Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

You would still need border checks. It solves nothing but sounds like it does.

Under whose rules? Under what jurisdiction? If a trade deal with US is done does it rule out NI from it?

is_that_so

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

NOT the same. Only covers 30% of goods.

It's a way to chip away at the backstop and if anything was to be conceded on this they would demand the full removal of the backstop.

GM228

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative

Like instructing the PM to ask for and accept an extension to an international treaty, perhaps.

But that is not a perogative of the Government in relation to withdrawl or an international treaty such as that with the EU, it's a matter for Parliament, and as such Queens Consent is not required.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

NOT the same. Only covers 30% of goods.

Yeah, unless you just rename the existing backstop as an all island agri-zone.

Capt'n Midnight

Midster wrote: »

Put together 4/5 simple options that the government can agree on as being credible and allow the public to vote on them.

Parliament have already had Meaningful Votes on most of the options. And rejected them.

So we even know how to rank them.

Majority Motion
6 Customs union
27 Referendum on the Withdrawal Agreement
70 Labour alternative
94 "Common Market 2.0"
109 Revocation to avoid No Deal
240 No Deal
283 "Managed No Deal"
313 EFTA membership

If the government cannot come to a decision, or if they cannot get to a majority, they simply have to cast it to a wider audience. This effects everyone, and once the public has been informed and has voted the government can get on with just that one thing.

LOL

The words leave and remain were chosen to get a leave vote
The Brexit party logo was an arrow pointing to their box at the top of the ballot paper.

I can guarantee Leave will mount legal challenges against whatever form of wording is used

A Shropshire Lad

Tell me how wrote: »

Tony Blair would have at least figured out how to tell people what they want to hear while manoeuvring to be in a position to influence what it is you want.

Indeed. Blair had taken Labour so close to the centre that by 1997 they even had Murdoch backing them

Midster

Jim2007 wrote: »

- There is no point in having another referendum because at the end they are only glorified opinion polls

You just described what democracy is...

Democracy is majority opinion...

If the government are not able to ascertain a majority then handing the decision back to the people is exactly what they should do.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the possible deals available to the UK.

The current WA is the only deal available based on TM red lines. Change those and suddenly the a different deal can be negotiated.

So Labour can absolutely negotiate a deal, the current red lines are not fixed and are only there because TM chose to try to placate the ERG types on her party.

How? The deal will need to be future proofed if a different government comes in and changes the FTA they want. Let's say Labour negotiates with a customs union as one of the pillars of the future deal. How does the EU ensure that a future non-Labour government doesn't change this?

What does the backstop do? It ensures there will not be a border between us and NI. What would the EU want guaranteed even if Labour indicates it wants a Norway style Brexit? The border, and how do you do that? The backstop as in the WA. So the only thing that will change is where the border is, like in the backstop as now or in the Irish Sea. The backstop will stay, the language may be softened somehow but it will need to be in there, no matter who is negotiating it.

The reason it became a problem is because of May's red lines. Let's imagine Corbyn won a majority in 2017 and he sent Labour to negotiate. The backstop may have been the Irish Sea border, with the message that there are already checks between the UK and NI and the FTA will ensure this backstop never comes into force so there will be no regulatory difference between NI and the rest of the UK.

So for me the only difference between the deals that May or Corbyn could have gotten is the numbers in parliament to get it through. The deal is the deal the UK will get, hard Brexit or super soft Brexit. This is it, the Political Declaration would have been different but as we know it is only an aspiration of the future deal and not the deal itself.

So in my opinion Labour is incorrect to think they will get a different deal, they will get the same one with a different political declaration. If parliament doesn't ratify it then it has to go for a vote in a referendum, and seeing as parliament has already rejected it three times then the only option open is a referendum on the deal.

Forty Seven

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/05/what-do-public-think-can-still-realistically-happe?utm_campaign=realistic_Brexit&utm_medium=website_article&utm_source=twitter

Interesting poll. Nobody knows what they want. Most expect a no deal. No appetite or expectation for a second referendum. Mays deal dead in the water.

Enzokk

Midster wrote: »

You just described what democracy is...

Democracy is majority opinion...

If the government are not able to ascertain a majority then handing the decision back to the people is exactly what they should do.

Tell that to the Brexit Party and the the Brexiteers. They are the ones that blocked the deal and they don't want a new referendum.

Capt'n Midnight

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is not democracy that got them into this situation, it is the lack of democracy. For well over a hundred years the people have been told the have a constitution but it is unwritten and very flexible. And so the upper classes have been able to just make it up as they go along.

- There is no point in having another referendum because at the end they are only glorified opinion polls

- We have a speak of the house, under no obligation to be impartial who makes the rules up as he goes along and no way to remove him apart from trying to run a candidate against him at the next election

- We have a PM who seemingly can close parliament when ever things don't go their own way

- We have the Queen prerogative, which a PM can use to completely avoid parliament

- We know from FOI disclosures that both the Queen and Price Charles have interfered with the operations of the government and parliament in the past

The first thing the UK needs is a legally bind democracy where no one gets to make the rules up to suit them.

It might be worth having a legally binding referendum.
Mainly because it would make sneaky tricks illegal.


Speaker is doing fine by using precedent. Farage tried to unseat him and finished behind flipper the dolphin.


Agree that the UK needs to codify it's "constitution"

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It might be worth having a legally binding referendum.
Mainly because it would make sneaky tricks illegal.


Speaker is doing fine by using precedent. Farage tried to unseat him and finished behind flipper the dolphin.


Agree that the UK needs to codify it's "constitution"

Which election was that? I can only see the 2010 GE where Farage stood against Bercow and unless John Stevens is a dolphin, I cannot find where he did badly? I mean he did receive 17.4% of the vote in that election and John Stevens was a Conservative MEP for a long time, so its not like he lost to the Monster Raving Looney Party.

As for the UK codifying its constitution, David Allen Green, constitutional lawyer and columnist for FT who seems very clued up about the matters in the UK right now, warned that writing the constitution down may solve some problems but it would create others as well. Take the US as an example, a written constitution is no guarantee that a populist leader will not wipe his behind with it.

Leroy42

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Agree that the UK needs to codify it's "constitution"

the US has a written constitution and Trump still walks all over it.

Nothing unconstitutional has been undertaken in the UK, the courts the HoC etc have actually stood up quite well to the crisis.

The problems are mutlifacited. A rampant press, an uncaring electorate, a terrible voting system, lack on input from the various parts of the union, lack of coalitions.

The only certainty that I have is that leaving the EU is not going to solve, or even improve, any of these and many other problems

Midster

Enzokk wrote: »

Tell that to the Brexit Party and the the Brexiteers. They are the ones that blocked the deal and they don't want a new referendum.

Yet another reason to push the decision in the direction of the British public, from all sides, especially if one side is dead against it

listermint

Forty Seven wrote: »

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/05/what-do-public-think-can-still-realistically-happe?utm_campaign=realistic_Brexit&utm_medium=website_article&utm_source=twitter

Interesting poll. Nobody knows what they want. Most expect a no deal. No appetite or expectation for a second referendum. Mays deal dead in the water.

You'd struggle with yougov considering its ownership.

Who did they ask what where the questions. It all matters. Their polling isn't really reliable.

ath262

Sinn Fein going on about an Taoiseach's point recently and saying there cant be any checks anywhere on the island of Ireland.. so what's their suggestion for preserving the single market/customs union.

The UK will be back to negotiate very quickly - the channel crossing will be far more disruptive for them from day 1

fash

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Parliament have already had Meaningful Votes on most of the options. And rejected them.

So we even know how to rank them.

Majority Motion
6 Customs union
27 Referendum on the Withdrawal Agreement
70 Labour alternative
94 "Common Market 2.0"
109 Revocation to avoid No Deal
240 No Deal
283 "Managed No Deal"
313 EFTA membership


LOL

The words leave and remain were chosen to get a leave vote
The Brexit party logo was an arrow pointing to their box at the top of the ballot paper.

I can guarantee Leave will mount legal challenges against whatever form of wording is used

Best for Labour would be "referendum on remain versus deal based on highest indicative votes".
That takes away some responsibility for what the deal looks like that they later campaign against.

"Of all the leaves possible, this was the most favoured by parliament and with the most support of any form of leave". It is only fair to put that to the people". Etc

BorneTobyWilde

Boris lives in a '' Leave bubble'' in a GE they would lose many more seats. The people want to remain, at least according to the polls they do.

Strazdas

Forty Seven wrote: »

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/05/what-do-public-think-can-still-realistically-happe?utm_campaign=realistic_Brexit&utm_medium=website_article&utm_source=twitter

Interesting poll. Nobody knows what they want. Most expect a no deal. No appetite or expectation for a second referendum. Mays deal dead in the water.

A standout stat is that only 21% favour No Deal and that even a lot of Tory and BXP voters are not in favour of it (58% and 41%).

A Shropshire Lad

Only way Boris gets a majority in the Gen is with support of Brexit party ?

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Parliament have already had Meaningful Votes on most of the options. And rejected them.

So we even know how to rank them.

Majority Motion
6 Customs union
27 Referendum on the Withdrawal Agreement
70 Labour alternative
94 "Common Market 2.0"
109 Revocation to avoid No Deal
240 No Deal
283 "Managed No Deal"
313 EFTA membership


LOL

The words leave and remain were chosen to get a leave vote
The Brexit party logo was an arrow pointing to their box at the top of the ballot paper.

I can guarantee Leave will mount legal challenges against whatever form of wording is used

To be fair those indicative votes were a bit surreal. If i recall correctly, between 20 and 30 MPs voted against everything, including no deal, so your just left scratching your head as to what exactly some of these people want.

The basis for the referendum will be a battle for sure, though, getting their preferred wording in 2016 was considered the first big victory for the leave side, no way the remainers will let them win that battle this time round. Not without the mother of all fights at least!

An Ciarraioch

Depends on which opinion poll you pick, but most recent one gives the Tories a ten-point lead:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1170389619449454593

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

How? The deal will need to be future proofed if a different government comes in and changes the FTA they want. Let's say Labour negotiates with a customs union as one of the pillars of the future deal. How does the EU ensure that a future non-Labour government doesn't change this?

What does the backstop do? It ensures there will not be a border between us and NI. What would the EU want guaranteed even if Labour indicates it wants a Norway style Brexit? The border, and how do you do that? The backstop as in the WA. So the only thing that will change is where the border is, like in the backstop as now or in the Irish Sea. The backstop will stay, the language may be softened somehow but it will need to be in there, no matter who is negotiating it.

The reason it became a problem is because of May's red lines. Let's imagine Corbyn won a majority in 2017 and he sent Labour to negotiate. The backstop may have been the Irish Sea border, with the message that there are already checks between the UK and NI and the FTA will ensure this backstop never comes into force so there will be no regulatory difference between NI and the rest of the UK.

So for me the only difference between the deals that May or Corbyn could have gotten is the numbers in parliament to get it through. The deal is the deal the UK will get, hard Brexit or super soft Brexit. This is it, the Political Declaration would have been different but as we know it is only an aspiration of the future deal and not the deal itself.

So in my opinion Labour is incorrect to think they will get a different deal, they will get the same one with a different political declaration. If parliament doesn't ratify it then it has to go for a vote in a referendum, and seeing as parliament has already rejected it three times then the only option open is a referendum on the deal.

I think the EU would certainly be willing to work with a Labour delegation on the basis that it is in everybodys interest to work out a bill that can get through parliament. Labours biggest problem wasnt necessarily the text of the WA itself, but with the fact they would then be handing over total control of the future relationship process to the tories with no safety mechanisms and their only hope to subsequently win an election. Nor do i see how you can put the same WAB to a referendum that isn't binding and then has to go back to a parliament that has rejected it 3 times. I would be fairly confident the EU would view that situation with enough flexibility as is required. Maybe not substantial changes, but enough to satisfy both sides and give it every chance of getting through.

PropJoe10

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Depends on which opinion poll you pick, but most recent one gives the Tories a ten-point lead:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1170389619449454593

Remarkable really, considering the person currently at the helm. I think a lot of that comes from pure Brexit fatigue rather than any sort of coherent opinion on how best to proceed.

Zubeneschamali

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Remarkable really, considering the person currently at the helm.

I don't think it is remarkable. 52% voted to leave, and the parties are finally (3 years later) sorting into Brexit/Tory party for Leave at all costs, everyone else for Remain (or at least allow folks to vote again to Remain).


Whatever you may think about how utterly and pathetically useless Boris has been, he has been making all the right noises to attract Brexit voters.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that wouldn't work. Northern Ireland would then be subject to EU law though part of the UK so Uk legislation which was in the EU competency would then cause a clash between EU and UK law.

The way around this would be for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland which might lead to violence and bombings within the Republic which Ireland would have to try to put down whilst at the same time it was making large payments to the North which would be a lot higher than they are now because the North sends more goods to the rest of the UK than to anywhere else.

It's been explained to you multiple times that NI uses very different laws to the rest of the UK. So not an issue.

Just like Scotland really.



Oddly enough our written constitution guarantees Loyalists marchers rights enjoyed in the UK but not in NI.

And the economics have been done to death.

London won't be able to subsidise the rest of the UK if the financial sector shrinks.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think it is remarkable. 52% voted to leave, and the parties are finally (3 years later) sorting into Brexit/Tory party for Leave at all costs, everyone else for Remain (or at least allow folks to vote again to Remain).


Whatever you may think about how utterly and pathetically useless Boris has been, he has been making all the right noises to attract Brexit voters.

Certainly, but that makes him a deeply polarising PM, a disaster in fact. Telling the hard Brexiteers what they want to hear and promising them everything means he is totally alienating everyone else in the country.

You couldn't think of a worse figure to be in charge.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Which election was that? I can only see the 2010 GE where Farage stood against Bercow and unless John Stevens is a dolphin, I cannot find where he did badly? I mean he did receive 17.4% of the vote in that election and John Stevens was a Conservative MEP for a long time, so its not like he lost to the Monster Raving Looney Party.

It was over MP's flipping their official residence for the second homes allowance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1265532/ANDREW-PIERCE-The-stories-spin-doctors-DONT-want-read.html

It shouldn't need to be said but in FPTP 17.4% isn't even in the also ran category.

16.4% of the national vote got 2 MP's in 2015 one each for UKIP and the Green

As for the UK codifying its constitution, David Allen Green, constitutional lawyer and columnist for FT who seems very clued up about the matters in the UK right now, warned that writing the constitution down may solve some problems but it would create others as well. Take the US as an example, a written constitution is no guarantee that a populist leader will not wipe his behind with it.

At the very least they need to say which documents are kosher and in what order.
Magna Carta to Erskine May

Kermit.de.frog

This looks like a kite being flown in the Telegraph - calling for Boris to introduce more Irish Sea checks.

I can't read the full thing (paywalled) - but when kites are flown in strategic publications it normally means something is on the boil.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/07/boris-can-break-eu-customs-deadlock-flipping-mays-irish-weakness/

The best way to break the deadlock would be to offer to carry out additional customs checks at the Irish Sea instead of at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

sondagefaux

McGiver wrote: »

World gdp:
USA 24%
China 15%
EU 13%
Japan 5%
India 3%
UK 3%
The rest 37%

As the developing world grows the developed countries' share of the world's GDP will decrease. Again, this is not a rocket science. Developed countries grow less, developing countries grow faster (from lower base).

The key point which alludes the Brexiter lunatics is this:
1. The UK's share of world gdp decreases too

2. UK in the EU having the same share of world gdp as China or 75% of that of the USA is much better than UK out of EU having only 20% of China gdp or 12% of USA gdp.

The 'growing faster' trope is nonsense.

If per capita GDP in France is $50,000 per year, and is growing at 1.0% per year, next year it will be $50,500.

If per capita GDP in Ethiopia is $1,500 per year and is growing at 10% per year, next year it will be $1,650.

Even if Ethiopia were to sustain a 10% growth rate for many years, it would take decades for it to catch up with France, even if French growth rates remained at only 1% for many years.