Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is it is wrong to be claiming there is a mandate for No Deal when there is an agreed deal on the table. Totally disingenuous and wrong to do that.

There isn't a clear mandate for anything, which of course is the U.K's biggest problem at the moment.

Seth Brundle

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

The reality is that the British public did not make an informed choice.
There were no details on what would happen upon leaving before the vote and three years later, there still are few details.
There was no mandate for a deal or a no deal scenario. People were given a binary choice and told that everythign would be great if they left.
The referendum was corrupted by both political incompetence and to an extent some political scheming e.g. Aaron Banks.
The campaign manipulated the public through various online campaigns partially funded by dubious sources.
Coupled with a biased media, the people were never actually told the truth on the possible outcome of the referendum. They were not told that Art 50 was the timer and they needed to have a plan in place before the expiry date.
The electorate weren't told that they would lose all the benefits of EU membership because they generally weren't told of those benefits - like the roaming charges, the Westminster politicians took credit for all the wins provided by the EU.
British politics is rotten to the core and the apathy by the public is allowing it to fester.

So yes, the Brits do not have a mandate for a deal. Nor is there a mandate against a deal. There is a vaccuum where people can claim what they want pretty much unchallenged!

setanta1000

mikep wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that...with Cummings on board every trick in the book will be used to get them out by the 31st if possible..

I'm wondering is the plan to make Bojo and co. look like the hardest brexiteers in order to win a snap election in a few weeks, dump the DUP and revert to the NI only backstop when suddenly it will become a non issue, according to them, as they will soon do a great deal with the EU therefore no need to worry....

For what it's worth I think this is exactly what B Johnson and Cummings are planning - they would gladly sell the DUP down the river if it gets "England" out of the EU - their problem is the Scots and the arithmetic of getting a majority without Arlene and her Band of Merry Men

Inquitus

setanta1000 wrote: »

For what it's worth I think this is exactly what B Johnson and Cummings are planning - they would gladly sell the DUP down the river if it gets "England" out of the EU - their problem is the Scots and the arithmetic of getting a majority without Arlene and her Band of Merry Men

Well that was the same problem for May she would have sold out the DUP if she could have, instead she had a disastrous election and had to give her soul and £1bn to them!

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see no deal mentioned anywhere here.

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

VinLieger

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

Indeed but its because they are absolute novices at conducting referenda also this was only an advisor referendum so unlike ours there wasn't the requirement for strict legal text that would be applied in the case of it passing

Call me Al

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1156127793840869376

Neale Richmond rightly nailing this.

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

VinLieger

Call me Al wrote: »

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

Absolutely pointless to do so now, its out there and available for everyone to see in various ways. How do the parties still not have competent and technically proficient social media advisors?

Sam Russell

In the last 5 years GBP has gone from $1.69 to $1.21, that is over a 30% fall in value.

Against the Euro, in the last four years it has gone from €1 = 70p to €1 = 91.5p, that is a fall of about 25%.

Those are massive numbers. They should have joined the Euro after the crash. To prop up the GBP over the last few years, they had to introduce higher interest rates.

KildareP

Call me Al wrote: »

And Timmy Dooley appears to have deleted his tweet. A bit late now.

I'd say his phone must have gone into meltdown, both with the response in his original tweet and then the amount of times he was tagged in responses to Micheál Martin's clarification. Not to mention the amount of calls I'm sure he was getting!!!

They ran a piece on it on the News at One on RTÉ Radio 1 where they commented they had attempted to contact Dooley a number of times but he was not responding to them.

Christy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Absolutely pointless to do so now, its out there and available for everyone to see in various ways. How do the parties still not have competent and technically proficient social media advisors?

Imagine it is a way of saying he no longer holds this position (because he has been told not to but still) without having to announce it directly.

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

What's gone nearly completely uncommented on is the terrifying precedent the referendum sets.

Let's assume that the whole thing was played out fairly, ie there were no malign foreign influences involved. Ok. Now what we're left with is the fact that the government tried to address a split in its party by kicking the issue to the electorate who then proceeded to kick it right back.

There was a legitimate reason to hold the 1975 referendum though it was called for the same reason, to allay the growing schism in the Labour party. However, both parties supported EEC membership and the decision to call a referendum was not made lightly.

The concern now is that future governments will kick complicated issues to the electorate in order to protect themselves. The country is divided and I'm a tad worried that any future government with a tiny majority might be tempted to use this option.

Strazdas

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed but its because they are absolute novices at conducting referenda also this was only an advisor referendum so unlike ours there wasn't the requirement for strict legal text that would be applied in the case of it passing

Yes, the UK is going to hell in a handcart over an advisory referendum and a ballot paper which could have been written by an 11 year old in primary school.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's gone nearly completely uncommented on is the terrifying precedent the referendum sets.

Let's assume that the whole thing was played out fairly, ie there were no malign foreign influences involved. Ok. Now what we're left with is the fact that the government tried to address a split in its party by kicking the issue to the electorate who then proceeded to kick it right back.

There was a legitimate reason to hold the 1975 referendum though it was called for the same reason, to allay the growing schism in the Labour party. However, both parties supported EEC membership and the decision to call a referendum was not made lightly.

The concern now is that future governments will kick complicated issues to the electorate in order to protect themselves. The country is divided and I'm a tad worried that any future government with a tiny majority might be tempted to use this option.

Though there is the counter argument that the UK will never hold a national referendum on any subject ever again, so discredited has the 2016 example been.

Robert McGrath

This might be a stupid question, but is the WA divorce bill designated in € or GBP?

Nate--IRL--

There is no number agreed - just a method of calculation - any number you see is an estimate. The payment will be due in Euros though.

Nate

FrancieBrady

Robert McGrath wrote: »

This might be a stupid question, but is the WA divorce bill designated in € or GBP?

It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

FreudianSlippers

Strazdas wrote: »

Unbelievably, the ballot paper didn't even clarify what 'the European Union' actually was. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the larger Single Market and Customs Union?

Quite shocking to conduct a referendum in this fashion

European Union has been "defined" since Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and 2009 when enacted.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

European Union has been "defined" since Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and 2009 when enacted.

I think the point is how the EU was defined on the ballot. Or, rather wasn't defined, ie should the UK leave all of the EU's institutions or try and pick and choose a favorable and acceptable combination. Just another lesson in why kicking complex questions to the electorate is an incredibly bad idea.

Quin_Dub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

Bit cynical

It should really be called the Withdrawal Proposal (WP) though rather than Withdrawal Agreement. Although it was signed by Theresa May and her team, an agreement between the UK and the EU based on the proposal was never concluded. Such an agreement would have required a vote of the UK Parliament which was not forthcoming.

VinLieger

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

Fully expect this logic to start being used by them in the next day or two

J Mysterio

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

Getting more expensive I would have thought.

The commitments would presumably be in Euro, and as the pound is becoming weaker against the Euro, less bang for the buck.

Robert McGrath

J Mysterio wrote: »

Getting more expensive I would have thought.

Only if the amount is fixed in € rather than GBP - that was actually why I asked the question. Google doesn’t give a straightforward answer

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

What is farcical about Sterling tumbling is that the main concern across the media is that holidays will be a little more expensive. Deckchairs, Titanic.

ancapailldorcha

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Only if the amount is fixed in € rather than GBP - that was actually why I asked the question. Google doesn’t give a straightforward answer

I tried looking as well. If I were involved on the EU's side, I'd be insisting on Euros.

seraphimvc

i come here to ask did anyone watch that John Oliver's video on Boris Johnson? That is a good video damn. I am not a fan of John Oliver but the video caught my attention when my mates in london ask me to if i could watch it on youtube - apparently the video is banned/not accessible in England.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's gone nearly completely uncommented on is the terrifying precedent the referendum sets.

Let's assume that the whole thing was played out fairly, ie there were no malign foreign influences involved. Ok. Now what we're left with is the fact that the government tried to address a split in its party by kicking the issue to the electorate who then proceeded to kick it right back.

There was a legitimate reason to hold the 1975 referendum though it was called for the same reason, to allay the growing schism in the Labour party. However, both parties supported EEC membership and the decision to call a referendum was not made lightly.

The concern now is that future governments will kick complicated issues to the electorate in order to protect themselves. The country is divided and I'm a tad worried that any future government with a tiny majority might be tempted to use this option.

The brexit referendum produced the least democratic outcome if you look at it now in 2019. Literally 49% of the population need to obey the will of 51% of the other population. This is not how democracy works - public referendum can never be fair (not like this anyway).

We are in the era of populism and if thats what the people want then so be it.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is farcical about Sterling tumbling is that the main concern across the media is that holidays will be a little more expensive. Deckchairs, Titanic.

TBH its probably the only way for the average brit to in anyway understand why its a bad thing, especially due to the time of year. Just telling them imports will be more expensive simply wont register with them as they seem unable and in some cases refuse to connect the dots when things are explained to them due to how unengaged they insist on being with anything outside their little englander bubble

Ultimate Seduction

Funny reading this thread and on Twitter.

The same people who say brexit will be devastating for Ireland, are praying and hoping that it's a hard brexit with terrible consequences.

MrMusician18

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

It won't. It's denominated in euro.

The UK loans to Ireland were dominated in Sterling so those are getting cheaper for us.