbling judicial services all due to austerity. While they have been wasting more than 2 years trying to sort out Brexit the rest of their problems has not gotten better. Foodbank usage has not decreased and will only increase. There are more chance of people getting violent because they cannot afford to live any longer than a few white men throwing a hissy about Brexit.

In other news it seems that Hammond has privately assured businesses that there will not be a no-deal Brexit. Thei absolute stupidity of that is May is refusing to meet with Corbyn because she doesn't want to rule it out. So the PM is not ruling out what her Chancellor has done.

Thomas_IV

_Puma_ wrote: »

Another way of looking at this is the House of Commons currently has a majority that will never allow a Labour government until 2022 at the earliest. Talk of Corbyns leadership of the Labour party, a second ref, an early General Election, Brexit in essence is all secondary to this fact.

The Tory/DUP coalition will never relinquish power in any way (An early General Election, 2nd Referendum, no confidence votes) no matter what, so people are seriously barking up the wrong tree regarding this narrative been spun out by the British press regarding Corbyn. The fact there were no Tory "rebels" in the no confidence in May merely reflects the reality that there never was any. It's party before country and will be until the bitter end. A second ref in the current political climate over there will likely lead to a greater majority for leave as I see May now increasingly beholden to the ERG/DUP/Hard Brexiters.

The only hope I can see at this stage to avoid catastrophe (worse for the Brits in the long run)is some sort of pragmatism on both sides. Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point. I would still fully expect to end this extension at the same juncture as where we are today but we at the very least now know exactly what we are dealing with with the current Tory/DUP government and can prepare accordingly.

It will make the British government make a decision on their position of the GFA/Stormont rather than this fence sitting we see now. Let them pull down the GFA if that is really their wish but let them do it in a way for all the world to see, not this rubbish about "Red lines" in some fantasy withdrawal agreement.

Who knows in this time maybe even the remain movement over in there can crystallize into a political movement with some clout. But as I see it 40 years of misinformation regarding the EU from the British establishment has led to this juncture, the Brits want out and the only cure for Brexit is Brexit. Giving them another chance to get their house in order is a win win for both sides.

I agree with you on all the paragraphs in your post except the one I have put in bold regarding the GFA. That is too dangerous unless they drop NI altogether and with it the DUP MPs as well.

Maybe the DUP would put pressure on May after Brexit to bring back direct rule on NI to please the DUP who never liked to share power with SF anyway. That because May is depending on the back up of her govt by the 10 DUP MPs until 2022. That's no bright prospect for the future, but with Brexit it is bleak anyway.

Zubeneschamali

_Puma_ wrote: »

Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point.

Both sides of the House, maybe.


Both sides of the actual negotiation - the UK and EU, no way. Let them crash out on March 29th, and let's see how long it takes them to face up to reality.

Thomas_IV

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Both sides of the House, maybe.


Both sides of the actual negotiation - the UK and EU, no way. Let them crash out on March 29th, and let's see how long it takes them to face up to reality.

Yes, I see it that way too by now as I also have had enough of this circus. They surely have to learn it the hard way to realise that they aren't that 'great nation' anymore and that this BE2.0 dream is nothing but a pipedream.

If this Brexit disaster will lead to an independent Scotland, I'd welcome it. If it leads to a UI, I wouldn't be that enthusiastic cos this UI would had to deal with the sort of the DUPers who always like to hold the country back and it would be a great deal of work to change their attitudes.

Atlantic Dawn

Back in the 80's people were smuggling 21 inch tv's across the border...

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2018/1206/1015520-smuggling-electrical-goods/

Enzokk

I am wondering, has Corbyn even once mentioned a second referendum or has he always talked about all the options on the table. I am also waiting with anticipation for him to move on to the next options as was agreed at the Labour conference.