Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Inquitus wrote: »

As it is a process of elimination even running 3 candidates does not impact the ERG's chances of success, as each one is eliminated their votes can move onto the next best ERG option and so on and so forth.

Wait a minute? The Tories use STV? Well I never!

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1109084146440331265


Which of the 7 options is likely to be most favored in the HoC though?

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1109084146440331265


Which of the 7 options is likely to be most favored in the HoC though?

EEA is already Labour policy, and the SNP have voiced support for it in the past, so between them, Tory Remainers and potentially the Lib Dems, there's 350+ MPs who would back it.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And last time, Leadsom (the Leave candidate) was losing badly to May (continuity Remain candidate) when she withdrew, so perhaps the Tory party members are not quite as nutty as they say they are in those polls.

I know others have replied already but the campaign to become PM hadn't even started yet before Leadsom withdrew. The final 2 candidates were known on the 7th July, she made her comments on the 9th July and she withdrew on the 11th July. The result was only expected on the 9th September after a mail in ballot so there was still a lot of time before anyone knew what each candidate stood for. I think there was enough time for either to win or lose the election if Leadsom didn't rush out to do it at the very start line.

I mean we saw how terrible May is at electioneering and I don't think she has suddenly gotten bad at it.

Kermit.de.frog

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

EEA is already Labour policy, and the SNP have voiced support for it in the past, so between them, Tory Remainers and potentially the Lib Dems, there's 350+ MPs who would back it.

But that is not Brexit.

That's being in the single market, accepting all the rules and having zero say in those rules.

From a sovereignty perspective it's infinitely worse than being a full EU member country.

A lot of people would not be happy with that, not just the Brexiters.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But that is not Brexit.

That's being in the single market, accepting all the rules and having zero say in those rules.

From a sovereignty perspective it's infinitely worse than being a full EU member country.

A lot of people would not be happy with that, not just the Brexiters.

This was the question asked,

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

EEA is not membership of the EU and it will have fulfilled on the question asked during the referendum.

PokeHerKing

Shelga wrote:

Because it's not a binary choice, and it should never have been framed as such. What on earth is wrong with going back to the people with a far more detailed choice between Remain and May's deal?

Nothing wrong with going back to the people but in the same breath claiming the online petition could or should be used to revoke is double standards.

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Nothing wrong with going back to the people but in the same breath claiming the online petition could or should be used to revoke is double standards.

Nobody is saying that. All a petition can do is force a debate in Parliament.

Joe_ Public

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1109084146440331265


Which of the 7 options is likely to be most favored in the HoC though?

I thought second ref was a good option when it seemed possible to tag it to the pms deal, not so sure how it goes down isolated on its own. Pm deal and no deal will be bottom two, after that I’d hate to hazard a guess.

Kermit.de.frog

Enzokk wrote: »

This was the question asked,

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

EEA is not membership of the EU and it will have fulfilled on the question asked during the referendum.

It would make the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Simple as that. All the rules, no say.

PokeHerKing

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Nobody is saying that. All a petition can do is force a debate in Parliament.

The person I quoted said exactly that a page or so back. And I'm hearing it from colleagues as well. Hence my annoyance.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would make the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Simple as that. All the rules, no say.

It still doesn't constitute membership and therefore satisfies the mandate issued by the electorate on 23 June 2016 as well as illustrating why said referendum was perhaps the stupidest thing a Western leader has done in living memory.

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

The person I quoted said exactly that a page or so back. And I'm hearing it from colleagues as well. Hence my annoyance.

63 million people here could sign it. Same result. A debate in the House of Commons. Nothing more.

Eod100

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would make the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Simple as that. All the rules, no say.

Isn't UK proposing Norway style arrangement? And promoting their trade with Lichtenstein after Brexit? Both in EEA but not EU. Would it be such an issue if they were in EEA?

PokeHerKing

ancapailldorcha wrote:

63 million people here could sign it. Same result. A debate in the House of Commons. Nothing more.

Im very much aware of this. Which is why I asked for it to stop being posted like it's some silver bullet. It means diddly squat and rightly so.

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It still doesn't constitute membership and therefore satisfies the mandate issued by the electorate on 23 June 2016 as well as illustrating why said referendum was perhaps the stupidest thing a Western leader has done in living memory.

I can see serious social unrest if it comes to pass that the UK is forced to accept all the rules of the EU, have absolutely no say in those rules, unable to organise effectively it's own economic affairs and becomes a vassal state (overnight!).

This is not Norway we are dealing with. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. An important country in world affairs.

They simply won't accept that.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I can see serious social unrest if it comes to pass that the UK is forced to accept all the rules of the EU, have absolutely no say in those rules, unable to organise effectively it's own economic affairs and becomes a vassal state (overnight!).

This is not Norway we are dealing with. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. An important country in world affairs.

They simply won't accept that.

I can see serious social unrest if a no deal trashes the economy. Norway prevents this and simply failing to satisfy the Brexiters' test for purity is nowhere near good enough reason to rule it out. Various leavers advocated this model before the referendum.

Fifth largest economy? How long do you expect that to last? Telling all the foreign talent & capital it isn't welcome will go a long way to undermining that position.

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I can see serious social unrest if it comes to pass that the UK is forced to accept all the rules of the EU, have absolutely no say in those rules, unable to organise effectively it's own economic affairs and becomes a vassal state (overnight!).

I can also see serious social unrest when the UK effectively commits itself to a position of serious economic and other disadvantage when people wake up and realise that Brexit is a gigantic con based on a massive house of cards of lies, deceit and misinformation.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is not Norway we are dealing with. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. An important country in world affairs.

They simply won't accept that.

If they want to get the level of respect that being the 5th largest economy in the world and "an important country in world affairs" then maybe they should start acting like adults.

robinph

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im very much aware of this. Which is why I asked for it to stop being posted like it's some silver bullet. It means diddly squat and rightly so.

Nobody signing the petition is seriously thinking it means that A50 will be revoked because of a click on a website. It does have slightly more effect on things than diddly squat, though only slightly admittedly.

It's been getting mentioned in HoC, stories about it being added to front pages of various news sites, getting people to possibly talk about alternative options and most importantly of all it has got some overtime hours for some IT staff trying to keep the website up and running.

It has zero legal standing other than to make someone in the HoC copy and paste a previous "brexit means brexit" statement into an email to the 3million people next week. But it does get people to notice it and pay a bit more attention. Mostly completely futile, but not totally.

joe40

Enzokk wrote: »

This was the question asked,

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

EEA is not membership of the EU and it will have fulfilled on the question asked during the referendum.

I distinctly remember a debate before the referendum where Nigel Farage was talking about how good Norway's position was. He said something along the lines that no one considers Norway a poor country, so why should the British people fear Brexit.

So many lies were told during the campaign and the same people are still getting away with it.

ancapailldorcha

Prior to entering the EEC in the 1970's, the Conservatives feared that if they didn't they would run the risk of becoming "a Greater Sweden", isolated and irrelevant. Now they won't even be that if they continue on this course.

dresden8

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Good god... I just had a chilling thought. Imagine Farage getting re-elected as an MEP!? I would almost rather have a no-deal Brexit than have to listen to him continuing to pull his nonsense in the EP

Britain will return 73 of his type.

Shelga

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would make the UK a vassal state of the EU.

Simple as that. All the rules, no say.

Serious question though- why do Norway, Switzerland and Iceland think EFTA membership is better than just being in the EU? Are there any advantages to Brexit in name only?

I know it’s a very complex issue and each country’s requirements and desires will differ, but those countries obviously think full EU membership isn’t the way to go either.

Kermit.de.frog

Shelga wrote: »

Serious question though- why do Norway, Switzerland and Iceland think EFTA membership is better than just being in the EU? Are there any advantages to Brexit in name only?

I know it’s a very complex issue and each country’s requirements and desires will differ, but those countries obviously think full EU membership isn’t the way to go either.

Those countries expectations of their own influence in the world are far lower and other economic priorities (oil in the case of Norway, fish in the case of Iceland) are niche and important to them.

UK has far loftier expectations due to it's size (and of course delusions) and I don't believe for a second they would accept taking their rules from Brussels with no say.

prawnsambo

Shelga wrote: »

Serious question though- why do Norway, Switzerland and Iceland think EFTA membership is better than just being in the EU? Are there any advantages to Brexit in name only?

I know it’s a very complex issue and each country’s requirements and desires will differ, but those countries obviously think full EU membership isn’t the way to go either.

Norwegian governments have been in favour of full membership for many iterations. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties are all in favour. The problem is that Norwegian people have rejected the proposition twice by narrow majorities. The latest in 1994 by 52/48.

Eod100

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Good god... I just had a chilling thought. Imagine Farage getting re-elected as an MEP!? I would almost rather have a no-deal Brexit than have to listen to him continuing to pull his nonsense in the EP

There's an irony in him being so anti-EU when it was the only place he could be elected to in his political career..

Eod100

Peak Tusk..

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1109096092786921473

Tacitus Kilgore

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Those countries expectations of their own influence in the world are far lower and other economic priorities (oil in the case of Norway, fish in the case of Iceland) are niche and important to them.

UK has far loftier expectations due to it's size (and of course delusions) and I don't believe for a second they would accept taking their rules from Brussels with no say.

But isn't that what the UK voted for?

They may have aspired for it to be something different, but what brexit is - is 'leaving' the EU but still being bound by it's rules one way or another whether it be as a member of EFTA or as a 3rd country/country in a withdrawal agreement looking to make a trade deal?


The only option that contains any real kind of control over it's relationship with it's neighbors is by being a member of the EU, anything else is lesser.

Joe_ Public

Eod100 wrote: »

Peak Tusk..

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1109096092786921473

Liked the quip he made to one of the British journalists during the press conference. “I think I am more pro-British than you.” Didn’t pick up which paper the reporter was from, but could probably nail it given two guesses.

Water John

Brexiteers describing indicitive votes as a 'national humiliation' and 'ludicrous'.
So asking MPs what they think is best, isn't democratic?

BTW looking at the list of bookies odds, the only name that I see who might work for all is Lidington. Seems to be taking the reins a bit more ATM.

The UK people have struck it lucky with Tusk in the driving seat. He genuinely cares about the country.
It was Sky Reporter Mark Stone, Tusk was replying to.