Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The UK overwhelmingly voted against changing the First Past The Post system recently enough. (2011)

A bit like Cork City rejecting the idea of a directly elected mayor in their recent plebiscite. (With less than a thousand votes making the difference)

If the people democratically vote against having more democracy, then that's the democratic decision. (Unfortunately)

One wonders what the result would be now. I suspect FPTP would be ditched by a heavy margin.

trellheim

But

(as we said above)

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

so unless I am missing something

serfboard

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The UK overwhelmingly voted against changing the First Past The Post system recently enough. (2011)

The result was 68% to 32% against, and on the face of it, that seems overwhelming enough.

Until you see the turnout, and particularly in England. 40%. Therefore England voted overwhelmingly not to bother voting.

And they wonder why they're in bother.

VinLieger

Strazdas wrote: »

One wonders what the result would be now. I suspect FPTP would be ditched by a heavy margin.

The problem is explaining the differences going from FPTP to STV.


I think that was a key reason the previous ref on voting failed because the average person doesn't really care enough to try to understand why AV is a far better choice than FPTP, trying to get them to understand STV is a whole different beast

Water John

Can Parliament change the voting system without a Ref? I would presume so as it is the supreme governing body.

One could also have a federation with each of the 4 parts having its domestic parliament. HOC would be separate and deal with matters like security and external affairs. Might satisfy SNP.

Yellowhammer was never a worst case scenario and any politician saying so is lying. It's either the most likely or a fairly glum but reasonable prospect.

Inquitus

Water John wrote: »

Can Parliament change the voting system without a Ref? I would presume so as it is the supreme governing body.

Yes they can, there is no written constitution in the UK, so never a requirement to have a referendum like we have.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

The problem is explaining the differences going from FPTP to STV.

I think that was a key reason the previous ref on voting failed because the average person doesn't really care enough to try to understand why AV is a far better choice than FPTP, trying to get them to understand STV is a whole different beast

As far as I understand it, the AV system was just another name for STV. In fact (quelle surprise), the 'No' campaign were arguing that it meant that some people would get more than one vote* and used "one person, one vote" as a campaign slogan. Which of course is a gross distortion (quelle surprise encore) of what STV means.

*The 'logic' here being that the longer your vote stayed alive through first and subsequent counts, meant the more votes you got.

You'd think that this would have been a lesson for those in government that referendums need to be well thought out in advance and lies strictly policed.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

Yes, this could only have worked if Johnson could believably have pitched the WA+NI backstop deal as the only thing which could prevent No Deal crashout.

He needed 31st October Brexit guillotine to force MPs to give in, it was never about making the EU give in.

This is why he is still using dangerous language saying he won't ask for an extension, he wants to maintain the bluff so that MPs will agree on the WA.

But all the opposition need to do is reject his deal until the 19th October to force him to quit or request an extension, setting up a Nov election where they beat the Tories. They'd much rather have that election than the WA, which is a terrible deal for the UK.

So Johnson's bluff is pointless - no-one is falling for it.

Jizique

lawred2 wrote: »

most people reading that have no interest in detail whatsoever - so remembering details from a few years ago which would probably have been misreported at the time is an unreal expectation.

that this was agreed but for the charge of the DUP brigade won't even have registered with most readers of that rag..

Clicking on that link hurt, but at least i now know that the EU fears it is being played by Johnson - according to Katya Adler

An Ciarraioch

Apparently, Jolyon Maugham has been interviewed for a significant breaking Brexit news story that will be revealed at 4 p.m.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1172020016801374208

trellheim

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

It's not a court judgement : it must be something else

Cork Boy 53

trellheim wrote: »

cough I said that upthread

jolyon maughams a law type so what court judgments are due at 4 ? is it the welsh or ni prorog cases ? He's been coy all day on twitter but he knew about it at 0730 am

The NI court already gave its judgement earlier today. There is no Welsh court hearing as far as I know.

prawnsambo

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

The NI court already gave its judgement earlier today. There is no Welsh court case as far as I know.

The NI judgment was on the brexit process effect on the GFA.

Edit: Sorry, there were two judgments today. Including the prorogation case.
Edit again: Scratch that. Stupid headline writers got it wrong and I fell for it.

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

But

(as we said above)

Ratification needs a majority. Labour have always went against the WA , and the ERG have been consistent in their opposition. With the Benn bill they have a majority for 2nd ref ....

so unless I am missing something

Well, there's still the EUlephant in the room!

To a large extent, the Johnson-Cummings coup has (again) backfired spectacularly: the EU has seen that all of Boris' efforts are directed towards a no-deal, but that the majority of MPs want something else. The anti-prorogation movment coupled with recent polling means that the EU now knows that there's a possibility of having a grown-up conversation with a different negotiating team in the very near future, and recent statements (and leaks) from EU spokespersons serve to remind the incoming government at to what's potentially re-negotiable and what's absolutely not up for discussion.

While Johnson is backed into the corner of his own making, and is obliged to reinforce his "do or die [in a ditch]" position in order to keep the Brexit Party at bay, Corbyn has the luxury of being able to sit down with the LibDems and the SNP and quietly figure out a compromise position between themselves that is likely to be acceptable to the EU. Once they have agreed a reasonable plan of action, they can plead for an extension on the grounds of being the Britain's common-sense coalition and a promise to behave sensibly when they get into power ... if the EU would just give them enough time to have that election.

trellheim

As always Peter Foster says what I try to, far better than I ever could . Brilliant analysis of current EU position and deal possibilities

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1172151802206326786

lawred2

I'm a bit saturated where 'big news' is concerned at this stage. None of this news really seems to make a difference to the end goal. Just seems to be all dismissed as inconveniences.

Lost in the next 'big news' cycle

josip

Have Grieve et al given up on trying to obtain personal communications between government advisors?
Are they going to settle for just a summary of Yellowhammer?
Seems a bit underwhelming compared with what they originally asked for.

trellheim

Ref Jolyon Maugham

I'd say its something to do with the prorog being invalid and a court case taken to open the doors of the Commons because the Supremes have not ruled, so therefore the Scots case takes precedence.

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

Ref Jolyon Maugham

I'd say its something to do with the prorog being invalid and a court case taken to open the doors of the Commons because the Supremes have not ruled, so therefore the Scots case takes precedence.

Yes, I'd guess it's along the lines of a new legal challenge or something.

Textra_vision

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

lawred2

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

yeah that's what's known as a gouger

J Mysterio

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

What shop was that? Sounds illegitimate.
Post the link, just break it up. E.g. www. Link. Com

kowloon

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

Where was did this happen?

josip

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

If people don't know the reason for something it can be easy to blame Brexit.
I suspect the higher Irish cost is to cover the additional transport costs of getting it on to our island.
Also, from your description it sounds like they were charged the correct price as per the manufacturer's tag.

A Dub in Glasgo

Textra_vision wrote: »

A relative of mine tried to buy something in a shop recently in Ireland and was charged an extra 3 euro over the listed price on the tag, was told this was "because of brexit".

The price tag lists prices for various currencies, including "EUR - 39.99" at the top and "€IE - 42.99" at the bottom.

Is this really an effect of brexit or is it something else? Shops taking the piss? The person in the shop might have been just waffling, but I'm not sure.

Have a pic but can't post links as I'm a new user.

Extracting the urine is the phrase you are looking for

Textra_vision

J Mysterio wrote: »

What shop was that? Sounds illegitimate.
Post the link, just break it up. E.g. www. Link. Com

Ok will give it a try:

https: //i.ibb.co/94PgqW4/image1. jpg

trellheim

correct link. https://i.ibb.co/94PgqW4/image1.jpg

heres the sku https://www.only.com/es/en/on/womens-fashion/dresses/shirt-dresses/printed-tie-belt-dress-5714496553982.html

that looks illegal to me.

kowloon

Textra_vision wrote: »

Ok will give it a try:

https: //i.ibb.co/94PgqW4/image1. jpg

lawred2

well one thing is for sure that's not Brexit related..