Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

An Ciarraioch

Interesting projection here suggests a customs union would prevail in the indicative votes:

http://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1109843870165155842

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Johnson arrived driving a bit of a junker people carrier, I expect for the purpose of optics for the common man.

Saw that myself. Is that a man of the people schtick he's trying to pull off?

BobbyBobberson

Interesting breakdown of the petition

https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584

Water John

That Round 5 is the key, where its, a CU v 2nd Ref up against TMs Deal.
The diff is 25 which is quite close. That is simply 13 MPs at that point.

Like all PR systems it's what falls off and what stays in the ballot.

BobbyBobberson

I just do not get this at all.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1109953556726140930

So the deal is crap, we hate it. However if you say you will quit we will vote for the deal?

My only take from that is that the ERG are hoping a hard brexiteer will become PM and what?

Professor Moriarty

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

I just do not get this at all.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1109953556726140930

So the deal is crap, we hate it. However if you say you will quit we will vote for the deal?

My only take from that is that the ERG are hoping a hard brexiteer will become PM and what?

I think that they will have to install someone who is relatively neutral. A hard Brexiteer or a hard Remainer would see scores of defections from the Tory party.

Headshot

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

I just do not get this at all.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1109953556726140930

So the deal is crap, we hate it. However if you say you will quit we will vote for the deal?

My only take from that is that the ERG are hoping a hard brexiteer will become PM and what?

Or ERG want total control over the second phase of negotiations

Those guy's should be thrown out of the Tories but unfortunately they won't be

Strazdas

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

I just do not get this at all.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1109953556726140930

So the deal is crap, we hate it. However if you say you will quit we will vote for the deal?

My only take from that is that the ERG are hoping a hard brexiteer will become PM and what?

The flaws in this strategy would be obvious to a six year old. A deal that nobody wants gets voted through for party political reasons. What could possibly go wrong in its aftermath?

robindch

20silkcut wrote: »

All I can say is my god what a shambles. [...] After three years of constant Brexit Brexit Brexit.

Not to forget yet another contender for Peak Brexit, TM's witless and utterly meaningless reply which the interviewer, predictably, failed to follow up on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo94-Qow8t0

Irish Praetorian

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that they will have to install someone who is relatively neutral. A hard Brexiteer or a hard Remainer would see scores of defections from the Tory party.

I'm not so sure; if you look into the polling within the Tory party's membership, No-Deal commands more than a majority. I suspect that whatever comes of the next few months, the Tory party will be consolidated as the party of no-deal with any Remain representatives ending up deselected or defecting. Of course, how any of this relates to their performance with the general public in an election is anyone's guess.

Spanish Eyes

Obviously the UK comes last, Tories and grandees/beneficiaries of an exit come first.

Are people in the UK blind to this or what. I am sure there are millions who see through it, but what voice do they have at all.

It is just awful to me. But I must not get over invested either. What will be will be I suppose.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The problem with a custom union is that it isn’t out. Many leavers won’t be happy.

Professor Moriarty

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not so sure; if you look into the polling within the Tory party's membership, No-Deal commands more than a majority. I suspect that whatever comes of the next few months, the Tory party will be consolidated as the party of no-deal with any Remain representatives ending up deselected or defecting. Of course, how any of this relates to their performance with the general public in an election is anyone's guess.

Well, a change of PM doesn't necessarily mean a GE. You make a very good point about the membership. However, it's the MPs who decide on the final two candidates so they could, in the interests of party unity, decide on two relatively neutral candidates to put before the membership. If they end up voting, for instance, Boris in as PM, then the party will fragment. It will be the final straw for many remainers including some of the present cabinet.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not so sure; if you look into the polling within the Tory party's membership, No-Deal commands more than a majority. I suspect that whatever comes of the next few months, the Tory party will be consolidated as the party of no-deal with any Remain representatives ending up deselected or defecting. Of course, how any of this relates to their performance with the general public in an election is anyone's guess.

Well thanks to the IG labour are shagged at the next GM.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

The flaws in this strategy would be obvious to a six year old. A deal that nobody wants gets voted through for party political reasons. What could possibly go wrong in its aftermath?

There is the other flaw that they still need to get the DUP on board to pass May's deal.

Kermit.de.frog

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The problem with a custom union is that it isn’t out. Many leavers won’t be happy.

It makes the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Far worse than either leaving fully or being a full member.

The claim the vote was about sovereignty. Accepting alignment with the EU and having absolutely no say is about as far as a country can go to losing it's sovereignty.

Makes no sense at all.

marno21

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The problem with a custom union is that it isn’t out. Many leavers won’t be happy.

The referendum was not whether Britain should remain in or leave the Customs Union, it was whether they should remain in or leave the European Union. Leaving the EU but remaining in the CU satisfies the "will of the people".

There is no consensus amongst leave voters so no matter which course is taken there will be some unhappy. The only scenario backed by a clear majority of people is Remain, rather than the very heterogeneous range of options that were simplified down to "Leave".

Kermit.de.frog

marno21 wrote: »

The referendum was not whether Britain should remain in or leave the Customs Union, it was whether they should remain in or leave the European Union. Leaving the EU but remaining in the CU satisfies the "will of the people".

There is no consensus amongst leave voters so no matter which course is taken there will be some unhappy. The only scenario backed by a clear majority of people is Remain, rather than the very heterogeneous range of options that were simplified down to "Leave".

I don't think the people voted for the EU to make the rules and the UK having no say.

They most certainly did not vote for that state of affairs.

Franz Von Peppercorn

marno21 wrote: »

The referendum was not whether Britain should remain in or leave the Customs Union, it was whether they should remain in or leave the European Union. Leaving the EU but remaining in the CU satisfies the "will of the people".

There is no consensus amongst leave voters so no matter which course is taken there will be some unhappy. The only scenario backed by a clear majority of people is Remain, rather than the very heterogeneous range of options that were simplified down to "Leave".

I’m not a leaver but people who voted leave probably meant leave fully. As Kermit says the customs union is basically in.

They didn’t necessarily want no deal either, mostly when you leave an organisation you would get a deal but the customs union is going to annoy most of them.

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think the people voted for the EU to make the rules and the UK having no say.

They most certainly did not vote for that state of affairs.

In reality, no one who voted Leave knew exactly what they were voting for. There was no published plans for what Leave actually meant when it came to the Customs Union or indeed any of the other elements of any future UK/EU relationship.

I don't think it's right to say that the 52% voted in favour of the Brexit that Jacob Rees-Mogg fantasises about in the shower every morning. Nor did the 52% all agree that a Norway type option was the best path for the UK to take.

marno21

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m not a leaver but people who voted leave probably meant leave fully. As Kermit says the customs union is basically in.

They didn’t necessarily want no deal either, mostly when you leave an organisation you would get a deal but the customs union is going to annoy most of them.

I agree with you - but what I was pointing out is that it wasn't made clear whether Leave meant remaining/leaving the Customs Union also. Some people who voted Leave may not be too happy with their vote if it involves economic damage to their way of life as a result of tariffs etc. Something they were never fully briefed on pre-Brexit.

gaffergamgee

Long time lurker here coming out of cover as we approach the End of Days. Can I just thank everyone here for their contributions to what has become the most informative and addictive thread I’ve ever followed...cogent and educated argument, the occasional mild flurry of handbags, the invasion and expulsion of trolls, and the rising amazement bordering on horror at the unravelling of the British political system. A special shout out to the magnificent Peregrinus, whose learned, lucid and drily witty posts are worth waking up early for. (My only quibble with Peregrinus is when he prefaces his/her erudite and educational posts with ‘as we all know...’ to which my mental response is ‘Yes, well...hmmmm...’). Also a shout out to ancapailldorcha (whom I increasingly think of as the John Bercow of the thread) for strong and decisive moderation in what has to be an extremely thankless job. So far I’ve refrained from commenting as my interest and knowledge has been in the humanities rather than economics or politics and there are many here with far more knowledge in these fields than I do. I don’t think even in our wildest dreams we expected GB to flirt so openly with a no-deal Brexit and the consequent disaster it could visit on us...the feeling has gone from that of watching a grisly car-crash from a safe vantage point, to that of watching the sinking of the Titanic from one of the lifeboats...knowing you could get caught in the undertow as it goes down, and knowing there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. It’s just no use expecting any logic in this business. I have some British friends who are remainers and they feel angry and disenfranchised. I have a Scottish friend who works between here and the UK and he tells me he’s astounded at how some of his friends, otherwise rational and intelligent people, have become rabidly pro-Brexit. Like I said, no logic...I feel like I’m in a bloody episode of the X-Files, or that Star Trek mirror universe where everything is angry, aggressive and visceral. I can only hope that this thread will keep shaping some sort of order from from the chaos and for this, I thank you...carry on...

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It makes the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Far worse than either leaving fully or being a full member.

The claim the vote was about sovereignty. Accepting alignment with the EU and having absolutely no say is about as far as a country can go to losing it's sovereignty.

Makes no sense at all.

Is Turkey a vassal state of the EU? Have the Turks lost their sovereignty? I don't think this kind of language has much use in modern discourse, the EU does not have vassals, it has trading partners that choose to align with the EU because it is the biggest single market in the world. That choice by the EU's partners is one of economic self interest, not subjection.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is Turkey a vassal state of the EU? Have the Turks lost their sovereignty? I don't think this kind of language has much use in modern discourse, the EU does not have vassals, it has trading partners that choose to align with the EU because it is the biggest single market in the world. That choice by the EU's partners is one of economic self interest, not subjection.

Right, but...

The U.K. population has been sold a litany of grievances about Brussels and trade for generations- bendy Bananas and laws against chocolate and so on. The average leaver might see this as a betrayal. But nobody knows what people wanted, of course.

It’s the best option I think, but not sure if it will sell.

Imreoir2

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Right, but...

The U.K. population has been sold a litany of grievances about Brussels and trade for generations- bendy Bananas and laws against chocolate and so on. The average leaver might see this as a betrayal. But nobody knows what people wanted, of course.

It’s the best option I think, but not sure if it will sell.

I'm not entirely sure why we in the EU would care if some brexiters get their feelngs hurt because their Brexit is not as Brexit as they want it to Brexit.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why we in the EU would care if some brexiters get their feelngs hurt because their Brexit is not as Brexit as they want it to Brexit.

I’m not sure why you brought “we in the EU” into a discussion about what U.K. leave voters want, or not.

The assumption here, in the last few posts, seems to be that the EU would agree to the customs union or any other proposal voted on by parliament next week, and I’m also making that assumption. Maybe not.

Franz Von Peppercorn

By the way, were I the EU I’d say WA or no deal.

That’s generally how negotiatons work.

The WA isn’t just May’s deal it’s actually the EU’s deal. That should be it.

fash

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think the people voted for the EU to make the rules and the UK having no say.

They most certainly did not vote for that state of affairs.

We won't know unless they are specifically asked that question.

If you want speculation, the UK voted to have all of the benefits and none of the obligations, an amazing deal, to have £350 million going to the NHS and to have its cake and eat it - put that way, the thing the UK voted for was remain.

Peregrinus

gaffergamgee wrote: »

. . . My only quibble with Peregrinus is when he prefaces his/her erudite and educational posts with ‘as we all know...’ to which my mental response is ‘Yes, well...hmmmm...’

As we all know, when I introduce a statement with "As we all know . . .", it's because we all know it.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think the people voted for the EU to make the rules and the UK having no say.

They most certainly did not vote for that state of affairs.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m not a leaver but people who voted leave probably meant leave fully. As Kermit says the customs union is basically in.

They didn’t necessarily want no deal either, mostly when you leave an organisation you would get a deal but the customs union is going to annoy most of them.

Honestly, we don't know what people voted for. The Leave campaigns offered every possible kind of leave and projected every possible attractive consequence of leave, and it's impossible to know which promises and projections actually motivated Leave votes. (Though it's reasonable to guess that different Leave voters were motivated by different promises and projections to different degrees.)

I certainly don't think we can assume that all or nearly all Leave voters would oppose being in a customs union. In the first place, the Leave campaign barely mentioned the Customs Union as such, so it's hard to argue that Leave voters were particularly actuated by concerns about, or an aversion towards, the customs union. Secondly, a strong theme of the Leave campaign was the notion that the UK joined a Common Market in 1973; that it had since transmuted into a sinister political project without approval or buy-in from the British people; and the Leaving the EU was a route back to the kind of co-operative economic partnership with other European countries that the UK chose. But of course a customs union was part of that co-operative economic partnership right from the get-go. As David Davis said:

David Davis wrote:

"The primary aim is clear – to get as close as possible to the trading alliance, the common market we all voted for in 1975… My preference would be that we should remain within the customs union."

This, of course, is not what David Davis says now. But it used to be a mainstream Leaver position, and it's absurd to suggest that no Leave voter ever shared it.

The bottom line is that (a) no particular model of Brexit was specified on the ballot paper, while (b) every possible model of Brexit was offered to voters by the Leave campaigns (along with a few impossible ones). The result of this is that while there is a general mandate to pursue Brexit, there is no specific mandate to pursue any particular model of Brexit in priority to other models, and almost certainly every feasible model of Brexit is rejected by a majority of voters - the Remain voters, plus those Leave voters who think "that's not the Brexit I voted for".

Hence the present mess.