Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

sabat

I think only the absolute dimmest brexiteers like Mark Francois haven't realised what way the wind is blowing and that Mogg et al are prepping themselves for the greatest reverse ferret in British political history. Maybe they have some nefarious plans to undermine the EU from within by getting a bunch of europhobic loonies elected as MEPs but given their delusion and ineptitude, the prospect does not worry me one bit. The very uninformed plebeians they tried to use are now turning on them angrily whereas latent pro-European sentiments have been ignited throughout the rest of the population.

Eod100

sabat wrote: »

I think only the absolute dimmest brexiteers like Mark Francois haven't realised what way the wind is blowing and that Mogg et al are prepping themselves for the greatest reverse ferret in British political history. Maybe they have some nefarious plans to undermine the EU from within by getting a bunch of europhobic loonies elected as MEPs but given their delusion and ineptitude, the prospect does not worry me one bit. The very uninformed plebeians they tried to use are now turning on them angrily whereas latent pro-European sentiments have been ignited throughout the rest of the population.

What do they think will happen come next election though? Although probably won't be til 2022 unless something unusual happens so lot of water will have passed under bridge by then I guess

sabat

Eod100 wrote: »

What do they think will happen come next election though? Although probably won't be til 2022 unless something unusual happens so lot of water will have passed under bridge by then I guess

I think there will be an election within the next few months and that the prospect of either being expelled from the party/deselected or being permanently booted to the political wilderness by vengeful tactical remain voters might have focused their minds.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone's already asked,

If they went for Norway or Swiss type deals there is still the border issue aka backstop, there is no deal that doesn't incur the backstop thus a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU, and before people say they'll throw NI under the bus they didn't with Gibraltar or The Falklands so don't see them doing it on their own doorstep without the requisite referendum

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the Norway plus option, or common market 2.0, is the one that avoids any issue with the backstop by keeping the uk in the customs union and single market. Whether it gets the necessary support in parliament is another matter.

Couple of thoughts:

1. There’s no deal that doesn’t prevent the backstop in this sense: All the options that are being debated now are about the long-term relationship. (Customs Union? Single Market? Norway? Switzerland?) But no option for the long-term relationship is going to be locked in for some years; at this point the UK is merely trying to decide what long-term relationship it will aspire to and negotiate towards. Until it’s locked in to a treaty it’s not locked in. So the Withdrawal Agreement will have to contain a backstop (a) to deal with the situation that will prevail until the long-term treaty is negotiated, signed and ratified, and (b) to deal with the possiblity that the long-term treaty might not, in the event, contain what the UK decides now it would like to target.

2. Yes, targetting Customs Union + Single Market, say, might take a lot of heat out of the backstop, since the backstop would then only be committing the UK to doing things it wants to do, or at any rate things it says it wants to do. But it would still be there, and it would still be a commitment, and the UK would still be committed to it before the rest of the desired long-term relationship was locked in.

3. But this doesn’t mean that no-deal is inevitable. Spook frames this as “a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU”. But of course this particular framing of the issue was cooked up by ultra-Brexiteers as a way of opposing the backstop, and so May’s deal. If Parliament is minded to accept May’s deal, that means they don’t buy the absurd DUP/ERG notion that the backstop amounts to “selling off a part of the UK” or that it’s a “constitutional crisis”. It’s neither of these things; this is a complete beat-up. And in accepting the backstop parliament would not be throwing Northern Ireland under a bus; it would be accepting an option which enjoys wide support in Northern Ireland, and is politically and economically beneficial for Northern Ireland. (And, surprise, surprise, these two facts are not unconnected.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But no option for the long-term relationship is going to be locked in for some years; at this point the UK is merely trying to decide what long-term relationship it will aspire to and negotiate towards. Until it’s locked in to a treaty it’s not locked in. So the Withdrawal Agreement will have to contain a backstop (a) to deal with the situation that will prevail until the long-term treaty is negotiated, signed and ratified, and (b) to deal with the possiblity that the long-term treaty might not, in the event, contain what the UK decides now it would like to target.

I agree with your (b), the backstop is needed just in case (what if Boris is leader after the next election and before the Future Agreement is ratified, for example).

But in your (a), I think that when the Future Relationship is not ratified at the end of the Transitional Period it will be a practical necessity that the Transitional Period gets extended.

They are hardly going to crash out to WTO terms with all the associated mayhem and then, 6 months later, agree to join the Single Market or whatever. After the utter failure of May's My Deal or No Deal brinksmanship, I really hope they have learned not to threaten to injure themselves in this fashion as leverage again.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree with your (b), the backstop is needed just in case (what if Boris is leader after the next election and before the Future Agreement is ratified, for example).

But in your (a), I think that when the Future Relationship is not ratified at the end of the Transitional Period it will be a practical necessity that the Transitional Period gets extended.

They are hardly going to crash out to WTO terms with all the associated mayhem and then, 6 months later, agree to join the Single Market or whatever. After the utter failure of May's My Deal or No Deal brinksmanship, I really hope they have learned not to threaten to injure themselves in this fashion as leverage again.

The transitional period can be extended once only, and for a maximum of 1 or 2 years. It's entirely possible that the long-term relationship won't be nailed down by then.

I agree, they won't crash out - probably move to some interim or provisional arrangement based on the long-term relationship towards which they are still negotiating. And we'll want the backstop to kick in at that point, in case the interim/provisional arrangement doesn't include everything needed to keep teh border open. That magic technology could prove elusive, you know!

Enzokk

I have been critical of Labour but you can see they have taken steps to protect themselves if there is a general election soon. They had probably taken notice of the polls that if Labour were complicit in the UK leaving with no-deal and most likely even a bad deal their support would disappear. They have now set themselves up as supporting a BRINO deal, which if they want to respect the referendum result and cause the least harm is the best option.

They are putting their manifesto out there in the case of a new election. You have to ask, what would the Tory manifesto say about the EU and the future. I cannot see a working plan from the Tories that will mean they will not leak votes, either to UKIP or Labour/Libdems for a softer Brexit.

But as with anything Brexit related we seem to have confusion from inside Labour on what they actually support and the Lexit side is still vocal.

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1110814428377874432

And Donald Tusk has tweeted this,

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1110818745474314240

That should be a wake up for a lot of people, the EU is not your enemy but they are you and looking to make the best for all of us. Sadly this will not be what people read.

LuckyLloyd

Headshot wrote: »

If Chuka was the labour leader they would steam roll the next GE. He certainly would be alot higher in ratings than May.

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

Peregrinus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

Russman

Apologies if this has been asked already, but, for the sake of argument, lets say TM somehow gets her deal through without DUP support, will they (the DUP) accept it as being the will of the UK parliament as a whole, in the same manner as they argue the referendum result to leave is for the UK as a whole and it doesn't matter that NI voted remain, or is there much else they can do apart from not supporting the Tories and bring down the government ? I think they're getting dangerously close to that small space between a rock and a hard place.

LuckyLloyd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

I don’t personally think Brexit changes the Overton window for British politics generally. There’s still the same positions on NHS, workers rights, social provision, etc that produced a 40% vote for #forthemanynotthefew. Very easy to lose sight of that - austerity continues with Tory politicians talking about employment stats while more slip into poverty.

Unless Chuka has substantively changed his politics since 2015, he’s not winning an election.

Cryptopagan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

He has also accepted a donation from a city banker who held a senior role at Lehman Bros, and who has given something like £500k to the Tories. Some alternative.

prawnsambo

Here's the ful list of indicative votes that are up for selection today. Some amount of unicorns in there.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

I'm not sure I see any of those getting through today to be honest. Will be another monumental waste of time.

PokeHerKing

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

That seems to be general theme running through this thread amongst the most frequent posters. The UK public were duped, they've come to their senses now, they're all up for remaining now etc etc....

I don't see it personally. Ill believe it if there's another referendum and remain wins with a 10%+ majority. And even that's setting the bar low. Realistically any nation with a bit of cop on at this stage should be returning a 20%+ majority for remain.

Cryptopagan

Russman wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked already, but, for the sake of argument, lets say TM somehow gets her deal through without DUP support, will they (the DUP) accept it as being the will of the UK parliament as a whole, in the same manner as they argue the referendum result to leave is for the UK as a whole and it doesn't matter that NI voted remain, or is there much else they can do apart from not supporting the Tories and bring down the government ? I think they're getting dangerously close to that small space between a rock and a hard place.

Why would they bring down the government? Once the deal has passed parliament, there's nothing they can do about it. By continuing to prop up the Tory government, they may still be able to influence the shape of the future relationship.

Zubeneschamali

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Realistically any nation with a bit of cop on at this stage should be returning a 20%+ majority for remain.

We are approaching a cliff edge here. I would be quite happy with a 50.1% remain vote.


"The Brexiteers will never stop complaining!". That is true of every possible path, including the hardest of hard Brexits. They will never stop, so stopping them is not part of the path ahead.

LuckyLloyd

Cryptopagan wrote: »

He has also accepted a donation from a city banker who held a senior role at Lehman Bros, and who has given something like £500k to the Tories. Some alternative.

Chuka is snake oily to me, he’s a neoliberal at a moment in British politics where people don’t want neoliberalism. He and other MPs within Labour living over a decade in the past are kinda pathetic tbh. They obviously need to lose another election to realise that though!

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

And Donald Tusk has tweeted this,

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1110818745474314240

That should be a wake up for a lot of people, the EU is not your enemy but they are you and looking to make the best for all of us. Sadly this will not be what people read.

Many might read that as evidence that the EU do not want the UK to leave which means they should take the No Deal approach and let them buckle.

It's amazing to have been watching this develop where you get to a point where positions or frames of mind are so entrenched that the more evidence is put in front of someone which is contrary to their position, the more they use that as evidence to support their view rather than change it.

It is similar with Tony Blair in that, given the view many people have on him, no matter how true the facts he states about Brexit are, it is likely that when he speaks, he does more harm than good to the Remain cause because of how he is currently viewed.

54and56

Tell me how wrote: »

Many might read that as evidence that the EU do not want the UK to leave which means they should take the No Deal approach and let them buckle.

It's amazing to have been watching this develop where you get to a point where positions or frames of mind are so entrenched that the more evidence is put in front of someone which is contrary to their position, the more they use that as evidence to support their view rather than change it.

It is similar with Tony Blair in that, given the view many people have on him, no matter how true the facts he states about Brexit are, it is likely that when he speaks, he does more than good to the Remain cause because of how he is currently viewed.

Simple confirmation bias. People see and hear what they are predisposed to seeing and hearing.

Tell me how

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Simple confirmation bias. People see and hear what they are predisposed to seeing and hearing.

I think it is beyond this at this point. The core fanatics always turn to the echo chambers on all sides of an argument but this is when the moderates, or those who previously might have been open to changing their mind on a topic are now violently recoiling from the direction they might have started to lean in.

kunst nugget

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it is beyond this at this point. The core fanatics always turn to the echo chambers on all sides of an argument but this is when the moderates, or those who previously might have been open to changing their mind on a topic are now violently recoiling from the direction they might have started to lean in.

Does this really happen or do people just say it just to absolve themselves from looking like a kunt?

I saw plenty of people on boards using sentences like 'Well, I was going to vote in favour of it but that crowd campaigning for it put me off so now I'm going to vote against it' during the gay marriage and abortion referendums when you knew full well from their contributions that they never had any intention of voting for them in the first place.

lawred2

Independent claiming that there are new hopes of a 'Soft Brexit'

(no need to click) -> https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/new-hopes-of-soft-brexit-as-tory-hardliners-back-down-37955170.html

Now while May's deal is better than a catastrophic crash out - it's still not a 'Soft Brexit' in my eyes

Sam Russell

lawred2 wrote: »

Independent claiming that there are new hopes of a 'Soft Brexit'

(no need to click) -> https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/new-hopes-of-soft-brexit-as-tory-hardliners-back-down-37955170.html

Now while May's deal is better than a catastrophic crash out - it's still not a 'Soft Brexit' in my eyes

Well, the WA is a path to all possible Brexits, because it is only an interim deal. The negotiations follow, and so the WA is not a destination, it is just the end of the beginning.

blanch152

kunst nugget wrote: »

Does this really happen or do people just say it just to absolve themselves from looking like a kunt?

I saw plenty of people on boards using sentences like 'Well, I was going to vote in favour of it but that crowd campaigning for it put me off so now I'm going to vote against it' during the gay marriage and abortion referendums when you knew full well from their contributions that they never had any intention of voting for them in the first place.

I wouldn't put it down to the crowd campaigning for it put me off. Sometimes it takes a proper referendum campaign to make people clear about the issues.

On the gay marriage one, I know people who were against it, but changed their mind based on learning about people affected by it. On the other hand, there were a smaller number who changed the other way when they realised that the marriage change would lead to more adoption by gay parents. I am not saying either were right or wrong to change, but you could argue that "it was the crowd campaigning for it" that caused their minds to change.

Ditto for the abortion referendum where I know a few people who changed their mind.

The numbers were small though - only 2 or 3 in either case - and it is only anecdotal evidence so you may be right about people just saying it.

lawred2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the WA is a path to all possible Brexits, because it is only an interim deal. The negotiations follow, and so the WA is not a destination, it is just the end of the beginning.

well then why were there ever any 'red lines'?

seems to have made the WA a terribly unwieldy beast for little reason at all.. when all the red lines could be introduced during the period within which the WA holds no?

or would that have been seen as bad faith?

Shelga

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the WA is a path to all possible Brexits, because it is only an interim deal. The negotiations follow, and so the WA is not a destination, it is just the end of the beginning.

This is what is unclear- if it’s a path to all possible Brexits, why is everyone so against it? It only covers a 2 year period, and the political declaration can still be changed, right?

prawnsambo

Shelga wrote: »

This is what is unclear- if it’s a path to all possible Brexits, why is everyone so against it? It only covers a 2 year period, and the political declaration can still be changed, right?

It's the stuff in the WA that can't be changed that's exercising minds. The backstop, the divorce bill and even the transition period. All have been portrayed as "keeping us in the EU forever" and "dividing the UK". Which is patently untrue of course. The antipathy to the backstop is pure numbers. If the DUP didn't hold the balance of power it would barely make the front pages. Now that reality is dawning, that there may not be a brexit at all, all those invented problems can vanish like mist in the morning and on we go.

listermint

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Chuka is snake oily to me, he’s a neoliberal at a moment in British politics where people don’t want neoliberalism. He and other MPs within Labour living over a decade in the past are kinda pathetic tbh. They obviously need to lose another election to realise that though!

Tbf. Is not labour anymore. And neither is he neoliberal. He's more of a centerist in a UK devoid of such.

El Weirdo

kunst nugget wrote: »

I saw plenty of people on boards using sentences like 'Well, I was going to vote in favour of it but that crowd campaigning for it put me off so now I'm going to vote against it' during the gay marriage and abortion referendums when you knew full well from their contributions that they never had any intention of voting for them in the first place.

Sure, I saw similar in previous incarnations of this thread.