Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

maynooth_rules

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Cons really hate Corbyn dont they. Hes portrayed as the boogeyman lurking in the undergrowth

Everyone hates him, even a good chunk of Labour supporters. The man has been an absolute disaster. The splinters formed on his arse from sitting on the fence and not backing a second referendum will have a dreadful effect on the Labour Party. He has single handily brought the Lib Dems fully back to life.

Peregrinus

Nitpick upon nitpick: There was no 1603 Act. All that happened is that Elizabeth I of England died, and the crown passed to her nearest relative, her cousin James Stuart, who happened already to be King of Scotland. Therefter the one person was monarch in both countries but they remained, in every way, separate countries - separate parliaments, separate laws, separate courts, separate governments, separate armies, separate currencies, separate taxes, separate treasuries, everything. None of that changed until 1707.

S.M.B.

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Same experience for me. The longer it drags on, the more my friends think No Deal will be ok, or even better than the situation now.

One friend in particular: Vote Brexit > Massive regret > Oh no what have I done > Fuk the EU for making this difficult > Want Brexit again > No Deal will be bad but we might be ok > No Deal sounds good > Want no Deal

ancapailldorcha

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Nobody wants that deal. In that way, Parliament represents the nation. The deal satisfies none of the factions in British politics at the moment. The remainers want to stay in, the liberal leavers might go for it but they are too few in number to count for anything while the ERG and DUP see it as being ideologically impure.

The longer this charade persists, the greater the risk of people getting exasperated to the point where they'll opt for the course of action that will put and end to it, ie no deal. Disappointingly, the appetite and zeal to stay in is still far short of what it will take to convince enough mainstream politicians to revoke article 50.

54and56

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't really a novel idea; it has been floating around on and off ever since it became apparent that the UK couldn't decide what kind of brexit it wanted.

It's open to an obvious objection on democratic grounds; of the three courses of action wihch are realistically deliverable - remain, the WA, no-deal - opinions polls show clearly that "Remain" is far and away the most popular, and is quite likely more popular than the other two put together. So if you exclude it, and offer the people a choice only between the other two, that's clearly a rigged poll, set up to deny the people the option they probably prefer, and force them to endorse one of two less popular options. Apart from being objectionable in principle, it's unlikely in practice to produce any kind of settled consensus. People would not regard a referendum rigged in this way as conferring any real legitimacy.

(It also wouldn't establish what kind of Brexit "the 52%" preferred since, of course, the 48% would have a vote as well.)

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

Such a strategy would work well for the Tories in that it would:-

a) Ensure a "democratic" Brexit was delivered.
b) Avoid a constitutional crisis which proroguing HoC would spark.
c) Avoid a general election which the Tories would be slaughtered in if it occurred prior to this phase of Brexit being accomplished.

The above would completely pull the rug from under Farage and the Brexit Party and give Boris a couple of years post "Brexit" to deliver some populist domestic policies before the next scheduled General Election in May 2022 by which time Farage and the whole "Remain" argument will be a speck in the rear view mirror and the election will all be about rewarding the guy who got the job done when no one else could and keeping that Marxist Corbyn out of #10.

If he plays his cards right Boris could not only deliver Brexit but he could win a Tory majority in 2022 providing a No Deal (if that was the result of the referendum) didn't destroy the economy which of course is a huge risk.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Nitpick upon nitpick: There was no 1603 Act. All that happened is that Elizabeth I of England died, and the crown passed to her nearest relative, her cousin James Stuart, who happened already to be King of Scotland. Therefter the one person was monarch in both countries but they remained, in every way, separate countries - separate parliaments, separate laws, separate courts, separate governments, separate armies, separate currencies, separate taxes, separate treasuries, everything. None of that changed until 1707.

I wasn't around at the time so I am relying on references such as the Wikipedia piece on the 1603 Act of Union but I'm happy to stand corrected.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I wasn't around at the time so I am relying on references such as the Wikipedia piece on the 1603 Act of Union but I'm happy to stand corrected.

Actually, you'r quite right. There was a Union of England and Scotland Act 1603, though it was an Act of the English Parliament only. Basically it appointed commissioners to explore the possibility of uniting the two countries and report back to the (English) Parliament. But the process never went anywhere. The Commissioners never presented a report to Parliament, and it was another century before anything was done to unite the two countries.

robinph

54&56 wrote: »

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

How legitimate would the result be if 48% of the votes cast were spoiled and had remain written across them instead?

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody wants that deal. In that way, Parliament represents the nation. The deal satisfies none of the factions in British politics at the moment. The remainers want to stay in, the liberal leavers might go for it but they are too few in number to count for anything while the ERG and DUP see it as being ideologically impure.

The longer this charade persists, the greater the risk of people getting exasperated to the point where they'll opt for the course of action that will put and end to it, ie no deal. Disappointingly, the appetite and zeal to stay in is still far short of what it will take to convince enough mainstream politicians to revoke article 50.

Except, of course, that a no-deal Brexit won't "put an end to it". All that it will do is move the UK onto the next phase of the process, which involves actually having to make some decisions about the future relationship they would like with the EU. and of course it's their inability to make those decisions that has them in the mess they're in now. No-deal Brexit won't solve that problem; it will just make it impossible to go on deferring it.

After Brexit, the existing range of options - Remain; May's deal; no-deal - are swept away and replaced with a new range - Rejoin; meet the EU's terms for a future relationshiop agreement; forget about a future relationship agreement. Since the EU's objectives and priorities for a FR agreement will the same as for the WA, the first three positions map pretty neatly onto the second three, and the existing paralysed indecision will continue.

Unless events change it, of course. And the obvious event that might change it is the pain, disruption, depression and hardship that will result from living in a no-deal Brexit Britain. Brexiter politicians who have steered the UK towards a no-deal Brexit have presumably thought about this, and so far as I can see their strategy for not paying a heavy political price for this will be some combination of (a) invoking the spirit of the Blitz, and (b) blaming the EU, Ireland, Remainers, the party opposite. But if those strategies don't work you could expect some bleeding of support from the "forget about a FR agreement" camp into the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

As for the Rejoin camp, that will be a long-term objective. But they will also have aspirations for the future relationship (basically, as close as possible) which will give them short-term and medium term goals that align will with the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

So, in the medium term, post-Brexit I'd expect the UK to move towards accepting a FR agreement which includes the elements that have cause them to reject the WA.

Peregrinus

54&56 wrote: »

I could absolutely see a Boris govt coming back empty handed from the EU and railing against intransigence blah blah blah but then saying that rather than force a No Deal through by proroguing HoC he will do the democratic thing and allow the country to choose either No Deal or the WA in a referendum and justify same on the basis that the decision to leave was been made in the 2016 referendum so having remain as an option isn't relevant.

Such a strategy would work well for the Tories in that it would:-

a) Ensure a "democratic" Brexit was delivered.
b) Avoid a constitutional crisis which proroguing HoC would spark.
c) Avoid a general election which the Tories would be slaughtered in if it occurred prior to this phase of Brexit being accomplished.

I think only devout Brexiters would be fooled by this. A referendum which excludes the option known to be the most popular option can't pass itself off as "democratic"; it's the referendum equivalent of an election in a one-party state. And since the devout Brexiters are, at most, 35% of the population, based on the EU and Council election results, this means that the bulk of the population will not buy the notion that this referendum settles the question in a fair or rational way.

54and56

robinph wrote: »

How legitimate would the result be if 48% of the votes cast were spoiled and had remain written across them instead?

You can only count valid votes so yes of course it would create a lot of argument but bottom line is the valid votes would produce a result and that result would then be implemented thus avoiding a general election and IMHO the Tories want to avoid a General Election at all costs (including a flawed referendum) until Brexit is well in the rear view mirror.

bob mcbob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, you'r quite right. There was a Union of England and Scotland Act 1603, though it was an Act of the English Parliament only. Basically it appointed commissioners to explore the possibility of uniting the two countries and report back to the (English) Parliament. But the process never went anywhere. The Commissioners never presented a report to Parliament, and it was another century before anything was done to unite the two countries.

1603 was the Union of the crowns where James VI of Scotland became James I of England (and promptly moved the Scottish court to London). Still separate countries though.

1707 was the union of the parliaments & countries. There was rioting in Edinburgh and other places when the act was passed in Edinburgh. Troops had to be moved into the city to quell them.

J Mysterio

Unbelievable clip here of bumbling Boris talking about the wars and trade with Portugal.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-covered-up-boris-johnson-17269174?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's truly embarrassing.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Unbelievable clip here of bumbling Boris talking about the wars and trade with Portugal.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-covered-up-boris-johnson-17269174?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's truly embarrassing.

It's like a comedy sketch.

farmchoice

not for one second through this whole process did i think no deal was even a remote possibility, that was until this week.
but now its like watching the whole referendum debate again, NO deal is being presented as a thing, an end in its self just like ''brexit'' was.
there is no discussion of what happens after ''no deal'' where do we go from there. the day after a no deal exit the first job of the UK government will to be to get a deal. NOBODY is discussing this, its mental.

ambro25

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward. It worried me greatly.

Considering their voting preference as you report it, allow me to doubt that very seriously.

Noises are, that Boris' ministerial team is meeting and planning, in case of Boris premiership, an emergency budget for no deal Brexit in September, including tax cuts, stamp duty overhaul and a bonfire of regulations.

Might be info, might be intox, but if true, that basically spells a bonanza for carpetbaggers and hyper-austerity for everyone else in t'UK.

After waiting patiently for over 3 years now, for the remain side to get its house and strategy in order, I see that the Himalayan levels of disinformation seen between February and June 2016 are back with a vengeance and that, in aggregate, nothing has bern learned, nor anything useful done, by the UK political class and the UK public. As evidenced, anecdotally, by your friends. I have now lost just about all of my remaining affinities with the 48% (not in view of your post of course, but that simply validates the feeling still more).

Leaver or Remainer alike, they are tomorrow's fair-turned-unfair competition on our doorstep, so best not give any commercial quarters.

54and56

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think only devout Brexiters would be fooled by this. A referendum which excludes the option known to be the most popular option can't pass itself off as "democratic"; it's the referendum equivalent of an election in a one-party state. And since the devout Brexiters are, at most, 35% of the population, based on the EU and Council election results, this means that the bulk of the population will not buy the notion that this referendum settles the question in a fair or rational way.

I disagree.

I can easily see such a referendum being labelled a ”Brexit Implementation" referendum which by default cannot include an option such as remain which doesn't honour the Brexit instruction of the 2016 referendum.

It would be an obtuse argument but one easily defended by Brexiteers.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the process never went anywhere. The Commissioners never presented a report to Parliament, and it was another century before anything was done to unite the two countries.

Sounds like a trial run for Brexit - so we can expect the WA to be finally signed in about another 97 years!

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think only devout Brexiters would be fooled by this. A referendum which excludes the option known to be the most popular option can't pass itself off as "democratic"; it's the referendum equivalent of an election in a one-party state.

While I agree "academically" with what you say, we're only watching the Brexit pantomime because the Tories managed to pass off an ill-thought-out, advisory referendum with dubious outside interference as a legally binding, democratic mandate. There doesn't (yet) seem to be any appetite in the UK for stopping the same thing happening again.

CelticRambler

S.M.B. wrote: »

Had a conversation at the weekend with some British friends here in London and while they are remainers and intelligent guys they said that if they had to vote between Mays deal and No Deal they would vote for the latter. I was pretty shocked that No Deal was an actual legitimate choice going forward.

Genuine question: were they able to explain why they'd opt for no-deal. Did they give you the impression that they understood what it was to be a third country? Would they vote "no deal" so as to provoke a crisis and bring the lukewarm Leavers to their senses, or have they been beaten into an attitude of "enough already, just get on with it" ?

My Remainer friends (all of them proud, true-blue Brits) are still furious and making lifestyle adjustments in view of a future exile.

J Mysterio

A senior ally of Angela Merkel has questioned Boris Johnson's suitability to become prime minister, warning that he cannot be trusted.

Elmar Brok, a senior MEP from the Chancellor's CDU party, said he knew and liked Mr Johnson personally but that he had his doubts about his suitability for high office.

“I have fun with him. We’ve had many cigars and whisky in our lives together,” he said in an interview with parliament's The House magazine.

“As someone who was a journalist here, who was not very often very close to the truth when he was at the Daily Telegraph, when he invented stories – he has not changed."

He added: "It’s fun to talk to him – it’s really fun to talk to him, intellectual fun. But to run a country?”

Mr Johnson was based in Brussels in the late 1990s, where he developed a reputation for inventing stories and exaggerating the truth.

Mr Brok, a German conservative, was the longest serving MEP until he stood down in last month's election. He added that Brexit was a "purely English question", and an "Eton boys' game".

The MEP, who sits in the European Parliament's Brexit committee until next month, however said it would be a "big surprise" if Mr Johnson did not become prime minister.

In the same interview, he predicted that the UK would struggle to thrive as an independent country and would ask to re-join the EU within a decade.

UK Independent

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except, of course, that a no-deal Brexit won't "put an end to it". All that it will do is move the UK onto the next phase of the process, which involves actually having to make some decisions about the future relationship they would like with the EU. and of course it's their inability to make those decisions that has them in the mess they're in now. No-deal Brexit won't solve that problem; it will just make it impossible to go on deferring it.

After Brexit, the existing range of options - Remain; May's deal; no-deal - are swept away and replaced with a new range - Rejoin; meet the EU's terms for a future relationshiop agreement; forget about a future relationship agreement. Since the EU's objectives and priorities for a FR agreement will the same as for the WA, the first three positions map pretty neatly onto the second three, and the existing paralysed indecision will continue.

Unless events change it, of course. And the obvious event that might change it is the pain, disruption, depression and hardship that will result from living in a no-deal Brexit Britain. Brexiter politicians who have steered the UK towards a no-deal Brexit have presumably thought about this, and so far as I can see their strategy for not paying a heavy political price for this will be some combination of (a) invoking the spirit of the Blitz, and (b) blaming the EU, Ireland, Remainers, the party opposite. But if those strategies don't work you could expect some bleeding of support from the "forget about a FR agreement" camp into the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

As for the Rejoin camp, that will be a long-term objective. But they will also have aspirations for the future relationship (basically, as close as possible) which will give them short-term and medium term goals that align will with the "meet the EU terms for a FR agreement" camp.

So, in the medium term, post-Brexit I'd expect the UK to move towards accepting a FR agreement which includes the elements that have cause them to reject the WA.

Of course. All true.

However, this issue is perception. There were people in 2016 who thought that Brexit had already happened and the projected economic catastrophe had been averted. Now we're seeing people think that crashing out is the end of it when it's the beginning.

The UK will have to replicate several EU bodies and, in the short term at least EU regulations and legislation. Then it'll need to get to serious work on trade deals if these can even be signed. In the meantime we're likely to see talent, capital and business leave the country. Whether it'll be a trickle or a flood remains to be seen. I think the civil service has done a good job with preparing for a no deal but it's capacity is limited by the pro-Brexit elite.

What will be interesting to see if nothing else is how far the Brexiters can stretch the strategy of "Fake news", "Liberal Remoaners" and invoking the Blitz as if they were there themselves. The areas that will be hardest hit will likely find that another does of jingoistic, asininie nonsense isn't going to help them very much, nor will project Singapore-on-Thames when Jeremy Corbyn gets round to offering his own semi-populist alternative replete with the same sort of tactics Nigel Farage used to sell Brexit.

trellheim

British-Irish council on at the moment in Manchester's, Leo's going as is Nicola Sturgeon. No May, no Arlene.

( UK represented by Lidington ) . May's in Japan for the G20 but I doubt she would have attended.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What will be interesting to see if nothing else is how far the Brexiters can stretch the strategy of "Fake news", "Liberal Remoaners" and invoking the Blitz as if they were there themselves.

Someone I knew, unfortunately no longer with us, who lived in London during the blitz. Her home was destroyed once. She said that the V1 buzz bombs were very bad, but the V2 was much worse because people on the ground just heard the bang and saw the destruction. She said that if the V2 barrage had continued for much longer (in terms of months), the population of London could not take it. The blitz spirit was in the post war movies, not on the ground

Not many who were not there understand this. There comes a time when any outcome is better than the uncertainty of the now, no matter how much worse that outcome might be.

And I can see the remain voters thinking - 'stop - make it stop - please make it stop - I've already had enough - what ever you want, but only please make it stop'.

They just hear the bang of the fake news hitting the screen, and the interviewer never shouting stop.

Panrich

Sam Russell wrote: »

Someone I knew, unfortunately no longer with us, who lived in London during the blitz. Her home was destroyed once. She said that the V1 buzz bombs were very bad, but the V2 was much worse because people on the ground just heard the bang and saw the destruction. She said that if the V2 barrage had continued for much longer (in terms of months), the population of London could not take it. The blitz spirit was in the post war movies, not on the ground

Not many who were not there understand this. There comes a time when any outcome is better than the uncertainty of the now, no matter how much worse that outcome might be.

And I can see the remain voters thinking - 'stop - make it stop - please make it stop - I've already had enough - what ever you want, but only please make it stop'.

They just hear the bang of the fake news hitting the screen, and the interviewer never shouting stop.

Not being in the UK makes it more difficult for me to gauge but I can’t see the logic in remain voters wanting it to end. I’d be trying to ensure delay in the probably forlorn hope that it will all somehow get reversed before the evil day arrives.

I’d personally be reveling in the delays watching Farage et al getting more wound up by the day.

ancapailldorcha

Panrich wrote: »

Not being in the UK makes it more difficult for me to gauge but I can’t see the logic in remain voters wanting it to end. I’d be trying to ensure delay in the probably forlorn hope that it will all somehow get reversed before the evil day arrives.

I’d personally be reveling in the delays watching Farage et al getting more wound up by the day.

It's not logic, it's exasperation. If you're a foreigner, there's also serious temptation to just give in and head back to where you came from. I work in cancer research and while I haven't seen a huge exodus at my workplace, there has been a slow and steady trickle of Europeans heading back to the continent.

If you're a native Brit and you really care about Remain then chances are you have parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents who voted leave and who'll angrily or arrogantly dismiss your fears and anxieties about leaving since they likely own their own house and can take the hit. So it just becomes easier to accept it and maybe throw a few bob at the likes of Steve Bray and pop down to the People's Vote marches every 6 months.

54and56

trellheim wrote: »

British-Irish council on at the moment in Manchester's, Leo's going as is Nicola Sturgeon. No May, no Arlene.

( UK represented by Lidington ) . May's in Japan for the G20 but I doubt she would have attended.

In fairness deciding between attending the G20 and the British-Irish council isn't even a decision fur May or any other PM.

Why would Arlene be there? She's not First Minister any more is she?

murphaph

J Mysterio wrote: »

Unbelievable clip here of bumbling Boris talking about the wars and trade with Portugal.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-covered-up-boris-johnson-17269174?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's truly embarrassing.

Truly a man educated beyond his intelligence.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/OFOCNI/status/1144301236390432768

Lovely bit of viewing this.

Igotadose

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/OFOCNI/status/1144301236390432768

Lovely bit of viewing this.

Shutting up the Irexit lunatic is extra good in this video. Why they bring those fringe lunatics onto these shows is puzzling - clickbait I suppose.