Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Shelga

AllForIt wrote: »

Emotive but wrong.

Of course the general UK public weren't able to articulate every nook and cranny about what it means on a practical level to leave the EU, but they did know there would be consequences, economic ones etc.

They on balance even not knowing the full implications voted to leave and accepted the implications even unknown for what they wanted.

How can anyone know the full implications. Even the politicians don't and argue these things to death every day.

I don't believe for a second that if there was a second ref that the result would be any different. I think you may get an even higher turnout but I think the result would be the same.

I am not arguing for Brexit. It is a mistake imo. What I have a problem with is the arguments ppl make about the ppl who voted to leave.

If the British ppl would prefer to make their own laws that aren't influenced by being part of the EU, I think that's a perfectly valid position to take. So I don't think those that voted to leave were completely unaware of the negative consequence of doing so, but thought on balance that it is what they would prefer and any problems they might experience as a result of leaving could be sorted out in time.

There’s some validity in what you say, but how many Leave voters really care that much about those things to have Brexit cripple the UK’s political system for the next 5-10 years? Destroying any potential progress on the NHS, schools and jobs in the process.

MrFresh

AllForIt wrote: »

Emotive but wrong.

Of course the general UK public weren't able to articulate every nook and cranny about what it means on a practical level to leave the EU, but they did know there would be consequences, economic ones etc.

They on balance even not knowing the full implications voted to leave and accepted the implications even unknown for what they wanted.

How can anyone know the full implications. Even the politicians don't and argue these things to death every day.

I don't believe for a second that if there was a second ref that the result would be any different. I think you may get an even higher turnout but I think the result would be the same.

I am not arguing for Brexit. It is a mistake imo. What I have a problem with is the arguments ppl make about the ppl who voted to leave.

If the British ppl would prefer to make their own laws that aren't influenced by being part of the EU, I think that's a perfectly valid position to take. So I don't think those that voted to leave were completely unaware of the negative consequence of doing so, but thought on balance that it is what they would prefer and any problems they might experience as a result of leaving could be sorted out in time.

Leaving aside the illegal acts and the blatant lies told by the Brexit campaign, the fact remains that the leave vote is very split between the different kinds of Brexit and some would now rather remain than leave under the options available.

Zubeneschamali

MrFresh wrote: »

some would now rather remain than leave under the options available.

I think I even saw Farage say he would rather Remain than take Mays deal.

LuckyLloyd

Meanwhile, four more people were stabbed to death in England last week, a continued shocking consequence of austerity, cuts in essential services and the essential war on the poor. The Tories will do anything to avoid a general election right now, including a disorderly Brexit.

McGiver

JRM on LBC talking right now, 1 April 2019. Still regurgitating the "I would like to leave with no deal" notion - must be an April fools' prank? He is trying hard to justify why he supported MV3 while before he had said that MV1/MV2 was a "vote for slavery". A huge hypocrite he is, charlatan and a criminal.

A politician intentionally wishing to cause their country a significant disruption to people's, government's and business' life, causing significant unemployment, increase in inequality, drop of living standards and loss of GDP higher than the Global Financial Crisis is outright traitorous and should be tried at court. The fact that these kind of people continue to appear on TV, radio shows and write in newspapers mostly unchallenged is alarming. Kudos to James O'Brien who has recently started playing recordings of old statements from various people (Davis, Raab, JRM) and comparing then with recent statements showing their hypocrisy, stupidity, incompetence and/or an outright malice.

And funnily enough, a caller talking to JRM is saying that "MPs who oppose no deal or Brexit itself should have their pay since the last election taken away from them". You know because they didn't do what the corrupt, colluded, illegal, advisory referendum advised them to do with a very narrow margin.

Enzokk

And reason number 1 million on why the backstop is needed and why we are right to push for it even if it means we get a border,

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1112619959295885312

Because it will most likely happen in any case if we give in to the UK demands as all they need is someone taking over from the weakest PM in history and imposing their will on the cabinet.

Leroy42

It was posted earlier that some 13 ministers in the cabinet wanted to leave with no deal.

Given that they would have access to the reports, given that they would have been provided with ample forecasting by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and given that they must know that many of the stuff promised in the Ref (350m pw to NHS etc) are not deliverable, what could be driving these politicians to this end?

That is about 50% of the cabinet, who in possession of all the facts still favour the hardest Brexit. Is it any wonder, therefore, that roughly the same level of non politicians would have the same outlook?

Spook_ie

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder how many of the ringleaders on the Brexit at any cost side are on the Russian payroll, directly or indirectly.

If the idea was to create discontent, you could also ask how many remainers are on the payroll too, after all if you want to divide a country then why not play both sides of the table?

Spook_ie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meanwhile, four more people were stabbed to death in England last week, a continued shocking consequence of austerity, cuts in essential services and the essential war on the poor. The Tories will do anything to avoid a general election right now, including a disorderly Brexit.

Well it's more likely to be May's fault again

Theresa May, as home secretary, led efforts to drive down the number of stops, but there's anecdotal evidence from police that young people are now more inclined to carry knives because of growing confidence they won't be stopped.

And probably a degree of the race card being involved or played

From 2009, the number of stops fell sharply across England and Wales, especially in London, primarily because of concerns that the measures unfairly targeted young black men, wasted police resources and were ineffective at catching criminals.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was posted earlier that some 13 ministers in the cabinet wanted to leave with no deal.

Given that they would have access to the reports, given that they would have been provided with ample forecasting by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and given that they must know that many of the stuff promised in the Ref (350m pw to NHS etc) are not deliverable, what could be driving these politicians to this end?

That is about 50% of the cabinet, who in possession of all the facts still favour the hardest Brexit. Is it any wonder, therefore, that roughly the same level of non politicians would have the same outlook?

I dunno. I wonder if it's a bit like the Brexit referendum where their argument was mostly self-serving rhetoric as they tried to advance their profiles. I would imagine that quite a few would not want No Deal in reality.

Balanadan

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1112107188821082113

I think we've all come across people like this. It's hard to see how they're going to repair the divisions.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think I even saw Farage say he would rather Remain than take Mays deal.

Yeah, EVERYONE hates that deal. It pleases nobody except for the Brexiters who are willing to compromise like Fox and Gove. The second the UK acquiesced to the EU's negotiating timeline, that was it. They should have agreed a consensus negotiation position, particularly in relation to the Irish border and then triggered Article 50 but May decided on yet another attempt to placate the right wing of her party. When she goes, it will have meant Europe claiming the scalp of a fourth consecutive Conservative Prime Minister.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meanwhile, four more people were stabbed to death in England last week, a continued shocking consequence of austerity, cuts in essential services and the essential war on the poor. The Tories will do anything to avoid a general election right now, including a disorderly Brexit.

What would they even run on in a GE? They have nothing save for bungling Brexit.

briany

McGiver wrote: »

JRM on LBC talking right now, 1 April 2019. Still regurgitating the "I would like to leave with no deal" notion - must be an April fools' prank? He is trying hard to justify why he supported MV3 while before he had said that MV1/MV2 was a "vote for slavery". A huge hypocrite he is, charlatan and a criminal.

I do not agree with Mogg's approach to Brexit, but he can easily draw a line through his reasoning. He can still say he hates May's deal, but that he hates it less than a certain alternative.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yeah, EVERYONE hates that deal. It pleases nobody except for the Brexiters who are willing to compromise like Fox and Gove. The second the UK acquiesced to the EU's negotiating timeline, that was it.

That would always happen anyway; the 2 year limit was designed with that in mind and EU blocked any attempts (and there were multiple) to start negotiations before the A50 letter was submitted for that very reason.

They should have agreed a consensus negotiation position, particularly in relation to the Irish border and then triggered Article 50 but May decided on yet another attempt to placate the right wing of her party.

Honestly and without sarcasm here but why? We know what the position would be; magical drones and technology because no one in the UK bothered to think longer than what they wanted assuming EU would roll over and bark on command. The problem is not that they agreed a particular position but rather then complete lack of any sort of competence in negotiation thinking EU will do what ever UK asks. Had they spent even a week thinking what EU would potentially say they would not have bothered to pull the A50 notice because they would know anything they got would be worse than what they had now. The problem is not a unified position; the problem is the contempt and lack of understanding in the leadership team in the first place that's the root cause here.

joe40

Larbre34 wrote: »

They don't even know what are and aren't 'their own laws', i.e. what is under the competence of Westminster and what is under the competence of Brussels. Even if a harder brexit were to come about, it will shock many leavers the laws that do not change because they are necessary for a big economy of the modern world. I wonder has it occured to many either, that large scale immigration to Britain from southern Asia has never had anything to with the EU

That reality is the fault of decades of UK govts who failed to sell the EU benefits or at very least explain its function, ironic considering Britain was a lead architect of economic union in the 80s and 90s.

A row which typifies the whole thing was broadcast on Channel 4 news one evening last week:

Two guys protesting for either side on the street outside Westminster -

A. We want our democracy back, take back control from the EU commission!!

B. We elect our own Government, the Governments of the EU decide who the Commissioners from their country will be and send them to Brussels.

A. Rubbish!! You're project fear mate, go and move to Brussels then!!

Clearly it has gone beyond people caring whether they are right or wrong, investing the time to learn about the facts, they just see trigger symbols or hear trigger words and attack.

Why is only in Britain that there seem to be this narrative that they have to obey EU rules, like they were being governed by a foreign power.
Germas, French, Irish, Belgians..... we all obey the same rules.

Maybe the same level of discontent about the EU exists in other countries and I'm simply not hearing it.

The question is never posed by the British press, but if EU membership is so harmful why are other countries, including big economies like France and Germany not trying to leave. Everyone is subject to the same conditions even moreso than Britain.

Enzokk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well it's more likely to be May's fault again



And probably a degree of the race card being involved or played

Sure, those did play a part, but the biggest problem is the cuts to the police budgets which meant less officers on the street and less community officers as well. Those are vital as they are able to get the trust of the community by being there all the time and talking to leaders and establishing a rapport. This is not only for knife crime but terrorism as well.

She was warned and she didn't care or she isn't imaginative enough to see the consequences. She is a disaster and unfortunately she is our disaster now as she is in charge of Brexit.

No link between knife crime and police cuts, says Theresa May

Theresa May has dismissed claims that an increase in police numbers will help solve knife crime, insisting there is “no direct correlation” between the two.

Speaking after a spate of knife violence, the prime minister said she would tackle the root causes of the crisis. However, as police officers and politicians called for more help to deal with the problem, May said it was not a question of resources.

There was “no direct correlation between certain crimes and police numbers”, the former home secretary said. “What matters is how we ensure that police are responding to these criminal acts when they take place, that people are brought to justice.”

This is reminiscent of Boris Johnson claiming that cutting the number of firefighters actually makes it safer, because cutting numbers of firefighters doesn't matter if you reduce the incidence of fire. I wasn't aware that fires were sentient and if they knew you were increasing the coverage that the fire brigade has that they will go into hiding.

Just to highlight one more quote from the article of knife crime, this sums it up really and May doesn't seem to want to understand,

May’s remarks will frustrate critics who say cuts to police and youth services are a key factor in knife crime. The Metropolitan police said they could not “magic officers out of thin air” to tackle the problem.

EKRIUQ

Balanadan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1112107188821082113

I think we've all come across people like this. It's hard to see how they're going to repair the divisions.

It would be impossible to even have a discussion with these people they will never change their mind and they only want one brexit, they will never listen to facts and then fall back to we won 2 world wars.

Nody

joe40 wrote: »

The question is never posed by the British press, but if EU membership is so harmful why are other countries, including big economies like France and Germany not trying to leave. Everyone is subject to the same conditions even moreso than Britain.

Because zee Germans along with those cowardly French frogs are all ruling over Britannia as they got their asses kicked (Germany) and saved (France) in WW2 and this is their revenge on the noble nation of Britannia. Those smaller nations are simply boot licking fan boys trying to ride the coattail to humiliate UK further by refusing to side with them.

Much more selling narrative then the fact 96% of all EU decisions went UK's way for the last decade and UK was a driver in many of the major policies implemented. Because in the first narrative you can blame the foreigner (which is always a welcome escape goat no matter the class of the reader to explain why things are not as good as they should be) while the second one would force people to told their own people accountable. Much easier to blame foreigners instead of having to educate the population after all.

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Honestly and without sarcasm here but why? We know what the position would be; magical drones and technology because no one in the UK bothered to think longer than what they wanted assuming EU would roll over and bark on command. The problem is not that they agreed a particular position but rather then complete lack of any sort of competence in negotiation thinking EU will do what ever UK asks. Had they spent even a week thinking what EU would potentially say they would not have bothered to pull the A50 notice because they would know anything they got would be worse than what they had now. The problem is not a unified position; the problem is the contempt and lack of understanding in the leadership team in the first place that's the root cause here.

Because it would have kept us in the EU until there was a consensus position. Now we have an Omnishambles in Parliament because the Tory party is still negotiating with itself. If A50 was triggered later, a compromise that might be viable in the Commons could have been reached.

It would also have forced the likes of Rees-Mogg who dream of crashing out to come up with something solid instead of sniping from the sidelines and contribute absolutely nothing.

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

I do not agree with Mogg's approach to Brexit, but he can easily draw a line through his reasoning. He can still say he hates May's deal, but that he hates it less than a certain alternative.

That's is very true, but he is asked how they would have ended up in a different place?

What has TM, and the rest of the cabinet, three different Brexit ministers, done wrong that would deliver something notably different?

They are great at claiming that things could have been different, without ever putting forward how that would be achieved. Do carry out with his line of argument, he thinks that TM has done a terrible job, a job that will lead to the UK being 'slave's' to the EU for at least 2 years. Yet only a few months ago he voted confidence in the government.

How would be get around the problem of the Irish backstop, apart from magical thinking? He knows the EU won't accept that, so what is the alternative and how come TM won't accept that alternative?

His line of thinking is very easy to understand. He has given up all pretence that Brexit will actually be the success that he, and many others, claimed it would be, and instead if accepting the reality that things will be worse outside the EU than inside yet they have created another monster to fear that is the cause of all of this, TM.

Before the Ref it was all the EU fault, now it lies with TM. So lets get rid of TM and that will sort it out.

Zubeneschamali

joe40 wrote: »

Why is only in Britain that there seem to be this narrative

The UK press has been inventing this narrative for 30 years.

Leroy42

One must also consider that the cabinet is totally split on this. TM has no authority and has already handed in her resignation, she will be gone either shortly at at the latest by 2022.

The governing party is split, the HoC is split and the country as a whole is split.

Yet the EU are supposed to give extensions based on that? The only sane way forward is that the UK accepts they made a collective mess of the whole thing, revoke A50 with a view to having a full, open and nationwide debate. An independent commission is required to be set up (I think Benn committee seemed to do quite well so maybe something like that).

Maybe call it a 3 year extension (so as to avoid having to revoke A50 and the public outrage that will cause), where everything stays at it currently is. UK remains a full member, partakes in EU elections, pays into the EU budget and plays a full and active role. During this time the UK continues on with its internal dialogue about the EU and tries, through a series of ref's, to come to some sort of consensus.

Accept that there are issues such as the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights that need to be resolved. Accept that no matter what deal they get things will be harder than they currently are. Accept that stopping FoM means issues for those living overseas and will result in more Non-Eu immigration (not a problem in of itself, but something to consider).

mayordenis

Balanadan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1112107188821082113

I think we've all come across people like this. It's hard to see how they're going to repair the divisions.

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

briany

mayordenis wrote: »

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

There's something unsettling about that. You'd think someone spouting two contradictory positions within seconds of each other is a spoofer or a moron, but there could be another layer to it - saying everything without really saying anything and frustrating your opponent into throwing their hands up and walking away. The verbal equivalent of a smokescreen. The documentarian Adam Curtis did a brilliant bit about the emergence of a new type of political 'theatre' where contradictions are flung about, and no-one knows what's real, and that leads to apathy and political disengagement.

You'd think that the solution would be just to pin such blusterers down on the facts, but if the blusterers supporters are not interested in facts, what good does it do?

josip

Leroy42 wrote: »

...UK remains a full member, partakes in EU elections, pays into the EU budget and plays a full and active role..

My problem with this is that the UK's role within, and impact on, the EU is toxic and malignant.
Even more so since they invoked article 50.
It's best that they leave.

Tacitus Kilgore

mayordenis wrote: »

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

That guy mentions imports, exports & "the war" a few times, what war is he on about? A currently non-existent trade war?

Don't get me started on the "We SavEd EuRopE iN tHe Waaaaarrrmaaaate" guy...


It's really quite concerning how fast the revolt against intelligence, knowledge and fact is spreading worldwide, being pushed along by & carrying with it - political extremism (both left and right)


The longer this goes on the risk of this fascist crap spreading here and across the EU seems to be getting higher and higher, what with JRM snuggling up with the AFD, and a LOT of British folk sharing same drivel on social media at the moment.

The extreme left also hates the EU, so there's no really noisy opposition to anything that promotes the end game for each viewpoint.

ancapailldorcha

josip wrote: »

My problem with this is that the UK's role within, and impact on, the EU is toxic and malignant.
Even more so since they invoked article 50.
It's best that they leave.

So the people that voted to stay, those who've realised the folly of their decision, EU migrants here, Irish farmers and exporters and those who couldn't vote should just be thrown under the bus?

LuckyLloyd

Excellent Chatham House panel discussion from Friday here:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/file/state-brexit-brexit-day#

No talking over or arguing, just people from different spectrums offering their own takes on the issues around Brexit. Excellent questions from the audience too with almost no grandstanding.

In terms of a new takeaway, the idea that a permanent customs union will solve the matter seems incredibly incorrect and economically illiterate. Also that “No Deal” being a destination or permanent state is massively wrongheaded too: new negotiations would commence within weeks in that scenario.

Sir Ivan Rogers yet again comes across really well, though an anecdote he shares about 44 mins in around the perception of Swiss negotatiators on dealing with the EU betrays why he will never hold office himself.

Robert McGrath

mayordenis wrote: »

Same guy says:

0:37 We import more from the EU than we export to them so there's a trade deficit.

0:43 We would win the war because we import less.

It's impossible to take to someone like that because they literally are just rambling, changing position every 6 seconds. It's good to be willing to change your thinking on something but being so strident about something while flip-flopping is unmanageable.

I’m not saying he’s right, but the statements aren’t necessarily contradictory. I think he’s saying that at the moment, the UK imports more than it exports to the EU, and that the UK would import less in the future because of a tariff led trade war and that the UK would therefore “win the war”

Leroy42

josip wrote: »

My problem with this is that the UK's role within, and impact on, the EU is toxic and malignant.
Even more so since they invoked article 50.
It's best that they leave.

I totally understand, and agree, with this POV. I was talking about from the UK POV rather than the impact on the EU. The UK really need to call a halt to this, solely because it has been handled terribly. Maybe a stronger PM, a more united party, a more focused HoC, maybe a better Brexit can be achieved. But not right at this minute.

But it takes not only some words, but real actions. The UK would have to admit that there is a significant problem, they would have to agree to a way forward to try to deal with those problems, and agree that it will take time.

None of that is even on the radar in the UK, never mind get done, but it is the only sensible way forward.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So the people that voted to stay, those who've realised the folly of their decision, EU migrants here, Irish farmers and exporters and those who couldn't vote should just be thrown under the bus?

Voters on the losing side of any election/ref get 'thrown under a bus'. Unfortunately, unless the country as a whole stands up for itself then the 'will of the people' does need to be respected. The argument,, of course, is what what 'will' actually means, and it seems to mean everything to everybody.

We saw with Corbyn's election to Labour leader, that grassroots can have a clear impact on the parties. UKIP appear to be doing a similar thing within the Tories (Greive vote last week). So where are all the young people, the people out marching last weekend, the remainers, why have they not joined the Tories and demanded their voice be heard? The Brexiteers are willing to get their hands dirty but the remainers seem intent on marches and posters.