Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, she said two or three weeks ago that there will be no referendum while she is the PM. People seem to be nearly forgetting this.....if one goes ahead, we would have to assume she will have left office, otherwise it is not happening.

May has said a lot of things and then done the opposite. She's nothing if not flexible.

I think she is 100% committed to the deal she has negotiated, and she prefers it over either a no-deal Brexit, or remaining. If she despairs of getting it approved by Parliament but thinks there is some chance that it could win in a referendum, she could throw her weight behind a referendum.

Peregrinus

fergiesfolly wrote: »

How about a two option referendum: No-Deal vs Remain.
But if neither option passes with a 60% majority, the UK reverts to Mays deal and leaves.

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think that's not a bad idea, but maybe three options on the ballot, mays deal, no deal and leave? Then two with most votes go to the next round. I dunno what the treshhold should be for round 1,,,maybe 50% and you win fair and square? Or maybe the two with the most votes, so Brexiters won't feel that having two brexit options is splitting their votes. . . .

There's a constraint we have to reckon with, though. Given both the terms of UK law and the practical realities, at this point there isn't time to organise and conduct a refeferendum by 29 March. There can only be a referendum if the EU grants an extension to the Art 50 notice period.

And, while I think the EU would do that to facilitate a referendum, they won't necessarily do it to facilitate any referendum; only one that they are happy to have held.

The thing about offering "no deal Brexit" as an option in a referendum, it's essentially asking the UK voters for a mandate for the government to walk out on the UK's freely-undertaking obligations as an EU member, in particular it's financial obligations. The EU would be extremely reluctant to do anything which might be seen as them legitimising such an option. Thus, they almost certainly won't grant an extension to facilitate a referendum in which one of the options is "no deal Brexit, and the EU can go whistle for its money". And they would quite possibly take a similar attitude to a no-deal Brexit which failed to respect EU citizens rights.

So I think if the UK looks for an extension of time to hold a referendum, at a minimum they are going to have to say "come what may, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, we are committed to paying the divorce bill". And they may have to give a similar assurance with respect to citizens rights. And, hey, why not, with respect to the Irish border also?

What it comes down to is this; the EU doesn't greatly care how the UK makes its sovereign decisions - referendum, parliamentary vote, reality TV show with a phone-in. That's none of the EU's business. And it follows that the EU's interests, priorities, negotiating positions etc don't depend on how the UK proposes to make a decision. So, if the UK looks for an extension of time to facilitiate a referendum, we should not expect the EU's priorities and positions to be any different from what they are now. The EU will still be concerned to ensure that financial obligations are settled, citizens rights respected and the Irish border kept open. And the UK will have to deal with that in order to get an extension of time.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/_Financeguy/status/1073883694723751936

Very interesting point. New Zealand just opened an embassy in Dublin specifically for this purpose...

MarkHenderson

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

Kermit.de.frog

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

Why?

How will it come back to bite us?

10000maniacs

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

You mean we should have allowed the likes of Boris Johnson, David Davis and Dominic Rabb ride roughshod over the Good Friday Agreement?
The GFA would never have happened under the Tories and should be protected from them at all costs.

Peregrinus

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

That;'s ridiculous. If anybody has been slow in facing up to the possibility of a hard Brexit it has been the UK, where you still quite regularly see the claim that a crash-out can't happen because Parliament would never allow it. As for us "backing the EU at all costs", no; we have backed our own vital interest in avoiding a hard border, and we have been right to do so. This incidentally but necessaraily involves backing the EU because we're in the EU; our position is an EU position. Happily for us (and sadly for those with the agenda of using Brexit to undermine the Good Friday Agreement) our position is also the position of the EU as a whole.

And the most absurd claim of all is that we have "attempted to belittle the vote of the UK electorate". The masters of that art are those brexiteers who claim the right to decree what form of Brexit UK voters voted for, while wholly ignoring the promises that were made to those voters, the terms of the public debate which
led up to the vote, and the expressed wishes of voters today. These people are simply attempting to hijack the vote of the UK electorate in pursuit of a project which is very different from the project that was voted for, because the are completely indifferent to what the people actually want, and actually voted for.

Hurrache

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

What? Your post doesn't tally with reality of Irish preparations put in since the referendum was announced.

Plus, we are the EU!

downcow

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

This is spot on.

First Up

MarkHenderson wrote:

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

The Irish "establishment" (government, civil service, industry and industry representatives, trade unions, financial institutions etc.) have been thinking about the consequences of Brexit since the day the referendum was called. They have also been preparing for all contingencies.

In marked contrast to their UK counterparts.

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

This is spot on.

Well you'll be obviously able to answer the questions that were asked of the OP before he ran away. Because that seems to be the modus operandi with fantasists here. Dump a meaningless soundbite and run before the hard questions get asked.

EdgeCase

We haven't belittled anything. We've just looked after Irish interests and carried out that role that the state took on in the Good Friday Agreement, which was endorsed by a constitutional referendum here and decades of work they went into getting to that point.

The Irish government would be belittling and betraying its own electorate, the Northern Irish population and also all of those, including many British politicians, who put absolutely vast efforts into making that process work.

Even the opposition's totally dysfunctional. It's very hard to believe that the likes of Kate Hoey speaks on behalf of Labour, the party of Mo Mowlam. She must be spinning in her grave.

Irish and Brexiteer interests are not alligned at all and no amount of patronising comment is going to change that.

cml387

downcow wrote: »

This is spot on.

I suppose it's pointless saying this to those who post and run but...

When the UK voted to leave, Ireland had two choices:

1) Also leave the UK, against the wishes of the vast majority in Ireland

2)Staying in ,and defend its interests by demanding no hard border (something the UK have also pledged).

Once the vote to leave happened, no outcome was going to be good, only the least worst.

ancapailldorcha

downcow wrote: »

This is spot on.

Please read the charter before posting again. This is a forum for serious discussion as opposed to one-liners.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, she said two or three weeks ago that there will be no referendum while she is the PM. People seem to be nearly forgetting this.....if one goes ahead, we would have to assume she will have left office, otherwise it is not happening.

She is once again staking her claim into the ground by pounding a position and when she eventually has to go back on the decision she will look the fool once again.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but this opinion piece by Fintan O'Toole seems a fair summary of why and how.

Britain has led a charmed political life. But there is a price to pay for complacency

The whole Brexit project has been, in Gookin’s terms, easy work. Make up lies about the European Union, throw patriotic shapes, get a smugly overconfident prime minister to call a referendum whose dynamics he does not understand, tell more lies, make promises you don’t believe in yourself, use stolen Facebook data to target voters with xenophobic images, tell everybody that they will have all the benefits of membership with none of the costs. Easy work, all of it: no plans, no complexities, no responsibilities.

On the morning of the referendum result in June 2016, the image that came into my head was that amazing trick that some people can do of whipping a tablecloth away while leaving all of the dishes and cutlery in place. Except the trick was being tried by a drunk. The idea was that a whole layer of politics that had been there for 45 years – the EU – could be whipped away and yet all the others – government, parliament, the law, the union itself – would not be upset. It was never going to happen. The trick, if it could be done at all, required a level of dexterity and coordination far beyond the capacities of the cack-handed and cock-eyed Brexiters. Instead of gasps of amazement, there was always going to be the cacophonous din of tumbling tableware.

And here on Theresa May,

There is, in Brexitland, a sense of outrage that the Irish government has not taken Britain at its word when it says that there will never be a return to a hard border in Ireland. The message all along has been: trust us, it will be fine, no need for a legally binding guarantee. But would you trust Theresa May who swore by her red lines until she crossed every one of them and who insisted she would not call an election until she did? Does anyone on Earth trust Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary for much of this period and has ambitions to be the prime minister after Brexit? Could anyone have faith that David Davis would even understand what he had signed up to, let alone implement it?

RobMc59

https://twitter.com/frankfieldteam/status/1074568407687880706?s=19
Interesting tweet from my local MP

cml387

I notice from Downcow's posts that he may be an Ulster protestant farmer.

I would genuinely welcome his input if he/she could contribute his point of view.

Well my Brexit-voting friend who regrets his vote is now saying just go for no deal. It's the EU's fault etc.

One of the most intelligent people I know with a vast knowledge of politics and history, and this is his stance. Makes me wary of a second refendum.

prawnsambo

cml387 wrote: »

I notice from Downcow's posts that he may be an Ulster protestant farmer.

I would genuinely welcome his input if he/she could contribute his point of view.

Seconded.

badtoro

MarkHenderson wrote: »

It's slowly dawning on the Irish establishment that the UK are leaving and leaving hard. The ridiculous way in which we have backed the EU at all costs whilst attempting to belittle the democratic vote of the UK electorate will come back to bite us on the arse in the future.

We ARE the EU. We're also protecting our own national interests. We didn't vote for brexit, nor did we want it. The UK made their own bed, they should own it, no one is stopping them going, they're just not taking cake and unicorns with them on the way out, that's why they'll go out hard.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well my Brexit-voting friend who regrets his vote is now saying just go for no deal. It's the EU's fault etc.

One of the most intelligent people I know with a vast knowledge of politics and history, and this is his stance. Makes me wary of a second refendum.

Yes, it should not be taken as granted that a 2nd referendum would be at all helpful. Frankly I think a 2nd referendum could result in a less "remainy" result than the first - there has been a significant amount of anti-EU and anti "elite lefty remoaner" media action in the past 2 years that needs to be addressed - of note read:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnthonyGlees/status/1069557953395638273

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Well my Brexit-voting friend who regrets his vote is now saying just go for no deal. It's the EU's fault etc.

One of the most intelligent people I know with a vast knowledge of politics and history, and this is his stance. Makes me wary of a second refendum.

At least if the choices are clear and no deal spells out what will happen and is not dismissed as project fear, if the vote is still for no deal we just have to get on with it.

But the same as we shouldn't be scared of riots if Brexit is not implemented we shouldn't be scared of what a result of a vote will be. The alternative is to walk into the wall without trying to stop it at least.

intellectual dosser

A second referendum would need to be a landslide Remain result to go any way to mending the divide in UK politics.

Inquitus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

A second referendum would need to be a landslide Remain result to go any way to mending the divide in UK politics.

I'd take a 52 / 48 myself, country is divided regardless, moving the whining boot to the leave foot is all a narrow remain result would do, as well as protect Ireland and the UK from this madness.

FrancieBrady

Acting on a 52-48 remain result in a second referendum will spark off serious unrest in the UK imo.

It would tear itself apart violently.

EdgeCase

There's also a possibility that you get a divisive campaign and a massive PR push from the leave side and they end up reaffirming the leave vote.

There isn't really a huge change in the polling since 2016.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Acting on a 52-48 remain result in a second referendum will spark off serious unrest in the UK imo.

It would tear itself apart violently.

I don't think so. My fear is that the Murdoch & pals press will continue to produce industrial levels of fake news that the public will simply lap up. The British are not the French. They seem to have a much more "Keep calm & carry on" mentality despite the fact that far too many of the government's senior figures lack even a rudimentary understanding of the diplomatic crisis some of them created.

When you think how some of the utterings or even ravings of some politicians have been allowed to pass unchecked.

EdgeCase

Britain has a fairly long history of going into crisis though when you look at the 1970s and 80s period for example. There were endless and very long strikes that would make the French ones seem relatively non-disruptive.

There was a period of remarkable calm from the 90s until Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

intellectual dosser wrote: »

A second referendum would need to be a landslide Remain result to go any way to mending the divide in UK politics.

After a 52-48 Remain vote they would still have a divide (no change there), but they would still have a functioning economy, too.


The divide in UK politics is not about to destroy their economy - Brexit is.

FreudianSlippers

No plans for vote on different outcomes is the official statement this morning. So, what does that mean if when May's deal is voted down... they just go no deal I guess?