Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Jim2007

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is unprecedented right? Nobody in the EU set up ever comments on the internal matters of one of the member states.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1166671928716926976?s=21

Of course it is not unprecedented, you need to read more on current affairs, try reading a bit about Poland or Hungry for a start.

And we are not talking about something random internal affairs, we’re talking about a breach in fundamental democratic principles that could result in the UK’s membership being suspended. The UK’s government no longer feels it is no longer accountable to parliament - Poland and Hungry have not gone that far!

Stop moaning ffs

Jim2007 wrote: »

Of course it is not unprecedented, you need to read more on current affairs, try reading a bit about Poland or Hungry for a start.

And we are not talking about something random internal affairs, we’re talking about a breach in fundamental democratic principles that could result in the UK’s membership being suspended. The UK’s government no longer feels it is no longer accountable to parliament - Poland and Hungry have not gone that far!

The Eu can’t suspend the uk. You should read more current affairs.

Niska

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What did it say?

This seems to be a repository of the leaflets from the referendum:

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/brexit/2016

This is the only one attributed to HM Governmetn:
https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:kox722civ

And this is the page re Leave in the above

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:kox722civ/read/single#page/8/mode/1up

It's split in roughly two parts, firstly states that leaving could lead up to 10 years of uncertainty as the UK unpicks it's relationship with EU

And the second part mentions a more limited trade deal would lead to more limited access of the Single Market.

No explicit mention of no deal / hard brexit or any thing else (Norway, Canada etc) - it's an incredibly poor piece of information for a government leaflet and certainly not neutral.

It's rather vague, and it is hard to believe anyone reading it would understand what leave meant (or the different type of options) - assuming of course they read it and didn't just bin it.

Jim2007

BarryD2 wrote: »

The monarchy is supposed to be separate from the civil powers but she does have options like our own president, to take a different stance.

Well when an Irish President acts they do so based on a written constitution in acted by the people... the Queen would do so based on what exactly?

The truth is that the Queen’s so called powers are based on tradition and an unwritten constitution made up by the government of the day. When was the last time a monarch refused to dissolve parliament against the wishes of her prime minister?

They have a full blown constitutional crisis on their hands.

Professor Moriarty

Enrico Palazzo wrote: »

Then read the whole of pages 11 & 12, it's all right there.

I read it. Please do point out where it says that voting Leave means No Deal with the EU. Or where it says that it might lead to No Deal. Or any mention of No Deal.

PeadarCo

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The Eu can’t suspend the uk. You should read more current affairs.

There are mechanisms in place that enable the EU to suspend members. However from limited knowledge they require near unanimity to implement and are cumbersome. In the UKs situation its a lot easier, just don't give an extension if its requested.

Call me Al

Niska wrote: »

This seems to be a repository of the leaflets from the referendum:

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/brexit/2016

This is the only one attributed to HM Governmetn:
https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:kox722civ

And this is the page re Leave in the above

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:kox722civ/read/single#page/8/mode/1up

It's split in roughly two parts, firstly states that leaving could lead up to 10 years of uncertainty as the UK unpicks it's relationship with EU

And the second part mentions a more limited trade deal would lead to more limited access of the Single Market.

No explicit mention of no deal / hard brexit or any thing else (Norway, Canada etc) - it's an incredibly poor piece of information for a government leaflet and certainly not neutral.

It's rather vague, and it is hard to believe anyone reading it would understand what leave meant (or the different type of options) - assuming of course they read it and didn't just bin it.

A whole section on borders there and not one mention of the North or the GFA as far as I can see.
I wonder did they even bother to distribute this document in the North?

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/hbaldwin/status/1166672281608818689


Very interesting nugget here .Is Johnson's plan to basically return May's deal with the no deal cliff edge only days away?

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/hbaldwin/status/1166672281608818689


Very interesting nugget here .Is Johnson's plan to basically return May's deal with the no deal cliff edge only days away?

He isn't that clever though.

quodec

quodec wrote: »

And the price of gold is gradually heading for €1400 per ounce. Maybe there is a crisis looming???

Which crisis will that be?
Global trade wars
Brexit
Return of the cold war
Plus many others

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I read it. Please do point out where it says that voting Leave means No Deal with the EU. Or where it says that it might lead to No Deal. Or any mention of No Deal.

The leaflet has no discussion *at all* of the leaving process, or the alternatives open to the UK as regards the terms of leaving, or the choices it might have to make. All that was left up to parliament; the referendum outcome mandates nothing in that regard.

Enrico Palazzo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I read it. Please do point out where it says that voting Leave means No Deal with the EU. Or where it says that it might lead to No Deal. Or any mention of No Deal.

What happens if we leave?
(...)
Some people might say that “The EU would want to make a good, new deal with the UK quickly because they want to continue to trade with us.”
(...)
The Government thinks that this would make it hard to agree a good, new deal quickly with the EU.*

*No deal until then.

briany

boggerman1 wrote: »

The sooner the UK crashes out the better.it will affect us here no doubt but this can't stay going on and on.

Yes, it will affect us here, so the more time we and our government have to prepare, the better.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The leaflet has no discussion *at all* of the leaving process, or the alternatives open to the UK as regards the terms of leaving, or the choices it might have to make. All that was left up to parliament; the referendum outcome mandates nothing in that regard.

Well it does discuss Leave in very broad terms, i.e. it warns that getting a deal may take time, being outside the EU might make the UK less safe etc. The referendum was advisory - but that ship has sailed as Brexiteers have claimed that it must be implemented.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He isn't that clever though.

The power behind the throne might be however.

Professor Moriarty

Enrico Palazzo wrote: »

What happens if we leave?
(...)
Some people might say that “The EU would want to make a good, new deal with the UK quickly because they want to continue to trade with us.”
(...)
The Government thinks that this would make it hard to agree a good, new deal quickly with the EU.*

*No deal until then.

You're missing the point. Throughout the leaflet, the assumption is that there is a transition period where protracted and difficult negotiations take place. Nowhere does it posit that the UK should immediately crash out and then negotiate.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The power behind the throne might be however.

Exactly. Cummings et al.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well it does discuss Leave in very broad terms, i.e. it warns that getting a deal may take time, being outside the EU might make the UK less safe etc. The referendum was advisory - but that ship has sailed as Brexiteers have claimed that it must be implemented.

Yes, but it’s talking about the long-term relationship deal that the UK will negotiate *after* brexiting. It never says anything at all about the terms on which Brexit itself will be implemented. The entire Art 50 process, with the options open to the UK under it, is simply ignored.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it’s talking about the long-term relationship deal that the UK will negotiate *after* brexiting. It never says anything at all about the terms on which Brexit itself will be implemented. The entire Art 50 process, with the options open to the UK under it, is simply ignored.

It makes vague references to obvious Leave issues but nowhere does it discuss No Deal or Article 50 - which is the point of the discussion. It's simplistic information to say the least. Which illustrates the clueless nature of the entire process.

Berserker

Jim2007 wrote: »

They have a full blown constitutional crisis on their hands.

No they don't. The democratic wish of the British people takes precedence over everything else anyway. The people voted for Brexit and Boris is going to deliver it, as promised.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Very interesting nugget here .Is Johnson's plan to basically return May's deal with the no deal cliff edge only days away?

Not a chance in hell. That deal is dead and buried, thankfully.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He isn't that clever though.

You sure about that? Boris is going to deliver Brexit, at the end of October, a few months after taking office. People have tried and failed to do that for years. Really happy with the job he has done so far.

Stop moaning ffs

Berserker wrote: »

No they don't. The democratic wish of the British people takes precedence over everything else anyway. The people voted for Brexit and Boris is going to deliver it, as promised.



Not a chance in hell. That deal is dead and buried, thankfully.



You sure about that? Boris is going to deliver Brexit, at the end of October, a few months after taking office. People have tried and failed to do that for years. Really happy with the job he has done so far.

What he’s done today is blatantly Undemocratic tough

Enrico Palazzo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're missing the point. Throughout the leaflet, the assumption is that there is a transition period where protracted and difficult negotiations take place. Nowhere does it posit that the UK should immediately crash out and then negotiate.

Ermm, what transition period? You are just making things up. It explicitly says "If we leave, we'll need a new trade deal with UE and the govt thinks it will take a long time to agree on one, leading to years of uncertainty". If Cameron wanted a remain vote, it made all sense to present the worst case scenario for Brexit and that's literally how that leaflet reads.

InTheShadows

boggerman1 wrote: »

The sooner the UK crashes out the better.it will affect us here no doubt but this can't stay going on and on.

Absolutely. The will of the people needs to be enacted. This farce can't go on and on.

LordBasil

briany wrote: »

Yes, it will affect us here, so the more time we and our government have to prepare, the better.

I can understand that thinking however this neverending uncertainty going on and on is not sustainable. The UK need to leave by Nov 1st as it is the only way things will move forward;

1. It honours that wretched 2016 Referendum
2. Would probably trigger a General Election in Britain which would hopefully lead to a new government not reliant on support from the odious DUP. Even a Tory Majority government free from Arlene and Co would be more pragmatic re the Northern Irish border.
3. Just because the UK leaves with No Deal, doesn't mean that it will stay No Deal for too long, especially if there is chaos at the Channel Ports and threats to the supplies of Food and Medicines.

The Irish Government are probably thinking that if they do nothing and wait for other factors to change the UK government's position and they'll probaly be forced to agree to some form of a backstop.

briany

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well it does discuss Leave in very broad terms, i.e. it warns that getting a deal may take time, being outside the EU might make the UK less safe etc. The referendum was advisory - but that ship has sailed as Brexiteers have claimed that it must be implemented.

It doesn't matter now if the Brexit referendum was advisory or not. Cameron just said he was giving the people an in-out choice. He could have made it very clear that the referendum was intended to initiate a tough conversation about the UK's future in Europe, but he did not do that. The broad view of Brexit voters is that the referendum result should be enacted, and if it is not, there will be upheaval at the next GE.

LeinsterDub

Berserker wrote: »

No they don't. The democratic wish of the British people takes precedence over everything else anyway. The people voted for Brexit and Boris is going to deliver it, as promised.

You're aware you just said installing a autocratic regime would be an acceptable way to deliver democracy, right?

Professor Moriarty

Enrico Palazzo wrote: »

Ermm, what transition period? You are just making things up. It explicitly says "If we leave, we'll need a new trade deal with UE and the govt thinks it will take a long time to agree on one, leading to years of uncertainty". If Cameron wanted a remain vote, it made all sense to present the worst case scenario for Brexit and that's literally how that leaflet reads.

So the leaflet states that Britain will crash out and then negotiate a deal? Grand.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Berserker wrote: »

No they don't. The democratic wish of the British people takes precedence over everything else anyway. The people voted for Brexit and Boris is going to deliver it, as promised.

Please show where anyone, including Boris, in the debate before the democratic vote, promised what is now going to be delivered (including suspending Parliament and trying to eliminate the sovereignty of Parliament)?

murphaph

brickster69 wrote: »

Every single household in the UK received a booklet in the post. It explained very clearly what leave meant. That was sent by the Government which wanted to remain.

Nice try but this booklet was rebuked by the Leave side who promised their voters that it was all codswallop and that a vote for leave certainly did not mean leaving the single market. People don't vote in the way you are suggesting. You're suggesting people believed the govt pamphlet but voted against the govt recommendation and did not believe the leave media messages yet voted for their position! See the problem with that?

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

It doesn't matter now if the Brexit referendum was advisory or not. Cameron just said he was giving the people an in-out choice. He could have made it very clear that the referendum was intended to initiate a tough conversation about the UK's future in Europe, but he did not do that. The broad view of Brexit voters is that the referendum result should be enacted, and if it is not, there will be upheaval at the next GE.

Agreed. The only people who knew what they were voting for voted Remain.