Brexit Discussion Thread VI

MrMusician18

VinLieger wrote: »

48/52 does not equal huge pressure to implement the result of an ADVISORY referendum. There was pressure from within her parties radical wing and the radical right wing media i think is what you mean


Theres pressure in Ireland as our constitutional referendum are legally binding and mean critical changes to the constitution that if they are left for years to be signed into law can potentially mean legal issues mount up and become quite serious.

Sigh.. not this again... Due to the Constitution of the UK all referendums are advisory as parliament can do as it pleases. It cannot be legally bound. On anything.
The referendum was politically binding, that's the important thing.

While you might not want to admit it, there was pressure from the people to "get on with it", yes cheered on by the Brexit press. Additionally and importantly for a Tory PM, Tory voters were overwhelmingly for leave. She needed to get on with it or risk being removed from office. Submitting Art 50 (which had the backing off almost the entire HoC) although the UK was completely unprepared for the reality, couldn't realistically, politically be further delayed.

I'll return later to why state sanctioned focus groups i.e. citizens assemblies are bad for democracy

EdgeCase

Hurrache wrote: »

That Claire Byrne clip of her interview with Farage is getting a lot of traction on Twitter amongst UK commentators as to how people like him should have been dealt with over the years on UK television.

The problem in the UK seems to have been a lot of political interviewers who know absolutely nothing about the EU, its structures or European politics and seem to go into interviews without briefing.

When an interviewer knows their brief and is confident in their ability to fact check, as Claire Byrne was, the difference is absolutely stark.

So many non-facts are being let slip through in the UK without adequate challenge. There are decades of "Euro myths" that have been reported as if they're fact too, all of which have contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in.

Sam Russell

Hermy wrote: »

I think she handled him perfectly - calmly pointing out the error of his ways but not getting dragged into an argument - something I'm sure he would have preferred.

She missed the obvious riposte to his 'unelected old men' jibe. She should have cited the UK House of Lords - peopled by 'unelected old men' whereas the EU is peopled by elected MEPs (EU Parliament), Prime Ministers (Council of Ministers) and Commissioners appointed by elected Gov (European Council). EU states could have commissioners elected by any means they consider appropriate, but all are appointed.

House of Lords? Who votes for them, and every piece of legislation must be accepted by them. Not only that, but the HoC has not seen a single party Gov elected by a majority of the voters since 1932 because of their FPTP voting system.

Democracy - how are you?

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Sigh.. not this again... Due to the Constitution of the UK all referendums are advisory as parliament can do as it pleases. It cannot be legally bound. On anything.
The referendum was politically binding, that's the important thing.

What not again? I was pointing out the differences and why Irish referendum being followed through on is inherently more pressing.

Also the term politically binding means nothing, it is a nothing statement as it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, especially when dealing with UK politicians. As an example the GFA and the backstop agreement could also be reffered to as "politically binding" under the same definition that you are using but look at the state they are in......

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

What not again? I was pointing out the differences and why Irish referendum being followed through on is inherently more pressing.

Also the term politically binding means nothing, it is a nothing statement as it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, especially when dealing with UK politicians. As an example the GFA and the backstop agreement could also be reffered to as "politically binding" under the same definition that you are using but look at the state they are in......

Actually, the GFA is an international treaty subject to international law.

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Sigh.. not this again... Due to the Constitution of the UK all referendums are advisory as parliament can do as it pleases. It cannot be legally bound. On anything.
The referendum was politically binding, that's the important thing.

While you might not want to admit it, there was pressure from the people to "get on with it", yes cheered on by the Brexit press. Additionally and importantly for a Tory PM, Tory voters were overwhelmingly for leave. She needed to get on with it or risk being removed from office. Submitting Art 50 (which had the backing off almost the entire HoC) although the UK was completely unprepared for the reality, couldn't realistically, politically be further delayed.

I'll return later to why state sanctioned focus groups i.e. citizens assemblies are bad for democracy

There is always pressure from the public to do certain things. Cut taxes, increase minimum wage, more schools etc.

Tm was not wrong to advance Brexit, she was wrong to do it without having any plan in place. Without having done any economic analysis, without understand the key issues and the costs involved.

Remember Davis pathetic display over the sectoral analysis which turned out never existed. Thus we can conclude that TM had no idea what was in store, what she was dealing with, when she sent the letter.

That is gross incompetence. Like signing a contract without reading it. How can you go into negotiations when you have no idea of what your positions are, what areas you are wiling to give on, what area you must hold and the acceptable cost of that position.

To then claim that she was under pressure from the people is such a cop out. Sure there were people baying for Brexit straight away, the last 2 years have proven that they were completely wrong in that and the PM should be able to see that and charted a better course.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually, the GFA is an international treaty subject to international law.

I know im just saying its also something that was agreed by politicians therefore also falls under whatever loose definition anyone wants to decide is "politically binding" ie the phrase means nothing

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

What not again? I was pointing out the differences and why Irish referendum being followed through on is inherently more pressing.

Also the term politically binding means nothing, it is a nothing statement as it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, especially when dealing with UK politicians. As an example the GFA and the backstop agreement could also be reffered to as "politically binding" under the same definition that you are using but look at the state they are in......

I think you'll find that the GFA is a wee bit more than just 'politically binding'

LuckyLloyd

Hurrache wrote: »

Another thing I took from that documentary is that May and the conservatives haven't learned a single thing with how to deal with the EU from Cameron's failed approaches.

Stunning. Years of Cameron making firm declarations at home of what he would go to Brussels and get and coming back empty handed after repeated affirmations from European leaders on how they were all united behind the benefits of the four freedoms.

He was an arrogant and ultimately incapable man.

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand why she rushed on A50

Borne of the same mindset imo. The Lancaster House speech was more of the same old same old. Dictate an agenda to the pleasure of the right of the conservative party and the eurosceptic media and assume that you'll go to Brussels and they'll dance to your tune. The documentary last night shows a slow motion car crash building for coming on 9 years (and obviously with a history stretching a further 20 years or so before it). At EVERY SINGLE POINT the EU have stuck to their fundamental guiding principles, and in Feb 2015 and again in November 2018 they have been as flexible as possible to the UK's specific domestic concerns within those principles. Offering clear exceptions to free movement. The problem is that - in both cases - major EU concessions haven't even been recognized as movement in the UK.

Personally speaking, when the EU rejects their request for an A50 extension largely because they don't see it as useful there will be a long history behind that decision. There will be howls of shock at how cavalier the EU are being, but Britain has used up all its good will at this point. A truly terrible time for politics in the UK.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everyone knew SF policy before this. No surprises there for their electorate or anyone else with a brain in the game.

What we didn't know, was how desperate Theresa May was to stay in power and that it would stretch to doing real and lasting damage to the UK.

p.s. I think the UK government are now well aware of an 'alternative view' of Brexit.
Whether by accident or design, (I have my own view on that) allowing that view(or prompting it) to come from Dublin central was a masterstroke.

Everyone knew DUP policy before this, they campaigned for Brexit. No surprises there for their electorate or anyone else with a brain in the game.

So why can they be criticised and SF not?

If a brainless policy of the DUP can be criticised, why cannot a brainless policy of another party be similarly treated.

LuckyLloyd

Hurrache wrote: »

That Claire Byrne clip of her interview with Farage is getting a lot of traction on Twitter amongst UK commentators as to how people like him should have been dealt with over the years on UK television.

Igotadose wrote: »

It's better than average, agreed, but not overwhelming. She called him on the Lisbon treaty but he just prattled on with his UKIP talking points ('unelected old men', etc.)

No one ever says, "But that's just not true" or, "You've been proven wrong time and again" and so forth. Not confrontative enough imo. Better than the job she did with the first repeal the 8th 'town meeting' back last year at least, but she's got a ways to go.

Hurrache wrote: »

That's missing the point as to how it has been handled by UK media in comparison. He was on the back foot and exposed within his first couple of statements as someone talking out his arse, for the few that already weren't aware.

You're both right here lads I think. Claire Byrne had plenty of room to be more forthright with him; but even the mere fact she interrupted him twice in quick succession to fact check him is so out of keeping with how British media (particularly the BBC) has treated these people for the last decade. If there was ever an Irexit movement, you'd hope they'd be forced to face the likes of Pat Kenny and Brian Dobson over and over. Claire Byrne has ways to go in that regard, but we thankfully have a fine tradition of well informed and fact confident current affairs presenters with a sense of the importance of their role. Long may it continue.

LuckyLloyd

blanch152 wrote: »

We could all play at what-ifs.

What if SF hadn't taken a hissy fit and brought down the Northern Assembly?
What if SF had stopped standing idly by and took its seats in Westminister to provide a platform for an alternative NI view of Brexit?
What is SF hadn't sat on its hands when the chance was there to form the last Government in the South?

They had three chances to do the right thing and took none. There is an awful lot of blame to go around and it doesn't all fall on the DUP.

You obviously must hate how the Brexit process has exposed the DUP and Unionism for what it is. The above points are incorrect / irrelevant and have been tackled in detail on this thread many times before. I almost respect your gall in coming back to make them over and over despite those corrections. Almost.

Harry Palmr

My favourite part was where the head of the commission (I think it was) reflected on Camerons big election success and the Scottish referendum and asked Dave what the strategy had been and this was left hanging to suggest there was no reply. The implication being that he was successful despite anything resembling a solid coherent plan. Which was certainly true about the 2015 GE with the lesser Miliband leading labour. Trusting to luck and complacency did seem to be Cameron's way.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Hi folks,
If you can't post in a civil manner, don't post. Debate the issue rather than getting personal with other posters.

Thank you

LuckyLloyd

Harry Palmr wrote: »

My favourite part was where the head of the commission (I think it was) reflected on Camerons big election success and the Scottish referendum and asked Dave what the strategy had been and this was left hanging to suggest there was no reply. The implication being that he was successful despite anything resembling a solid coherent plan - a large slice of luck. Which was certainly true about the 2015 GE with the lesser Miliband leading labour. Trusting to luck and complacency did seem to be Cameron's way.

Yep - quite the insightful moment. Cameron clearly felt bullet proof after two gambles that had worked out in successive years. He assumed he would get over the line somehow for a third time in succession and lock up a glorious lengthy future as PM. Obviously I can only imagine how intoxicating May 2014 - May 2015 must have been for him and his closest advisors. Riding the crest of a wave...

Hurrache

The DUP have apparently said they'll be voting for the Malthouse/ERG amendment.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Everyone knew DUP policy before this, they campaigned for Brexit. No surprises there for their electorate or anyone else with a brain in the game.

So why can they be criticised and SF not?

If a brainless policy of the DUP can be criticised, why cannot a brainless policy of another party be similarly treated.

I criticised May's government.

What we didn't know, was how desperate Theresa May was to stay in power and that it would stretch to doing real and lasting damage to the UK.

Everyone knew and told her what the DUP were like and what would happen, yet she proceeded.

VinLieger

Hurrache wrote: »

The DUP have apparently said they'll be voting for the Malthouse/ERG amendment.

So May has succeeded in rallying enough votes to vote against her own negotiated and signed off on backstop..... so shes just going for anything that will get her a notch in the win column as far as HOC votes go.

Water John

But TM has a codisil that any 'alternative arrangements' don't move her nearer the middle ground, which actually would have the backing of the HOC.

Hermy

Sam Russell wrote: »

She missed the obvious riposte to his 'unelected old men' jibe.

Possibly everything he said was open to correction but to do that would have pushed the signal to noise ratio in favour of noise which I'm sure Farage would have been quite happy about.

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

So May has succeeded in rallying enough votes to vote against her own negotiated and signed off on backstop..... so shes just going for anything that will get her a notch in the win column as far as HOC votes go.

She's actively negotiating against her own negotiations

Without being mean - is she senile?

bob mcbob

Harry Palmr wrote: »

My favourite part was where the head of the commission (I think it was) reflected on Camerons big election success and the Scottish referendum and asked Dave what the strategy had been and this was left hanging to suggest there was no reply. The implication being that he was successful despite anything resembling a solid coherent plan. Which was certainly true about the 2015 GE with the lesser Miliband leading labour. Trusting to luck and complacency did seem to be Cameron's way.

Yes Cameron's strategy in the Scottish referendum went really well. At the start, support for independence was at 33% and at the end 45%. It was trending towards indy until they made major concessions a week before the vote.

Sturgeon asked Cameron / Osborne not to use the same approach with the EU referendum but they were too arrogant to listen.

Water John

NOTE: TM will speak at 12.40 pm opening the debate, instead of at the end of the debate. She may say nothing as usual but she hopes to set the tone by which MPs discuss the amendments.
That now may be pushed back by an hour, basically filibustering.

Infini

lawred2 wrote: »

She's actively negotiating against her own negotiations

Without being mean - is she senile?

She's a liability at this point. Simple truth is if they refuse to agree to the backstop its either abandon brexit or crash out ignomoniously with all the conequences of that decision on the UK and noone else.

Adamcp898

Hurrache wrote: »

The DUP have apparently said they'll be voting for the Malthouse/ERG amendment.

Apparently it was met with "warmth" at cabinet this morning too. Apparently the Tories are getting all sentimental at the idea of rallying around each other.

Water John

Yeah, the're all agreeing to reopen the WA, complete la la land.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

She's actively negotiating against her own negotiations

Perfidious Albion

Tell me how

lawred2 wrote: »

She's actively negotiating against her own negotiations

Without being mean - is she senile?

No. Definitely not. To be fair to her. This is a mammoth clusterf*ck of a task since day 1 and probably no one could have done it differently without alienating this group or that group.

A PM could have not introduced the red lines and suggested staying in CU for example and breixteers could have agitated to remove them. May was threading a thin line of trying to get something practical, while maintaining power and she has managed to do that though largely, for a long time, because it was too much of a sh*tshow for any of the loud voices to want to take on.

Her single biggest mistake (amongst many) was quite possibly calling the General election to give her a greater majority, though, not many at the time said it was a bad move politically (outside of rushing a GE through during negotiations).

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Perfidious Albion

Have they passed go and proceeded directly to rogue state?

Whatever else they do, if this succeeds it will have set a new precedent in international relationships, as I cannot think of another so called trusted state behaving this way.

Adamcp898

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1090199460892864512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090199460892864512&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804


"What's your evidence that the conservative party are rallying?"

"We have a Whatsapp group....."