Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

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.

10000maniacs

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Todays indicative votes are just an exercise in damage limitation for the parliamentarians.
When they are out campaigning in the next election, they can say Brexit wasn't my fault, I tried to stop it. Look at how I voted in the indicative votes on the 27th of March. A cynical and pointless exercise. Nobody in Labour or the Tories are blameless.

lawred2

El Weirdo wrote: »

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

the vast majority were utter pretenders but transparently and rather pathetically so

FrancieBrady

What time do the rearranging the chairs on the Titanic proceedings start in the HOC?

It will be entertaining TV but utterly pointless by the looks of things.

Inquitus

Interesting summary of the amendments

https://twitter.com/yorker129_7/status/1110838280428404736

Sam Russell

lawred2 wrote: »

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 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?

Because of the red lines, the WA had to cope with the three issues outlined from the start.

If the UK had said from the start that the NI border would be frictionless in all circumstances, even a no deal scenario, then that would have been a non-issue. The EU citizen's rights was another issue that could have been settled early on. The existing liabilities also could have been accepted, but was fought on, again, unnecessarily.

All in all, the WA had to be a legally strong belt and braces document. The four freedoms had to be the cornerstone of any FTA that had frictionless borders.

nice_guy80

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1110836447626645504

that is fantastic

Inquitus

List of the amendments that Bercow will choose from:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1110849386957991937

https://twitter.com/yorker129_7/status/1110838280428404736

An Ciarraioch

A significant development, as Labour whips for Kyle/Wilson:

http://twitter.com/Peston/status/1110873375495372800

awec

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A significant development, as Labour whips for Kyle/Wilson:

http://twitter.com/Peston/status/1110873375495372800

Three line whip for confirmatory vote.

Not really sure why, surely whipping on indicative votes just undermines the whole point of it.

Inquitus

awec wrote: »

Three line whip for confirmatory vote.

Aye but if the Tories whip as well, then its not an indicative vote, its a rerun of this amendment on the same lines as it failed last time.

Eod100

So indicative votes will take place today so presumably MV3 will be tomorrow? House still not sitting on Friday apparently. And still needs to be a vote to pass date change of 12th April I think? Talk about last minute..

Laois_Man

Meanwhile the DUP are promoting the virtues of Malthouse Compromise Plan A

ShooterSF

The wording of that indicitave vote for a confirmatory vote by the people doesn't mention what alternative would be put to them. If they reject the deal do the parliament come up with a new deal, do they cancel brexit all together, do they leave but without a deal.

Surely dangerous whipping for something that the govt could manipulate due to similar ambiguity as the initial referendum

FrancieBrady

Donald Tusk's comments this AM about not abandoning those who have clearly indicated the wish to remain, very pointedly tells me that they will only accept another referendum as 'progress' if another extension is to be granted.

Does this mean crashing out is still very much on the cards?

VinLieger

Ive been doing okay keeping track of this mess until now but todays effectively battleroyale of indicative votes is just too much.

I will still deffinitely enjoy watching the insanity unfold later though

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Donald Tusk's comments this AM about not abandoning those who have clearly indicated the wish to remain, very pointedly tells me that they will only accept another referendum as 'progress' if another extension is to be granted.

Does this mean crashing out is still very much on the cards?

In theory yes but in practice, no. There is a huge majority on parliament that will bring the government down if it's seen to be facilitating No Deal. Also, a huge majority of the public don't want No Deal either.