Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

briany

This current Conservative government is a total lame duck, and it continues to lose MPs with Sam Gmiyah joining the Lib Dems.

So, if we come into October and the Conservatives are still poised to take the UK off the cliff, what's to stop the opposition once again moving to take control of parliamentary business and tabling an alternative deal? I mean, I know the opposition is not exactly ideologically unified, but if Johnson's government only weakly feigns the intention of reaching a breakthrough with the EU, the opposition are still agreed on one thing, and that is that they don't want no-deal. So, in this scenario, the only option left would be to have another marathon session of legislation where the opposition can force through a deal at the last minute, right under Johnson's nose.

Water John

Parliament will instruct someone else to deliver an ext request to the EU, if as he says, Johnson refuses to do it.

Enzokk

All the talk of a new deal seems quick for me. Ian Dunt had this to say earlier today about the backstop and a new deal and how we have been here before,

Week in Review: A deal is as unlikely as ever

The chatter begins. It always starts quietly at first, then slowly builds up. Maybe there is hope, after all. Maybe a deal with Europe can be done. Maybe Boris Johnson is the man to do it.

Then come the news reports. The prime minister is startled by the implications of no-deal. The DUP are softening on regulatory separation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The Europeans are willing to change or erase the backstop.

It's becoming almost a tradition. Expectation builds, slowly and from multiple angles, reaches a crescendo and then finally breaks on the cold, horrible shores of reality.
Reports now suggest the Europeans would accept changes to the backstop. But these would amount to the backstop in all but name: regulatory and customs alignment as an insurance policy against the failure of 'alternative arrangements'.

It goes on to say that the problem he has is the same as May. He will need Labour votes to get a deal through and deal he brings back, even with a NI only backstop, will not have the assurance the Labour leavers need on employment rights and a customs union. So how could they back a worse deal than they rejected under May?

As for Cameron, he is the reason the UK is a mess. There was no reason to call a referendum as the public weren't clamoring for one. It was an internal Tory problem that he wanted to be rid of. There is zero reason to feel any sympathy for him. He misjudged the problem of the EU for the country and it is costing the UK.

I always go between who has been the worse leader, May or Cameron, but it always comes back to the fact that May wouldn't have been put in the impossible position had it not been for Cameron.

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1172596340905467907?s=20

briany

Water John wrote: »

Parliament will instruct someone else to deliver an ext request to the EU, if as he says, Johnson refuses to do it.

The EU can still turn down an extension request. I don't know how likely this would be in the event, but I have the feeling that if they do grant it, the whole thing will go off the boil for a couple of months, and the net result is that we'll return to a crisis situation after Christmas.

So the EU may think a bit more tactically. The only way the UK may move on this is if they're presented with some sort of real jeopardy to break the deadlock. Examples being forced to take a longer extension or really going off the cliff. Now, if they want think even more tactically again, they may do well to present that kind of ultimatum in October because if they don't, they could be dealing with a clear Conservative majority in January that isn't interested in a deal as it's currently being offered.

retalivity

Guardian/Observer poll has tories and brexit party at 50% combined vote if there was a general election, up 2% & taking a point each off the lib dems and the greens. I know the majority for leave voted at the time, and i thought that if a vote was held again, sense may see it through, but it appears that the country is not for turning.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/14/sam-gyimah-former-tory-minister-slams-populist-johnson-as-he-joins-lib-dems

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

This current Conservative government is a total lame duck, and it continues to lose MPs with Sam Gmiyah joining the Lib Dems.

So, if we come into October and the Conservatives are still poised to take the UK off the cliff, what's to stop the opposition once again moving to take control of parliamentary business and tabling an alternative deal? I mean, I know the opposition is not exactly ideologically unified, but if Johnson's government only weakly feigns the intention of reaching a breakthrough with the EU, the opposition are still agreed on one thing, and that is that they don't want no-deal. So, in this scenario, the only option left would be to have another marathon session of legislation where the opposition can force through a deal at the last minute, right under Johnson's nose.

Lib Dems are the party of remain, they will never agree to table a deal that would see the UK leave the EU. Labours policy is to make the Conservatives own Brexit so they can blame them for all the problems infront of remainers and for not getting Brexit right infront of Brexiters.

Capt'n Midnight

If neither Tory + DUP or Labour get a majority at the next election then cancelling Article 50 will be on the Lib Dems wish list for a coalition

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Lib Dems are the party of remain, they will never agree to table a deal that would see the UK leave the EU. Labours policy is to make the Conservatives own Brexit so they can blame them for all the problems infront of remainers and for not getting Brexit right infront of Brexiters.

It's a losing strategy for Labour, in that case. They're going to take damage as well, the longer this thing goes on, losing voters to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party.

The Lib Dems might be the party of Remain, but some party of Remain they'll be if presented with the stark choice of a crash-out and they do nothing to mitigate the potential damage of that.

johnnyskeleton

briany wrote: »

The Lib Dems might be the party of Remain, but some party of Remain they'll be if presented with the stark choice of a crash-out and they do nothing to mitigate the potential damage of that.

I think it is a fair position for them to say theyre against Brexit therefore vote against ang kind of Brexit. Theyve been consistent on this and they are a small party so their MP votes dont make too mu h of a difference.

However, the whole Uk political esrablishment can be blamed for playing party politics at a time when some kind of national consensus should be sought. If only there was some way that they could politicially get together and try to agree a position that works for most of them

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

I always go between who has been the worse leader, May or Cameron, but it always comes back to the fact that May wouldn't have been put in the impossible position had it not been for Cameron.

It wasn't that impossible when she got into power. At that point Brexit was a blank slate and a whole pile of useful promises "no one ever said we'd leave the single market" /" only a mad man would suggest we'd leave the single market", "once we have a deal of course we will put it back to the people to decide" etc.

She could have unified the people "48-52 means that the people have voted to leave but want a really close relationship but just outside, we'll establish a cross parliament body to work out...." etc.

However she did the exact opposite.
And she did so because of her own racist prejudices.

Enzokk

fash wrote: »

It wasn't that impossible when she got into power. At that point Brexit was a blank slate and a whole pile of useful promises "no one ever said we'd leave the single market" /" only a mad man would suggest we'd leave the single market", "once we have a deal of course we will put it back to the people to decide" etc.

She could have unified the people "48-52 means that the people have voted to leave but want a really close relationship but just outside, we'll establish a cross parliament body to work out...." etc.

However she did the exact opposite.
And she did so because of her own racist prejudices.

True, and that is why she will be one of the worst with Cameron, but Cameron opened decades of trouble for the country by proposing a referendum nobody outside of his own party was clamouring for.

Just think it through, if as you say and a lot of voters would have accepted they took a Norway deal because it was such a close result, do you think any leader that proposed it would have shut the argument down if they were still party to ECJ rulings and EU regulations and rules they have no say over? Would Farage be kept quiet to clamour for a total break?

The arguments then would have been about having to follow regulations without a say and how terrible that is and how they need a further break. The only way the argument quietens down is if remain won, and even then Farage confirmed he would not be quiet.

So as bad and idiotic May has been, the fact that she only became leader because of Johnson counts against him as well and her mistakes are in effect his mistakes then. Without his referendum we aren't discussing Brexit, and she probably would have resigned in shame after Windrush was exposed and she was still Home Secretary.

prunudo

I'm still not sure they'll get a Northern Ireland backstop through parliament. The Tories may get it past the EU leaders but there's still so many differing views on whether Brexit should be hard, soft or even go ahead, plus the likes of erg who want no deal.
At the moment all the commentary is about stopping a no deal and to be fair the opposition have clubbed together to stop that, but scratch beneath the surface they'll be a lot of opposing opinions.
Sure even just yesterday, Nicky Morgan said she vote remain again if there was another red and she's in cabinet.

alentejo

Looking at the latest polls, the Tories seem have gained points. Not much hope. At this stage we need to let them crash out and start picking up the pieces afterwards. I just can't believe that a large proportion of Brits (English mainly) want out at all costs. Very sad times.

Jamiekelly

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, was on Sophie Ridge just now and I have to say, the media in the UK are a complete failure. He was allowed to spout absolute rubbish and Ms. Ridge didn't challenge him on a single point. He started talking about how the UK is currently negotiating a deal with the EU which is catagorically false by the EU's own admission but was never questioned about it. He then goes on to say they are working to get the backstop removed and that they are talking with all the main political party leaders to get it done. Despite the SDLP, Sinn Fein, Alliance and UUP not even getting a look in thanks to a collapsed assembly. Did she ask him about it? No, of course she didn't. Spinelessness means success at SKY NEWS it seems.

Seth Brundle

Boris looks to be staying on course...

Boris Johnson will tell outgoing European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday that he will defy a new act of parliament and refuse to discuss or accept any offer to extend the UK’s membership even if a Brexit deal cannot be agreed, Downing Street has said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/johnson-to-tell-juncker-he-won-t-discuss-brexit-extension-1.4018749

prunudo

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, was on Sophie Ridge just now and I have to say, the media in the UK are a complete failure. He was allowed to spout absolute rubbish and Ms. Ridge didn't challenge him on a single point. He started talking about how the UK is currently negotiating a deal with the EU which is catagorically false by the EU's own admission but was never questioned about it. He then goes on to say they are working to get the backstop removed and that they are talking with all the main political party leaders to get it done. Despite the SDLP, Sinn Fein, Alliance and UUP not even getting a look in thanks to a collapsed assembly. Did she ask him about it? No, of course she didn't. Spinelessness means success at SKY NEWS it seems.

I read somewhere, could have been on this thread, that under the Boris government, any cabinet minister must pre arrange the questions the media will ask them beforehand. Adam Boulton refused to do this, this may explain the easy ride they get on BBC at the moment.

firemansam4

retalivity wrote:

Guardian/Observer poll has tories and brexit party at 50% combined vote if there was a general election, up 2% & taking a point each off the lib dems and the greens. I know the majority for leave voted at the time, and i thought that if a vote was held again, sense may see it through, but it appears that the country is not for turning.

I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess.

In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
The UK need to have there Brexit, if they do go no deal then the best we can hope for is when the implications of that decision start setting in then they soon come back looking for a deal.

Igotadose

firemansam4 wrote: »

I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess.

In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
The UK need to have there Brexit, if they do go no deal then the best we can hope for is when the implications of that decision start setting in then they soon come back looking for a deal.

In my opinion, they don't need to have their Brexit. Some percentage of them *want* to leave the EU, whatever they think that means, by whatever means is in their heads. Want never equals need. Only a slight majority favored leaving in a non-binding referendum. 3 years later and they're no closer to leaving than they were the day before the referendum, albeit they will be forced to leave on Oct 31 according to the plans they have in place today, in catastrophic fashion per their government's published predictions.

Akrasia

firemansam4 wrote: »

I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess.

In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
The UK need to have there Brexit, if they do go no deal then the best we can hope for is when the implications of that decision start setting in then they soon come back looking for a deal.

I think a 2nd referendum would result in a remain victory, but even if it didn't, it would certainly rule out a hard brexit.

It depends on the wording and the structure of the vote, there are essentially 3 options that can be put on the ballot.
1. Remain
2. Leave with whatever the best currently available deal happens to be
3. Leave with no deal.

Whether this is run as a 3 way vote with 3 options on the table, or it's run as two parts (Leave V Remain, and if leave wins, another vote, deal or no deal)
Or if No deal is left off the options list entirely, A 2nd referendum would comprehensively rule out 'No Deal' and provide a significant opportunity to cancel the whole brexit fiasco once and for all.

The leave vote is split, and if remain is taken off the table, the vast majority of remainers would vote for the softest brext on the table. No deal extremists cannot get enough votes to win a referendum

If there is to be a 2nd referendum, the UK should learn from the first, and have an independent referendum commission, and active policing of advertising and social media campaigns which are misleading and inaccurate

Akrasia

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Boris looks to be staying on course...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/johnson-to-tell-juncker-he-won-t-discuss-brexit-extension-1.4018749

He's trying to bluff the EU into capitulating but the EU has already seen that he's holding a busted flush, but he's determined to go all-in on a hand that has already lost. The EU only have to call his bluff and Johnson will be forced to either fold, or go through with his bluff, get arrested, and have the EU letter sent in anyway nobile officium by the Scottish court of Session.

beggars_bush

retalivity wrote: »

Guardian/Observer poll has tories and brexit party at 50% combined vote if there was a general election, up 2% & taking a point each off the lib dems and the greens. I know the majority for leave voted at the time, and i thought that if a vote was held again, sense may see it through, but it appears that the country is not for turning.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/14/sam-gyimah-former-tory-minister-slams-populist-johnson-as-he-joins-lib-dems

Stiff upper lip and all that

Enzokk

firemansam4 wrote: »

I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess.

In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
The UK need to have there Brexit, if they do go no deal then the best we can hope for is when the implications of that decision start setting in then they soon come back looking for a deal.

As long as the question is clear and the vote is run in a responsible way then I would have no qualms if they voted to leave for an option. I also think that if people are given an option, whether to leave without a deal (maybe remain would win 65%-35% if those are the options) or the more likelier to win, a deal (maybe 55%-45% for remain) the result would be a remain victory.

The problem leave would have is Northern Ireland and no-one is going to campaign on effectively cutting off one part of it, and if you do then the deal is soft remain. If it is soft remain you lose all say over the rules so it is better to remain even if you don't like it. This was clear once negotiations started and the facts will not change in the meantime.

Joe_ Public

Personally, i dont understand why people put so much faith and significance in these polls. The same polling companies that had the tories struggling in 2015, labour likely forming a government, mucked up the 2016 referendum and had Labour trailing by 20+ points in 2017. If there's any lesson there, it's to either believe the opposite or at least something significantly different to what they seem to be telling you. We dont even know the basis around which the next election will be fought yet, and we've never been in more volatile political times. Only thing i'm confident about is tories wont get a majority, but just a hunch, nothing more.

Irish Praetorian

firemansam4 wrote: »

I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess.

In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
The UK need to have there Brexit, if they do go no deal then the best we can hope for is when the implications of that decision start setting in then they soon come back looking for a deal.

I'm sorry but what is that based on exactly? I've been following the tracking polls for various post Brexit referenda and the point you make might have been true for the first year or so. However, since then the numbers of people who think A: the vote to leave the EU was the wrong decision and B: who would vote to remain in a hypothetical second referendum, have only been increasing.

Ideally, such a referendum might take the form of an alternative vote; Remain, May's Deal, No Deal - eliminate the option with the lowest support and transfer its votes to the other two. Frankly, I think at this point if the country voted No-Deal it would be a lot more palatable and most of the complaints from the earlier referendum would be null and void. It might still be a silly idea, but it would at least be an endorsed silly idea.

Joe_ Public

I would think if there's a second vote it would simply have to be on any deal that got a majority in parliament v remain. In that scenario, you really need to have a GE before the public vote in order for parliament to catch up with the views of the electorate. If there's an appetite for no deal, then parliament can reflect it and vote for it. If not, then it has no business on the ballot. I dont believe fighting an election almost exclusively on the idea of brexit is ideal, but we are not living in perfect times.

firemansam4

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm sorry but what is that based on exactly? I've been following the tracking polls for various post Brexit referenda and the point you make might have been true for the first year or so. However, since then the numbers of people who think A: the vote to leave the EU was the wrong decision and B: who would vote to remain in a hypothetical second referendum, have only been increasing.

Ideally, such a referendum might take the form of an alternative vote; Remain, May's Deal, No Deal - eliminate the option with the lowest support and transfer its votes to the other two. Frankly, I think at this point if the country voted No-Deal it would be a lot more palatable and most of the complaints from the earlier referendum would be null and void. It might still be a silly idea, but it would at least be an endorsed silly idea.

Its just an opinion based on the mood of people I met the last time I was there earlier in the year and the fact that the Brexit party and conservatives still seem to have strong support.
Also I think the leave voters are more motivated to vote, while many who voted to remain just don't care about it all as much any more.
Just my opinion and I admit I could be wrong.

I think a 3 way referendum might be a good idea, and I would guess that leaving on a deal might be passed.

Irish Praetorian

Would that not just end up enraging the part of the country that (rightly or wrongly, and to be fair probably wrongly) sees No-Deal as what they want? I mean don't get me wrong they would want to qualify 'No Deal' as something more substantial than just a name, maybe no agreements with the EU for 10 years or something, but I'm not sure there can be much progress without that option at least on the table.

looksee

This whole thing is a no-win for all concerned. If it goes out 'no deal' we are all in trouble. If somehow there is a vote to stay it will cause social unrest as there is such an irrationally strong desire for Brexit, and a great deal of damage is already done.

Any faction getting into government that will go with remain will be blamed for all the mess that has already happened. If it is 'leave' any government in charge will be blamed for the problems. Even if it is leave with some sort of a deal the economy is already damaged and will not be improved even by a deal.

Whatever happens it is going to be a mess and its hard to imagine who would want to be in charge to take all the flak.

I personally think that, unfortunately, they have to leave somehow, just to get it out of their systems.

beggars_bush

looksee wrote: »

This whole thing is a no-win for all concerned. If it goes out 'no deal' we are all in trouble. If somehow there is a vote to stay it will cause social unrest as there is such an irrationally strong desire for Brexit, and a great deal of damage is already done.

Any faction getting into government that will go with remain will be blamed for all the mess that has already happened. If it is 'leave' any government in charge will be blamed for the problems. Even if it is leave with some sort of a deal the economy is already damaged and will not be improved even by a deal.

Whatever happens it is going to be a mess and its hard to imagine who would want to be in charge to take all the flak.

I personally think that, unfortunately, they have to leave somehow, just to get it out of their systems.

And it can all be blamed on the Tories

Joe_ Public

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Would that not just end up enraging the part of the country that (rightly or wrongly, and to be fair probably wrongly) sees No-Deal as what they want? I mean don't get me wrong they would want to qualify 'No Deal' as something more substantial than just a name, maybe no agreements with the EU for 10 years or something, but I'm not sure there can be much progress without that option at least on the table.

Its not easy, is it? The no deal position is so abstract, so patently illogical, that it's difficult to know how to treat it going forward. But thats why i think you need a GE to give them a chance to secure the mandate they dont currently have. I think it would be irresponsible to put a no deal option in a public vote when it has no hope of passing parliament. Thats an even bigger recipe for unmitigated chaos. Trouble with that is, you could very likely get a hung parliament and just leave it all in stasis. Could they just weary themselves into remaining? Maybe as likely a scenario as any the way things are going.