Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

Igotadose wrote: »

But, come Halloween and no progress in Westminster, do the EU give a 3 year extension? What the EU has done has said, "Your problem, UK." But it's been 3 years, and all we know is, "more or less", the UK don't want to crash out. That's it. Everything else is a maelstrom - yes to the WA/no WA/stay in the EU/etc.

Just seems like nothing's going to change in 7 months+, and come October it'll be the rolling cliff edge yet again.

There really doesn't seem to be a forcing function in place for the UK to do *something.* The fact that Brexit's costing jobs and money has meant nothing to the pols in Parliament. Over the next 7 months, that just gives business more time to move out.

Maybe the real deal is that things stay as they are indefinitely. In 10 years time the U.K. will still be about to leave the E.U. and looking for another 6 months extension etc.

That way, Brexiteers are happy because they have something to complain about, and if the last 3 years have shown us anything, its that that's what Brexit is really about.

Leroy42

Just to be clear on my post, I am not agreeing with Dodds that the EU caved, but it is further 'evidence' to Brexiteers that they will cave, and that it the potential issue with yet another extension, this one with even less conditions than the last one.

IMO, it will only deepen the suspicion that it is TM and her inability to negotiate with the EU that is the problem rather than Brexit itself. So far from coming to a resolution the UK will spend the next few months infighting primarily in the Tory party to replace TM with a real Brexiteer.

The EU will not change the WA, but they helping the UK on course for a crash out.

Professor Moriarty

Interesting point made in the HoC today. Only 35% of people who voted leave thought that would mean leaving the single market and the customs union.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe the real deal is that things stay as they are indefinitely. In 10 years time the U.K. will still be about to leave the E.U. and looking for another 6 months extension etc.

That way, Brexiteers are happy because they have something to complain about, and if the last 3 years have shown us anything, its that that's what Brexit is really about.

That's quite cruel though to businesses and EU migrants both in the UK and the EU.

I think a general election is the most likely scenario now. Labour hopefully win running on a People's Vote platform and then successfully obtain another extension to facilitate the referendum.

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you don't vote all the way to the bottom of your ballot paper (leaving the very last place blank if you like) you are not using your vote to the fullest.

Even then, there is a chance your vote won't count for anyone that gets elected, happened to me in 2007, but it is much less likely than if you stop at 2 or 3.

But go right ahead, since it makes my vote count for more.

Not putting a number against several candidates who you find unpalatable does still count as using your vote though. If your vote gets used in the transferring but you've not put a number against any of the remaining candidates that you don't particularly like then it would become harder for any of them to get over the required threshold to be elected.

Anteayer

robinph wrote: »

The EU haven't caved in at all, they have just come up with the "plan" on behalf of May. The plan admittedly doesn't consist of anything other than hold the EU elections and leave the EU alone for a bit whilst the UK carries on arguing with itself.

All the EU have done is send the UK off to sit in a corner on their own for a bit until they calm down and can think of another idea for how to disentangle themselves from themselves.

I agree. The British tabloid press, as in the people who really run the country, will however try to spin anything as division between EU members and how nasty he EU has been.

All the EU's doing is holding a line and doing so very consistently. Also the backstop issue is one of UK domestic politics where they're basically prepared to undermine a peace agreement in what many would consider a recent war zone. It's unbelievable to many who are very aware of how complicated the Northern Ireland situation is.

Without the DUP sticking their ore into English politics, the backstop probably would never be necessary at all, as Northern Ireland's uniquely delicate situation would be accommodated by both the EU and UK. There was never any issue with the EU granting NI special status, which would have been enormously lucrative for local businesses and would have respected both sides of the argument up there, essentially maintaining the status quo.

But, nope, the DUP had to turn it into a sectarian political football because that's what they do with everything.

What sickens me about this whole process is that despite repeated warnings not to do deals with the DUP, the Tories did just that and this is precisely the kind of situation that everyone warned them they would end up in.

Zubeneschamali

Anteayer wrote: »

He's a huge reason for trying to end this instability and it's not Anglophobia.

Booting the UK out of the EU with no deal does not strike me as an optimal plan if your goal is to end instability.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not an entirely fair comparison thought I'd be lying if I weren't simmering with jealousy. The Swiss are very well accustomed to having regular referenda and so have processes to ensure fair play that I can only dream of for the UK. Given that the structure of Switzerland is 26 cantons, anything less might not be feasible there as you might have the more populous cantons dictating the show.

It's the principle of this whole thing. The courts will not go into looking at the election and interference as it is not binding, yet it is binding in the eyes of the politicians. I fail to see how it cannot be argued that while the referendum as legislated was not binding, the statements of politicians and parties committing to the result would surely mean that is not true?

Obviously I would lose a lot of cases in court, but it does not make the UK look any more stable legally or politically that a situation like this is allowed to happen on either side.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Dodds make a decent point during PMQ's today in regards to the latest extension.

TM was basically told only a few weeks ago that it was 12th April unless a plan was brought to them on how to resolve things.

She has now been granted an even longer extension for achieving the sum total of not much at all.

He says that they caved on the conditions, so time to force them on the backstop.

And that is a major danger of how the EU is handling this whole process. They are giving the impression that they are willing to put up with all sorts of messing because the costs to them are so high. I think this latest extension, since it is clearly a fudge, will come back to bite the EU.

As robinph said, the EU has not caved. They just care more about avoiding no-deal than the politicians in the UK. They could have avoided this by either voting for her deal or actually taking control a lot sooner and trying to come up with a solution. Instead there is games being played when they have voted on what could have a majority in the HoC and where they could find an way forward.

This is also why again the EU is correct in their approach in not giving the UK anything that they could spin in their own way. Had it come out that we have been making plans for no-deal and infrastructure they would have accused us of going back on the GFA. If we have been talking to the EU about keeping the border open with NI in the event of no-deal they would again use that as evidence that they can and should ram through no-deal.

He is not making a decent point, he is just showing that the way the talks has been approached by us and the EU has been correct and we were right not to back down on the backstop.

Anteayer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Booting the UK out of the EU with no deal does not strike me as an optimal plan if your goal is to end instability.

If you read my post (a little further back up the page). I didn't suggest that booting the UK out is a solution, nor did I agree with Macron. I made my view of his approach to politics pretty clear here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109906339&postcount=7781

The majority of EU member countries come from systems of proportional representation parliamentary democracies and are well used to the idea that compromises need to be reached through consensus building.

France, the UK and Spain etc are major exceptions to that, France exceptionally so as it's the only country in the EU that runs a quasi-executive presidency.

Fundamentally, I would suspect that Irish, Belgian, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish etc etc heads of government would have a much better understanding of how to achieve that, as it's what their domestic politics is entirely about. Whereas in France it's very much more like the US, where once a particular party is in power, they're in and to hell with consensus building, they'll ram through their agenda.

For all the talk of 'tiffs' and differences a the European Council - a compromise solution was achieved (Largely driven by Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and a few others btw from what I've heard) within a matter of a few hours and everything worked out fine.

Enzokk

Igotadose wrote: »

But, come Halloween and no progress in Westminster, do the EU give a 3 year extension? What the EU has done has said, "Your problem, UK." But it's been 3 years, and all we know is, "more or less", the UK don't want to crash out. That's it. Everything else is a maelstrom - yes to the WA/no WA/stay in the EU/etc.

Just seems like nothing's going to change in 7 months+, and come October it'll be the rolling cliff edge yet again.

There really doesn't seem to be a forcing function in place for the UK to do *something.* The fact that Brexit's costing jobs and money has meant nothing to the pols in Parliament. Over the next 7 months, that just gives business more time to move out.

Well it does give us and the EU 6 further months to prepare for no-deal and if there is no movement on the UK side in 6 months we have no excuse not to consider calling time on the whole issue, on the basis of not being prepared, if you are still dealing with Theresa May holding MV9 or whatever she will be up to at that time.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to be clear on my post, I am not agreeing with Dodds that the EU caved, but it is further 'evidence' to Brexiteers that they will cave, and that it the potential issue with yet another extension, this one with even less conditions than the last one.

IMO, it will only deepen the suspicion that it is TM and her inability to negotiate with the EU that is the problem rather than Brexit itself. So far from coming to a resolution the UK will spend the next few months infighting primarily in the Tory party to replace TM with a real Brexiteer.

The EU will not change the WA, but they helping the UK on course for a crash out.

Might be that the way forward is to allow in a Brexiteer PM. They will still not be able to get a deal that is more brexity than the current one, they cannot aim for a no-deal exit deliberately as parliament will not allow it, they could aim for an accidental crash out but parliament should be wise to that and be able to stop that as well.

Then after they have failed to deliver the brexit as well we can maybe get parliament to take command and revoke.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to be clear on my post, I am not agreeing with Dodds that the EU caved, but it is further 'evidence' to Brexiteers that they will cave, and that it the potential issue with yet another extension, this one with even less conditions than the last one.

IMO, it will only deepen the suspicion that it is TM and her inability to negotiate with the EU that is the problem rather than Brexit itself. So far from coming to a resolution the UK will spend the next few months infighting primarily in the Tory party to replace TM with a real Brexiteer.

The EU will not change the WA, but they helping the UK on course for a crash out.

It is not worth the EU's while trying to appear good for a lot of Brexiters. Either they are being bullies or caving in each and every case. This seems best for the EU. The UK inside the EU is best for which this does for a while and puts off a hard border for a bit.

The UK won't agree by June so this is either a big extension or risk the crashout in June. Of the options it is the only one that reduces the risk of a crashout. I would have preferred a longer extension but anyway. I am sure it will be extended again until enough of the population is against leaving.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

And that is a major danger of how the EU is handling this whole process. They are giving the impression that they are willing to put up with all sorts of messing because the costs to them are so high.

It is the other way around. They are prepared to put up with delays because the cost of delays is so low. They don't care what Dodds says in Westminster, it costs them nothing.

The UK can spend the next 6 months trying to reopen the WA if they want, the EU will simply say No, and then offer another extension in October, and because No Deal will still be an appalling vista, the UK will have to take it.

Eventually, they will have to make a hard decision - No Deal, take the WA, or cancel Brexit. We now know No Deal has the backing of only about 110 MPs, and either of the other options is cool with the EU.

Anteayer

Well, having the EU fully prepared for a no deal scenario also takes a lot of leverage away from the UK. The more this rolls on, the more that countries like Ireland can be prepared and the more businesses will reorganise themselves to prevent shock.

The UK's biggest leverage has been the threat of self-harm.

Igotadose

Enzokk wrote: »

Well it does give us and the EU 6 further months to prepare for no-deal and if there is no movement on the UK side in 6 months we have no excuse not to consider calling time on the whole issue, on the basis of not being prepared, if you are still dealing with Theresa May holding MV9 or whatever she will be up to at that time.

What do you think the likelihood of an Irish election is, in the next 6 months? Brexit has been the reason there hasn't been one, but plenty's gone on in Ireland that's got people annoyed (Children's Hospital price, endless HSE problems, housing). With 6 months to go before Brexit - assuming the UK actually doesn't do something early, which I think is a fair bet - will we see an Irish election then?

My feeling is we will, but the result won't matter for Brexit. It will matter for Ireland, but whoever ends up in charge won't compromise on the Brexit impacting issues.

Anteayer

Igotadose wrote: »

What do you think the likelihood of an Irish election is, in the next 6 months? Brexit has been the reason there hasn't been one, but plenty's gone on in Ireland that's got people annoyed (Children's Hospital price, endless HSE problems, housing). With 6 months to go before Brexit - assuming the UK actually doesn't do something early, which I think is a fair bet - will we see an Irish election then?

My feeling is we will, but the result won't matter for Brexit. It will matter for Ireland, but whoever ends up in charge won't compromise on the Brexit impacting issues.

I think it's unlikely to be honest, largely because FF is polling unimpressively. From their perspective they're in a good position to rebuild and bide their time, while sill having significant power.

From a Brexit point of view, I can't really see FG or FF making much of a difference to the policy. In fact, I would say the Irish parties are generally on the same page on this, even FG and SF aren't a million miles apart, they just like to shout a each other, but there is a consensus on Brexit here at the moment and I don't see that changing. The line will be held.

My prediction (unless there's some absolute disaster for FG) is that the next general election will be in 2020. I'd be surprised if they go full term though.

I don't really see Brexit either being a factor in it or being impacted by it.
The risk in Ireland would be not having a government in place while a significant Brexit issue might be ongoing. So, I'd rather see things ticking away as is until Brexit is largely put to bed.

I'm not very happy with FG's health and housing policies, but their deep links to the EPP aren't exactly doing us any harm either. They're far better networked than FF.

Zubeneschamali

robinph wrote: »

Not putting a number against several candidates who you find unpalatable does still count as using your vote though. If your vote gets used in the transferring but you've not put a number against any of the remaining candidates that you don't particularly like then it would become harder for any of them to get over the required threshold to be elected.

Nope - if they are looking at your vote for a preference, it means at least one of the candidates you don't like is getting elected. Your preferred candidates higher up your ballot have already been elected or eliminated. You refusing to choose just means you don't get to say which one you dislike least.

There is a complicated and unlikely scenario where your very last preference could help break a tie in favour of the person you like least, so feel free to leave that last spot blank, but otherwise vote all the way down.

Imreoir2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

What, jealous of the Swiss? Who in one referendum voted to ban the construction of new minarets?

Switzerland’s referendum system seems like a dream for cranks and reactionaries to me.

It's a spectrum and the Swiss are at one end of it. I don't think going that far down the road of direct democracy is the best idea, but I would rather be closer to the Swiss end than the British end. Our own system is a lot closer to the Swiss end of the spectrum than the British and I think our politics is the better for it.

The Swiss might benefit from a better gate keeper for what makes it to referendum, leaving it solely in the hands of the people through x number of signatures on a pitition is going to cause some problems, though to be fair it has worked out better than you might expect for the Swiss overall. There is something to be said for making the people take responsiblity for their choices. A big problem in the UK is that the normal political process gives the people no responsibility for their actions, vote blue or red, it is all left to representatives to sort out afterwords. As a result, the people have in large part been donwright childish over Brexit. No atempt to inform themselves about the problems, "just bloody get on with it". I would prefer if we were a little closer to the Swiss than we are, it would be better if the people had some mechanism for triggering a referendum rather than it being controlled solely by the Oireachtas. Though there would need to be some mechansim to veto the crazy/trivial stuff, possibly a referendum comission empowered to assess and chose from proposals.

Enzokk

Igotadose wrote: »

What do you think the likelihood of an Irish election is, in the next 6 months? Brexit has been the reason there hasn't been one, but plenty's gone on in Ireland that's got people annoyed (Children's Hospital price, endless HSE problems, housing). With 6 months to go before Brexit - assuming the UK actually doesn't do something early, which I think is a fair bet - will we see an Irish election then?

My feeling is we will, but the result won't matter for Brexit. It will matter for Ireland, but whoever ends up in charge won't compromise on the Brexit impacting issues.

Not as much as if it was a 12 month delay. That way you could get through the election period and any time after if there is negotiations needed for a coalition or agreement as we have now between FG and FF. There would still be time to get it all done and then get back to Brexit, but only having 6 months mean there is very little time and FF is probably looking at various factors, including the price they will pay for adding more uncertainty of a election along with Brexit in a matter of months and what voters would think about that.

That said you cannot be in partnership with the current government and continually try to hammer them on the day to day running of the country while keeping them in power to continue failing dismally (surely what their words are saying when they criticize).

Anteayer

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's a spectrum and the Swiss are at one end of it. I don't think going that far down the road of direct democracy is the best idea, but I would rather be closer to the Swiss end than the British end. Our own system is a lot closer to the Swiss end of the spectrum than the British and I think our politics is the better for it.

I think Ireland has learnt some quite hard lessons in how to conduct referenda properly. The Swiss quite likely have too, as they'd a few hitches over the years too.
You learn by making those errors, but you can also learn by looking at others' errors and success stories.

Ireland's actually been rather innovative with the development of participative democracy through the use of the Citizens' Assembly process.

I know that there are plenty of people who are highly critical of it and think it's duplicating functions that should be exclusive to the Oireachtas or that it's just a waste of space and time, but it has actually been useful for hammering out issues and it's been looked at as an example for teasing out controversial issues.

If you look at what Macron in France is attempting to do with the Le Grand Débat National, it's very much taking that kind of approach too to try and tease out issues and get them dealt with.

There's a lot various democracies can learn from other experiences and I think the UK could have easily adopted our referendum commission approach and a citizens assembly before they flung out such a vague yet divisive question to the general public and expected them to make a serious decision.

I mean there are system we could also adopt from UK experience too, it's not a one-way street.

Effectively hey let the debate occur in the tabloids and allowed the exclusion of experts and also the EU itself from the debate entirely.

prawnsambo

JRM saying that when people voted to leave, they expected to leave on 29th March 2019. Eh, no Jacob. Some of them expected to leave on 24th June 2016, most didn't expect to leave at all. If one of them expected the 29th March 2019, they need to let me know what the euro millions numbers are tomorrow.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

JRM saying that when people voted to leave, they expected to leave on 29th March 2019. Eh, no Jacob. Some of them expected to leave on 24th June 2016, most didn't expect to leave at all. If one of them expected the 29th March 2019, they need to let me know what the euro millions numbers are tomorrow.

I assume he does realize that the vote was in June 2016 and that Art 50 was triggered on March 2017, and it was the March 2017 that gave the date of the 29th March 2019.

He also said in, I think in 2015, that a second vote would be needed to approve the actual conditions of leaving the EU.

I think he says more than his prayers.

Cryptopagan

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's a spectrum and the Swiss are at one end of it. I don't think going that far down the road of direct democracy is the best idea, but I would rather be closer to the Swiss end than the British end. Our own system is a lot closer to the Swiss end of the spectrum than the British and I think our politics is the better for it.

It’s not like our system at all. We don’t have referendums on policies our government doesn’t want to implement; Switzerland could find its entire relationship with the EU thrown into crisis if Swiss voters ever opt to abolish free movement, a position which enjoys a lot o support there.

aidyhawse

Sam Russell wrote: »

I assume he does realize that the vote was in June 2016 and that Art 50 was triggered on March 2017, and it was the March 2017 that gave the date of the 29th March 2019.

He also said in, I think in 2015, that a second vote would be needed to approve the actual conditions of leaving the EU.

I think he says more than his prayers.

October 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

JRM saying that when people voted to leave, they expected to leave on 29th March 2019. Eh, no Jacob. Some of them expected to leave on 24th June 2016, most didn't expect to leave at all. If one of them expected the 29th March 2019, they need to let me know what the euro millions numbers are tomorrow.

Also, the fact that Parliament halted the UK leaving on March 29th categorically proves that the referendum was only ever advisory. I'm not sure this penny has dropped with Leave voters even in mid April 2019.....the all powerful and sacred referendum result is being shown up as being much weaker than what they were told by that conman Cameron.

RobertKK

LBC is both a great radio station and potentially dangerous...

Last night I was awake it was around 3am, I had a late night...a caller from Cornwall rang up to say Cornwall needs to become an independent country so they can leave the EU and the 17.4 million voters are welcome to move there.
Darren Adam the presenter was in disbelief at the caller.

At the moment there is a caller on the Nigel Farage show comparing remainers who talk to people in charge in the EU to people who helped Nazis in WW2.
Nigel Farage did zero to shutdown this talk.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1116338241081311232

You'd almost feel sorry for Sammy...almost.

RobertKK

The UK is closing down their no deal planning section of the civil service according to Sky news.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1116391388638318597

Infini

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1116338241081311232

You'd almost feel sorry for Sammy...almost.

Karma is a bitch aint it? Also if it see's him put back in his padded room all the better!

lawred2

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1116338241081311232

You'd almost feel sorry for Sammy...almost.

So it looks like some Irish people will eventually end up under the bus... Just not the group of Irish people the DUP expected.