Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

May's idea of compromise seems to be to ask the other side to do it while she watches.

Nicola Sturgeon and Keir Starmer don't particularly like it.

Enzokk

cml387 wrote: »

Ahem...polling figures quoted further up the thread support Redwood's view.

Here is an explanation on what the YouGov poll data means from the Director of Political Research at YouGov. If this is not the poll you are referring to I apologize and would ask you to please link the poll you assert shows the public prefers no deal. As you will see one of these questions does indeed seem to show that people prefer no-deal, however if you read the question that is asked of them then you should know this is not the case and John Redwood knows this but he is knowingly lying for his own purposes.

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1113764312110260229

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1113764628721483776

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1113764969173213184

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1113765377186594816

So according to the poll done by YouGov 50% of people think it will be a bad outcome. An astonishing 25% thinks it is a good outcome, a further 13% see it as acceptable. That is not a majority, right?

Then, we see people don't believe the warnings. Another question on what outcome they prefer, no deal again has 26% support. A new referendum and staying in the EU is on 37%, so again no-deal is not the majority, right?

Lastly the question was asked what is the preferred outcome on the 12th April and only then is where no-deal has a majority of support when compared to the other options. No-deal on 40% vs 36% remain and if extension is not an option then 44% against 42% on no-deal vs remain.

If you want to argue that the one question has a majority for no-deal and ignore the other questions, so be it but this is not true as to what he is saying.


As for other news, seems like there was some funny business at the HoC at the last votes. This is serious and I believe the person should be named and shamed for trying this.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1113559209352867840


As for the PM, her definition of compromise is very different than what many people would consider it.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1114205813005062145

Seems like she thinks compromise is you ask the other side what they are prepared to compromise on and then not talk about her own compromises.

briany

May's attitude reminds me of an old joke -

A man and his wife wanted a pet, but couldn't agree on what to get. The man wanted a dog, but his wife wanted a cat. They argued a while and came to a compromise... They got a cat.

May's either gone slightly insane, or party politics is just clouding her judgement far too much. I'll give her some credit and think the latter. She asked for more time so as to come to a deal with Labour, and then offered them absolutely nothing. It's like some desperate gambler trying to pay off his creditors by betting his last 20 on a 500/1 shot.

robindch

Enzokk wrote: »

As for the talks between Labour and May, it has not gone well.

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1114197896470118400

“We urge the PM to come forward with genuine changes to her deal in an effort to find an alternative that can win support in Parliament...”

Typical narcissist negotiation style - Labour offering nothing while claiming it's the Torys' responsibility to offer things. While the Tories continue to offer nothing, and they'll accept nothing which Labour offers which conflicts with their own red lines which are so plentiful that there's no ZOPA (zone of potential agreement) to start with.

FWIW, I've been tied up in negotiations with people with, IMHO, narcissistic personality disorder over the last while and I have to say that joint activities of Labour, UKGov Executive (Downing Street Tories) and UKGov Legislature (Parliamentary Tories generally) are distressingly familiar.

The only rational outcome is that Labour offers to whip the Parliamentary Labour Party to vote for the WA, possibly on condition that the WA is approved by a confirmatory referendum (either against no-deal or remain). But that would require Labour to offer something and, being narcissists, I'm having a hard time believing they'd be able to make any rational offer. In such a case, no-deal is the most likely outcome

Alternatively, if the HoC reasserts control of the process over the heads of the Tory and Labour executives, then the most likely outcome switches to WA approval, subject to a confirmatory referendum - an outcome the EU can work with.

That latter would happen only if the HoC contains a lower percentage of narcissists than the Tory and Labour executives and that's just not something I'm sure about - though the indicative votes are pointing in the right direction.

MrFresh

How can only 35% believe food and medicine shortages are realistic when the government and companies are actually stockpiling already?

listermint

MrFresh wrote: »

How can only 35% believe food and medicine shortages are realistic when the government and companies are actually stockpiling already?

None are more blind than those who choose to not see.




Theres a reason for such analogies. Humans aren't doing anything new.

briany

listermint wrote: »

None are more blind than those who choose to not see.




Theres a reason for such analogies. Humans aren't doing anything new.

I agree that being wilfully ignorant is not a new thing, but what does feel new is that there's no longer anyone with the authority to say which group or groups is doing it. You say to a Brexiteer that there's none so blind as those will not see, and they can say that there's none so deaf as those who will not hear. The judgements are pinged back and forth, and nothing really progresses.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

May's attitude reminds me of an old joke -

A man and his wife wanted a pet, but couldn't agree on what to get. The man wanted a dog, but his wife wanted a cat. They argued a while and came to a compromise... They got a cat.

May's either gone slightly insane, or party politics is just clouding her judgement far too much. I'll give her some credit and think the latter. She asked for more time so as to come to a deal with Labour, and then offered them absolutely nothing. It's like some desperate gambler trying to pay off his creditors by betting his last 20 on a 500/1 shot.

The panel were discussing May on Newsnight and said she was incapable of compromise. She's extremely rigid and either doesn't want to do it or doesn't know how to. She was a quite terrible choice for PM, absolutely disastrous.

Lucy8080

briany wrote: »

May's attitude reminds me of an old joke -

A man and his wife wanted a pet, but couldn't agree on what to get. The man wanted a dog, but his wife wanted a cat. They argued a while and came to a compromise... They got a cat.

May's either gone slightly insane, or party politics is just clouding her judgement far too much. I'll give her some credit and think the latter. She asked for more time so as to come to a deal with Labour, and then offered them absolutely nothing. It's like some desperate gambler trying to pay off his creditors by betting his last 20 on a 500/1 shot.

The Referendum vote came with a booklet that said, in the event of a leave result, the Government of the day would seek to find the best deal available for the U.K. May says this is the best deal available and is asking for support.

May is sticking to her guns on this. I admire her for that.

May is a remainer , a lot of her party are Eurosceptic,but she is honouring the vote and the booklet.

Corbyn is Eurosceptic, but his party are remainers.

Also, if there is ever an enquiry into this whole Leave/Remain political drama, May will come out with clean hands.

A lot of Torys in the last few weeks are questioning themselves over the possibility of being seen as playing party politics over the national interest/vote (in the context of a future inquiry).

It may be why Mays deal is creeping closer and closer to getting over the line.

Snickers Man

Deleted User wrote: »

That was a really, really obtuse thing for him to say. Crazily ignorant in each clause of each sentence. The mind boggles that these people actually have researchers in their paid employment to, well, research these things and yet they can still utter such lamentably benighted "facts".

According to his Wikipedia entry, making public statements that are manifestly and verifiably untrue is a habit of his. On such matters as EU tariffs on Egyptian fruit (there are none), the claim that post-war Marshall Aid went only to Germany and not to Britain (Britain got far MORE than Germany did etc etc

fash

Lucy8080 wrote: »

May is a remainer , a lot of her party are Eurosceptic,but she is honouring the vote and the booklet.

I have great difficulty understanding how anyone can believe she is a "remainer" - given for example her plan B is clearly to go no deal to save the conservatives. She does not care about remain or leave, she only follows the position that is best for her career and in second place (how distant I am not sure), the conservative party. Prior to the brexit referendum, that meant being a half hearted just about remainer. But with the brexit win, that changed.
The only policy objective she clearly had and pursued is a racist xenophobia towards foreigners - that admittedly did come from her heart - everything else is going wherever the wind blows.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Maybe take discussion of the psychic stuff elsewhere please. Thanks.

An Claidheamh

Laois_Man wrote: »

So Barnier and his team are coming to Dublin on Monday for talks with Varadkar, Coveney and Donoghue

So we'll have another round of "the Irish are about to be put in their place" commentary from across the sea!

By the afternoon, Barnier will have castigated Britain or said a few facts, then it will be

"Ireland team up with Euro bullies to bash Britain"

Very interesting perspective on the future of Ireland in the English common law world from Gerard Hogan, the legal academic/judge, in this morning's Irish Times. It's more than a bit odd that when the rest of Europe is using the civil code, the most common legal system on the planet (150 countries versus 80 countries, something which anglocentric types will be shocked to discover), that we are still using the English legal system. How long more will it take to make the shift?

Brexit likely to tear Ireland from common law system

Brexit is likely to “tear” Ireland away from the influence of the common law system and “perhaps even rupture” centuries-long ties between the Irish and English legal systems, a leading Irish judge has said.

Gerard Hogan, who was appointed advocate general of the Court of Justice of the EU last year, warned that there would be “very significant pressure” on the State to become part of a homogenous system of civil law over the next 10-15 years that would be “very difficult, if not impossible, for us to stay out of”.

The former High Court judge said the Irish and English legal systems were joined “almost as an umbilical cord together” but that this would “change fundamentally” after the UK leaves the EU.

“It is like one of these Apollo missions: the mother ship is finally untethered and the big mother ship is moving away and we are almost in the lunar lander somewhere between the Earth and the moon,” he told the EU Bar Association’s annual conference near the Four Courts in Dublin.

This “may not be a terribly comfortable place to be,” he said, and the English courts had yet to come to terms with that or what they would do with their heritage of EU law over four decades.

While the Irish legal system is intellectually prepared for Brexit, if and in whatever form it may occur, its impact over the long term is likely to be considerable, he said.

“Over time we are going to be pulled further and further away and prised away from the English legal system and from that common law heritage,” he said.

System of precedent

Under common law, judges apply legal precedent based on court rulings, and this is followed in Ireland, the UK, the US and Australia.

Civil law, which is followed in most countries – including in member states across the European Union – requires judges to apply legislative decisions to cases under consideration.[/url]

Donald Trump

Interesting article by Robert Fisk on parallels between Brexiteers today and Loyalists in NI in 1970's

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/robert-fisk-lesson-from-history-archbrexiteers-echo-loyalist-zealots-who-fuelled-ulster-terror-37988240.html

I think it shows that a lot of things/mechanisms don't really change, just take different exterior forms

road_high

Is this what a hard Remain looks like?

road_high

Yet another RTE “special” Monday night about Brexit. So the same rubbish will be repeated for the 200th time with absolutely zero conclusions or outcome as no one actually knows least of all RTE.

Donald Trump

road_high wrote: »

Yet another RTE “special” Monday night about Brexit. So the same rubbish will be repeated for the 200th time with absolutely zero conclusions or outcome as no one actually knows least of all RTE.

In fairness, they are a national public broadcaster. And not everyone would be reading and researching things on the internet. So all they are doing is keeping people up to date. Even if there are no real "developments" it doesn't mean that they should be just using that time to squeeze in another episode of Fair City.



RTE can't really have any conclusions when the main protagonists in the drama haven't even figured out what they want to ask for themselves!

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

Interesting article by Robert Fisk on parallels between Brexiteers today and Loyalists in NI in 1970's

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/robert-fisk-lesson-from-history-archbrexiteers-echo-loyalist-zealots-who-fuelled-ulster-terror-37988240.html

I think it shows that a lot of things/mechanisms don't really change, just take different exterior forms

I used wonder in school what the point of learning history was. I eventually grew to really enjoy it but Brexit I think is due in part to a significant lack of understanding on the public's part of the nature the nature of the UK's place in both the EU and the world that a good education in history would provide a solid foundation knowledge and understanding of.

looksee

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/06/uk/europe-brexit-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html

The glorious irony of CNN discussing the fact that the UK's electoral system needs to be torn up and start again. He's not wrong, but surely one of the few western voting systems worse than the UK's is the US's!

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I used wonder in school what the point of learning history was. I eventually grew to really enjoy it but Brexit I think is due in part to a significant lack of understanding on the public's part of the nature the nature of the UK's place in both the EU and the world that a good education in history would provide a solid foundation knowledge and understanding of.

In transition year, I had classes in EU institutions and how it all works. Was that just my school, or was it a national thing?

The UK would have greatly benefited from something like that.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

In transition year, I had classes in EU institutions and how it all works. Was that just my school, or was it a national thing?

The UK would have greatly benefited from something like that.

I did a subject called CSPE at school. Civil, Social & Political Education. Didn't appreciate it in hindsight but it should have been a core subject. People should know how the government is structured, how the President/Monarch works and their powers, a bit about the courts, etc...

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Very interesting perspective on the future of Ireland in the English common law world from Gerard Hogan, the legal academic/judge, in this morning's Irish Times. It's more than a bit odd that when the rest of Europe is using the civil code, the most common legal system on the planet (150 countries versus 80 countries, something which anglocentric types will be shocked to discover), that we are still using the English legal system. How long more will it take to make the shift?

Brexit likely to tear Ireland from common law system

Brexit is likely to “tear” Ireland away from the influence of the common law system and “perhaps even rupture” centuries-long ties between the Irish and English legal systems, a leading Irish judge has said.

Gerard Hogan, who was appointed advocate general of the Court of Justice of the EU last year, warned that there would be “very significant pressure” on the State to become part of a homogenous system of civil law over the next 10-15 years that would be “very difficult, if not impossible, for us to stay out of”.

The former High Court judge said the Irish and English legal systems were joined “almost as an umbilical cord together” but that this would “change fundamentally” after the UK leaves the EU.

“It is like one of these Apollo missions: the mother ship is finally untethered and the big mother ship is moving away and we are almost in the lunar lander somewhere between the Earth and the moon,” he told the EU Bar Association’s annual conference near the Four Courts in Dublin.

This “may not be a terribly comfortable place to be,” he said, and the English courts had yet to come to terms with that or what they would do with their heritage of EU law over four decades.

While the Irish legal system is intellectually prepared for Brexit, if and in whatever form it may occur, its impact over the long term is likely to be considerable, he said.

“Over time we are going to be pulled further and further away and prised away from the English legal system and from that common law heritage,” he said.

System of precedent

Under common law, judges apply legal precedent based on court rulings, and this is followed in Ireland, the UK, the US and Australia.

Civil law, which is followed in most countries – including in member states across the European Union – requires judges to apply legislative decisions to cases under consideration.[/url]

Not everything british is bad, the common law system is fine. Losing it would be a loss.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did a subject called CSPE at school. Civil, Social & Political Education. Didn't appreciate it in hindsight but it should have been a core subject. People should know how the government is structured, how the President/Monarch works and their powers, a bit about the courts, etc...

There are things I'd put higher on the list, namely personal finance, but yeah, it should all be covered.

trashcan

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Not everything british is bad, the common law system is fine. Losing it would be a loss.

I don't see why we should lost the common law system. I'd be very surprised if we ditched it, and on what basis would we come under pressure to do so ? We come under the CJEU and the ECtHR so that should be enough.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I used wonder in school what the point of learning history was. I eventually grew to really enjoy it but Brexit I think is due in part to a significant lack of understanding on the public's part of the nature the nature of the UK's place in both the EU and the world that a good education in history would provide a solid foundation knowledge and understanding of.

The trouble with history is that it is written by the victor.

For example, Chamberlain is vilified for his 'Peace in our time' appeasement with Hitler but what is not appreciated is that if Britain had gone to war with Germany in Sept 1938 instead of Sept 1939, they may well have suffered defeat. The extra year for war preparations did help - after all, the Battle of Britain was nearly lost. Churchill on the other hand is considered (by some) to be a war hero although we know a different side of his story which cost us a civil war.

History needs to be studied - but also understood.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Interesting article by Robert Fisk on parallels between Brexiteers today and Loyalists in NI in 1970's

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/robert-fisk-lesson-from-history-archbrexiteers-echo-loyalist-zealots-who-fuelled-ulster-terror-37988240.html

I think it shows that a lot of things/mechanisms don't really change, just take different exterior forms

Anybody know why they rubbed out the faces of the people standing on each side of Farage in that photo?

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I used wonder in school what the point of learning history was. I eventually grew to really enjoy it but Brexit I think is due in part to a significant lack of understanding on the public's part of the nature the nature of the UK's place in both the EU and the world that a good education in history would provide a solid foundation knowledge and understanding of.

I would argue that history, or at least the English 'God save the Queen' view of it is actually at the core of the problem.

Part of it is due to the incomplete nature of the education (UK good) but I would think that a large portion of the blame for Brexit is a fixation on history rather than an appreciation of the present and the future.

The world has changed and with it UK position in it. Heck 40 years ago China was hardly mentioned now it vying up US.

IMO many in the UK, including depressingly a large portion of their politicians, do not seem to accept that are looking for a return to a world and system no longer there.

Sam Russell

trashcan wrote: »

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Not everything british is bad, the common law system is fine. Losing it would be a loss.

I don't see why we should lost the common law system. I'd be very surprised if we ditched it, and on what basis would we come under pressure to do so ? We come under the CJEU and the ECtHR so that should be enough.

The problem with common law is it is driven by precedent which can be not a good thing. Looking back just thirty years, our society has changed beyond recognition, so why should the legal system be driven by the decisions made over a century ago?

Igotadose

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with common law is it is driven by precedent which can be not a good thing. Looking back just thirty years, our society has changed beyond recognition, so why should the legal system be driven by the decisions made over a century ago?

This is a very interesting side-discussion to have, not sure it belongs here.

No-one is ever happy with their system of law, because of perceived injustices. Not sure civil law is any better in that regard. Irish law does seem to be very lenient, whereas US law isn't, both based on UK common law, so it seems like the precedents derive from the society (duh!). Basing everything on civil law would be a huge shift like the article says and not sure the end result would be any kind of legal utopia. Dropping your system of law out of spite because the UK leaves the EU is silly. Better to fix what's in your system of law.