Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

Headshot wrote: »

https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6082564310001/Brexit-Owen-Jones-brands-BBC-discussion-self-indulgent

He's not wrong discussing the reaction instead of the actual story is a pretty pathetic and self indulgent

prawnsambo

Murph76 wrote: »

So what about the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland? There is no way that they would be able to watch the myriad of streets connecting the two, would they?

No. The last time, roads were blown up, blocked or marked as 'unapproved'. Didn't stop smuggling and all the other illegal crossings by paramilitaries etc.

ToBeFrank123

J Mysterio wrote: »

What facts did you mention?

I'm not sure there is anything worth engaging with here to be honest. You like to use metaphors and such but there is no substance and you didnt address my response to your point on the vote. I'm not sure we will be able to debate in a purposeful manner, but - as I mentioned - it was not a legitimate vote and can't be considered one - would you care to address that point?

That point aside, there are several other issues.

It was actually an advisory (non-binding) referendum which was overly simplistic and did not provide a specific mandate. Yes/No for an extremely complex issue with far reaching implications that weren't sufficiently clear. It certainly did not instruct the government to behave like a clown academy and steer toward a crash out brexit.

The referendum itself was run in an unbelievably cavalier manner: no proper oversight as to the conduct of the respective campaigns and no proper referendum commission providing impartial, factual information. You see, the UK arent used to running referendums, and it shows.

Part of the problem was that barely anyone in the UK even knew what the EU was at the point. Many still don't. There were certainly some vague notions that they outlawed bananas of a particular shape. Theresa May bravely triggered Article 50 in a patriotic flourish... but 'without a sketch of a plan'.

The mandate is bollocks. The far right types have been literally making it up as they go along, becoming progressively more obtuse and obdurate. They are spurred on by some bizarre exceptionalism and a nasty, nationalistic media.

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

J Mysterio

Ok, I'm going to save myself the bother with you I think. I'm not even sure you know what it is you are arguing.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

I think you need to go back to his original post (which I think you misunderstood) and re-read. Essentially what he's saying is that the referendum result stemmed from a notion of brexit which was all things to all people. A 'whatever you're having yourself brexit'. In view of that, no agreement on brexit can ever be reached since no two people (exaggeration, I know) have the same end result in mind. I've often referred to it as Schroedinger's brexit, which remains in the sunny uplands of the mind until it's written down, when it immediately becomes "not the brexit I voted for". Hence no deal. Because at least with no deal, you can continue the illusion that it can be anything you want. Right up to the point of the dreams/reality interface.

The question at the end of this is; should we and the EU try and pander to this impossible dream, or just move on and try and limit the damage.

SeaBreezes

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

I disagree. Jacob has been quoted that they won't have another election as they wouldn't get the same result... hmmm.. doesn't sound like democracy to me.. and what if, they work out more than one deal option, publish them online then run a referendum with the options: stay as is or leave with options a,b or c. Could be done by oct 25th easily. Now THAT would be democracy..

ToBeFrank123

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ok, I'm going to save myself the bother with you I think. I'm not even sure you know what it is you are arguing.

No problem with that. You want to talk about the legitimacy of the referendum result, I don't. Discussing its legitimacy in my view is a waste of time at this stage. Good Luck.

Larbre34

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still engaging in questioning the Referendum Result I see. You might agree or disagree with the result, but the Referendum is done, over, finito.

Its the ultimate waste of time discussing the Referendum result, time I don't intend to waste. The debate has moved on. We are now at the stage of looking at a No Deal Brexit and how it can be avoided.

Crying over the spilled milk that was the election result gets no-one nowhere fast.

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Any chance of its impact being reduced was rejected in the HoC including by the likes of Corbyn who by their actions handed Brexit on a plate to Boris Johnson.

You have no basis for stating all this. I have little basis for offering the opposite, but as of now, all bets are off.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you need to go back to his original post (which I think you misunderstood) and re-read. Essentially what he's saying is that the referendum result stemmed from a notion of brexit which was all things to all people. A 'whatever you're having yourself brexit'. In view of that, no agreement on brexit can ever be reached since no two people (exaggeration, I know) have the same end result in mind. I've often referred to it as Schroedinger's brexit, which remains in the sunny uplands of the mind until it's written down, when it immediately becomes "not the brexit I voted for". Hence no deal. Because at least with no deal, you can continue the illusion that it can be anything you want. Right up to the point of the dreams/reality interface.

The question at the end of this is; should we and the EU try and pander to this impossible dream, or just move on and try and limit the damage.

The British public voted for something that was virtually unimplementable. The thing was doomed to abject failure - it could only have worked if say 80% of Leave voters and politicians were in favour of EEA or EFTA membership.

Instead they voted for a pipedream sold to them by a bunch of liars and shysters. They may as well have voted to make themselves £200k richer (ie. an undeliverable fantasy).

funkey_monkey

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s a dramatic drop for the DUP but expected

https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1168489976805429248?s=21

That was taken during mid August as well. I would expect there to be a slightly bigger drift towards Alliance now.

However, in terms of the 3 seats changing, I would think really only South Belfast can be thought upon as a strongly likely. I'd actually be pretty confident that it will boot out Emma Little-Pengelly.

The problem Alliance have is that they are essentially a 1 person party. Naomi Long is the face of the party. She is now an MEP. Stephen Farry is the next in line, but he is a MLA and the Stormont leader for the party.
They will probably stand Paula Bradshaw again in Belfast South, so I would worry that they do not have sufficiently strong candidates to stand in East Belfast (which they won previously) and South Antrim.

They have also been targeted as siding with Nationalists in relation to flags and parades which will not help them in those constituencies. So I can only see the DUP dropping down to 9.

The interesting thing will be whether the voters will be fed up with the Sinn Fein approach with no representation and split their vote between SF, SDLP and Alliance - possibly giving DUP a sniff as they were only 875 votes behind at previous election (agreed Unionist candidate).

Alliance were 8k behind DUP in 2017

MadYaker

It’s is it not completely hilarious to hear brexiteers saying that UK customs will just wave lorries through? I thought brexit was about retaking control of the borders??

ToBeFrank123

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I disagree. Jacob has been quoted that they won't have another election as they wouldn't get the same result... hmmm.. doesn't sound like democracy to me.. and what if, they work out more than one deal option, publish them online then run a referendum with the options: stay as is or leave with options a,b or c. Could be done by oct 25th easily. Now THAT would be democracy..

This is more fantasy I'm afraid if you think Johnson will do this and you know it. There isn't a hope of a new referendum any time soon.

ToBeFrank123

I always find it funny when someone points out Brexit is about to happen and they are then accused of being a Brexiteer.

Its like pointing out a car crash is about to happen and being accused of causing it.

Really odd.

Its not actually people who say Brexit is about to happen that are at fault. Its the people who bury their head in the sand and deny it can happen that are really at fault. People like our current government who have buried their heads in the sand for way too long. Events have passed them by at this stage.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is more fantasy I'm afraid if you think Johnson will do this and you know it. There isn't a hope of a new referendum any time soon.

Apart from the fact that it would take six months minimum to hold a referendum.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I always find it funny when someone points out Brexit is about to happen and they are then accused of being a Brexiteer.

Its like pointing out a car crash is about to happen and being accused of causing it.

Really odd.

Its not actually people who say Brexit is about to happen that are at fault. Its the people who bury their head in the sand and deny it can happen that are really at fault. People like our current government who have buried their heads in the sand for way too long. Events have passed them by at this stage.

What a strange and completely inaccurate analogy

GM228

You know what they say, be careful what you ask for...

https://twitter.com/nigelmp/status/1168519316309970944?s=19

robinph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is more fantasy I'm afraid if you think Johnson will do this and you know it. There isn't a hope of a new referendum any time soon.

Yep, but only because people have been allowed to get away with the narrative that it is somehow undemocratic to ask the people what they want that now the population is believing that for some unknown reason.

prawnsambo

robinph wrote: »

Yep, but only because people have been allowed to get away with the narrative that it is somehow undemocratic to ask the people what they want that now the population is believing that for some unknown reason.

The entire narrative has been the constant gaslighting of the population. Going back decades. Very successfully of course. And yet people will swear that they were not influenced by this.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

What a strange and completely inaccurate analogy

Well what analogy would you use?

Do you think its strange that when someone points out Brexit is about to happen, they are accused of being a Brexiteer?

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Well what analogy would you use?

Do you think its strange that when someone points out Brexit is about to happen, they are accused of being a Brexiteer?

You made that point without quoting anyone who actually made that accusation. Analogy aside, could you point to that accusation being made?

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Any chance of it being re-run is long gone.

Not according to the leader of the opposition.

And when the Government is in a minority, propped up only by bribery, with a working majority of one, and threatening to eject upwards of 20 rebels from its backbenches, I think it would be wise to pay attention to what the leader of the opposition says.

CelticRambler

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You want to talk about the legitimacy of the referendum result, I don't. Discussing its legitimacy in my view is a waste of time at this stage.

Wellwhaddyaknow: we've found common ground! Now if only the British politicians could learn from our example!

I agree: the settle-a-Tory-argument opinion poll, masquerading as a referendum, is ancient history and there's little point in discussing its legitimacy now, more than three years later and less than two months till Brexit day.

Except ... see paragraph 1: MPs in Westminster haven't learnt a damn thing about democracy or collaborative governance in the meantime, and that's a problem for everyone - the British on both side of the Leave/Remain divide, the Irish, the EU and even the non-European nations that want to continue to trade with the UK post-Brexit.

Think about it for a second: the referendum came about because of an dispute within the Conservative Party from around the turn of the century; 20 years later, the headline news today is ... a dispute within the Conservative Party.

If those "in charge" of the UK cannot even agree amongst themselves, how the feck can the rest of us be expected to deal with them? It is unfortunate that the Island of Ireland has an EU-UK frontier running through it, but as is the case with any undesireable neighbours in an otherwise desireable neighbourhood, sometimes you've just got to grow some trees along the fence, put up with their carry-on and hope they default on their rent/mortgage and are replaced by nicer people.

mrbrianj

prawnsambo wrote: »

No. The last time, roads were blown up, blocked or marked as 'unapproved'. Didn't stop smuggling and all the other illegal crossings by paramilitaries etc.

Border (no deal) will wreck our agri & food industries.
No Border (no deal) will wreck our agri & food industries.
No Border (soft deal?no backstop & no alignment) will wreck our agri & food industries.

Not to mention other industries and social problems. The Backstop is the only solution which works for this Island.

Stop moaning ffs

They know it would be remain in a second referendum. Exactly why they won’t allow one to take place

https://twitter.com/theneweuropean/status/1168444254655537152?s=21

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its like pointing out a car crash is about to happen and being accused of causing it.

I don't think you are going to cause Brexit by saying it is definitely going to happen.

I don't think you must support it to think it is definitely going to happen.

I just think you are wrong when you say it is definitely going to happen, especially that it is definitely going to happen the exact way Boris is pretending he wants it to happen this week.

SeaBreezes

prawnsambo wrote: »

Apart from the fact that it would take six months minimum to hold a referendum.

Why 6 months?

ToBeFrank123

CelticRambler wrote: »

Wellwhaddyaknow: we've found common ground! Now if only the British politicians could learn from our example!

I agree: the settle-a-Tory-argument opinion poll, masquerading as a referendum, is ancient history and there's little point in discussing its legitimacy now, more than three years later and less than two months till Brexit day.

Except ... see paragraph 1: MPs in Westminster haven't learnt a damn thing about democracy or collaborative governance in the meantime, and that's a problem for everyone - the British on both side of the Leave/Remain divide, the Irish, the EU and even the non-European nations that want to continue to trade with the UK post-Brexit.

Think about it for a second: the referendum came about because of an dispute within the Conservative Party from around the turn of the century; 20 years later, the headline news today is ... a dispute within the Conservative Party.

If those "in charge" of the UK cannot even agree amongst themselves, how the feck can the rest of us be expected to deal with them? It is unfortunate that the Island of Ireland has an EU-UK frontier running through it, but as is the case with any undesireable neighbours in an otherwise desireable neighbourhood, sometimes you've just got to grow some trees along the fence, put up with their carry-on and hope they default on their rent/mortgage and are replaced by nicer people.

I could be wrong here but I believe at one stage or another every single party leader in the UK has said the referendum result needs to be respected.

Here's what Corbyn said.

Jeremy Corbyn: 'Brexit result must be respected'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-result-must-be-respected-a3313661.html

Yep, Tory hating Corbyn said that. He didn't say it was illegitimate, he didn't say it was an opinion poll. He said the result must be respected.

VinLieger

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Why 6 months?

Because it takes 24 weeks from start to finish to arrange a referendum in the UK, ive no info why but its the most commonly quoted time frame when anyone who would be involved with organising one discusses it.

prawnsambo

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Why 6 months?

You have to enact legislation first. Get that passed. Then get the Referendum Commission to establish the question, then all interested campaigning organisations have to be established and registered and then time for a campaign and the referendum date follows. Six months is a ballpark figure. It could take longer, but unlikely to be much shorter than six months.

Stop moaning ffs

Seeing it mentioned a very possible outcome of a GE could be a Tory/BP/DUP alliance.

That’s a whole new hellscape