Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Call it off. The downside is noise from the Brexiters. Big deal - that's what they do. They will make noise anyway.

If this was a minority of headbangers, I'd agree, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate. How can you get on with politics as usual when half your country is seething with anger, and have an outlet to direct it?

Cancelling Brexit would not even cancel Brexit at this stage. UK politics is looking likely to be mired in its shadow for the foreseeable future, no matter what the eventual outcome is.

lawred2

briany wrote: »

If this was a minority of headbangers, I'd agree, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate. How can you get on with politics as usual when half your country is seething with anger, and have an outlet to direct it?

Cancelling Brexit would not even cancel Brexit at this stage. UK politics is looking likely to be mired in its shadow for the foreseeable future, no matter what the eventual outcome is.

Based upon opinion polls then surely Brexit would result in more than half the electorate 'seething with anger'?

Lemming

briany wrote: »

, but the problem is that it's around half the UK overall electorate.

Not even remotely half the UK overall electorate considering that only some 60-odd percent voted. In effect, roughly a third of the overall electorate voted for Brexit in some way shape or form of which we have no idea the actual representation of that because it was sold deliberately as all things to all people.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

Based upon opinion polls then surely Brexit would result in more than half the electorate 'seething with anger'?

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

sure - but Brexit hasn't actually happened yet

trellheim

Text of Queen's speech

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2019

Mr.Wemmick

VinLieger wrote: »

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

How would you know?

It's not like the government manipulated media/news rags, or the BBC, are giving a voice to remainers. The optic control is heavily weighted on the brexit side, even though the bulk of the population are hugely concerned with education/job security/business protection/healthcare and would clearly lean toward a safer, softer brexit or none at all.

briany

lawred2 wrote: »

Based upon opinion polls then surely Brexit would result in more than half the electorate 'seething with anger'?

Depends on the type of Brexit. Not every Remain supporter would necessarily be Remain or bust. Some might be willing to settle on a Brexit that keeps the UK in the orbit of the EU. A no-deal Brexit, yes - that's why I say Brexit won't ever really be done, no matter the outcome. You cannot cancel it, or let a no-deal happen without major fallout.

Lemming wrote: »

Not even remotely half the UK overall electorate considering that only some 60-odd percent voted. In effect, roughly a third of the overall electorate voted for Brexit in some way shape or form of which we have no idea the actual representation of that because it was sold deliberately as all things to all people.

People who just didn't bother to vote in the Brexit ref are political dark matter. All you can really go on is who did vote. What has been done very successfully by the likes of Farage is to pit the people vs the parliament. "You didn't know what you were voting for." has Farage screaming 'condescension' like a klaxon, and his supporters absolutely lap it up.

FrancieBrady

trellheim wrote: »

Text of Queen's speech

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2019

Point of order - it is Boris's/The UK Government's speech.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

This case just highlights how useless the UK Government has been in not following through on the provision provided in the GFA. They have not as yet made the choice of citizenship into UK law so that seems to be where we are right now. It is amazing that the 1981 British Nationality Act trumps the GFA because the UK Government has not acted to have it updated.

Teresa May while Home Secretary managed to double the word count of immigration law but wasn't able to include this.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-have-more-than-doubled-in-length-since-2010
'Home Office officials have made more than 5,700 changes to the immigration rules since 2010, a Guardian analysis has revealed, making the visa system nearly impossible to navigate, according to senior judges and lawyers.

The rules have more than doubled in length to almost 375,000 words, resulting in a complex system which has been called“something of a disgrace” by Lord Justice Irwin and prompting a radical overhaul'

ToBeFrank123

Lemming wrote: »

Not even remotely half the UK overall electorate considering that only some 60-odd percent voted. In effect, roughly a third of the overall electorate voted for Brexit in some way shape or form of which we have no idea the actual representation of that because it was sold deliberately as all things to all people.

I have no sympathy for people over the age of 18 who do not vote. They deserve nothing and no-one cares how much they complain. They had their chance to exercise their opinion when it mattered. And if they had voted, Brexit might have been very different.

chrislad

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50039384

Made me smile today - "Since 2017, under EU regulations UK consumers are able to use the minutes, texts and data included on their mobile phone tariffs when travelling in the EU at no extra charge"

Strazdas

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

How would you know?

It's not like the government manipulated media/news rags, or the BBC, are giving a voice to remainers. The optic control is heavily weighted on the brexit side, even though the bulk of the population are hugely concerned with education/job security/business protection/healthcare and would clearly lean toward a safer, softer brexit or none at all.

I'm amazed at how cowed into silence the Remain side have been.

In any other country, you'd probably see mass street demonstrations or even a general strike against Brexit. The Leave voters and the right wing press are getting away with murder here. The British public seems to be completely brainwashed by their far right media.

Lemming

briany wrote: »

People who just didn't bother to vote in the Brexit ref are political dark matter. All you can really go on is who did vote. What has been done very successfully by the likes of Farage is to pit the people vs the parliament. "You didn't know what you were voting for." has Farage screaming 'condescension' like a klaxon, and his supporters absolutely lap it up.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for people over the age of 18 who do not vote. They deserve nothing and no-one cares how much they complain. They had their chance to exercise their opinion when it mattered. And if they had voted, Brexit might have been very different.

Indeed Frank, it would have been quite different. I was not commenting to that effect but thank you anyway. My point (besides pointing out the fallacy in saying half the country voted; it did not)- perhaps poorly made given your post - is that to base such a polarising and exceedingly toxic decision on the four constituent countries of the UK should give pause for thought at the best of times. To throw another third of the electoral count into the mix as an unknown, plus the increase in those coming of age to vote on top of that and plowing ahead ignorantly is just reckless madness. There will be plenty more aggrieved voters out there than voted either way when the UK economy takes a further kicking and they find their rights eroded; notions of social class don't discriminate when push comes to shove and you are either out of money or money becomes a moot point.

Akrasia

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The whole issue with the second referendum, if it ever comes to it, is that there is absolutely no indication that there will be a decisive result either way. It's wishful thinking to imagine for various reasons that logic will hold sway and remain side wins with a comfortable margin. I support the idea in principle, but you then emerge, say, with a 51-49 win for remain (depending on how the ballot is framed, i guess) and i dont know how much that solves things. On many levels, leaving does really seem the best option for everybody, provided they can come up with something that doesnt leave any side significantly worse off.

The problem is, that there is no form of brexit that doesn't leave the UK significantly worse off

And the ardent brexiters have been conditioned to believe that anything but a hardest possible brexit is not a real brexit, so they won't be happy with anything other than the most damaging brexit possible


IMHO, i think these extremists will never be happy. If you give them exactly what they're looking for, they'll be angry about the following economic depression, and if brexit isn't delivered, they'll be angry that they were not listened to. Because they're going to be angry anyway, it's best to just ignore them and do what is actually in the countries' best interests which is a 2nd referendum followed by revoking A50

CelticRambler

VinLieger wrote: »

The palpable levels of illogical anger and rage on the brexit side have never been matched by the remain side

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm amazed at how cowed into silence the Remain side have been.

I know several remainers who are so incensed at the spin and the lies and the outright flouting of written and unwritten laws that they have decided to abandon their lives in Britain and move to an EU country where they feel more at home. I think this is a significant difference between Leavers and Remainers: the former rant and rave and wave their flags, but are determined to defend their "castle" to the bitter end; while the latter say "feckit" and take their families, talent and economic contribution to a more deserving place.

quokula

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for people over the age of 18 who do not vote. They deserve nothing and no-one cares how much they complain. They had their chance to exercise their opinion when it mattered. And if they had voted, Brexit might have been very different.

For what it's worth, it's long forgotten in the past now and likely wouldn't have changed the outcome, but there was heavy rain and massive disruption to rail services from Waterloo on the day of the vote. I personally know two people who intended to vote after work but couldn't get home before the polls closed. And I'd imagine people who commute to London on those routes are a fairly remain-y demographic.

MrMusician18

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm amazed at how cowed into silence the Remain side have been.

In any other country, you'd probably see mass street demonstrations or even a general strike against Brexit. The Leave voters and the right wing press are getting away with murder here. The British public seems to be completely brainwashed by their far right media.

I don't think you'd see a successful general strike in a country that did vote to leave.
The real issue is though in my opinion is that I don't think the population fully grasp what they're about to lose.

Joe_ Public

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is, that there is no form of brexit that doesn't leave the UK significantly worse off

And the ardent brexiters have been conditioned to believe that anything but a hardest possible brexit is not a real brexit, so they won't be happy with anything other than the most damaging brexit possible


IMHO, i think these extremists will never be happy. If you give them exactly what they're looking for, they'll be angry about the following economic depression, and if brexit isn't delivered, they'll be angry that they were not listened to. Because they're going to be angry anyway, it's best to just ignore them and do what is actually in the countries' best interests which is a 2nd referendum followed by revoking A50

All i'm trying to say is, there seems to be this notion among some people - not saying you btw, just in general - that it's really not all that complicated, we'll just get to a second vote, maybe something between may deal and remain or whatever, and remain will win and everything is hunky dory again. Simples. But it's borderline delusional to think that imo. People tend to forget just how fractious and contested the framework for the vote was the first time around, think that may have ended up in the courts if my memory serves me. Look at all the legal farrago surrounding recent brexit events? Only think i'm certain about is that a second public vote will be a bitter, nasty contest long before it even gets to the people. Not saying thats a reason not to pursue that course, just that people - MPs especially - should be more honest and aware about it.

roosterman71

I thought the queen was looking a bit shook today when she was doing her bit in the pageant

quokula

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is, that there is no form of brexit that doesn't leave the UK significantly worse off

And the ardent brexiters have been conditioned to believe that anything but a hardest possible brexit is not a real brexit, so they won't be happy with anything other than the most damaging brexit possible


IMHO, i think these extremists will never be happy. If you give them exactly what they're looking for, they'll be angry about the following economic depression, and if brexit isn't delivered, they'll be angry that they were not listened to. Because they're going to be angry anyway, it's best to just ignore them and do what is actually in the countries' best interests which is a 2nd referendum followed by revoking A50

This is a major problem, it amazes me how often people describe Theresa May as a remainer or her deal as a soft Brexit - it was in fact the absolute hardest possible Brexit that didn't renege on existing treaties like the GFA or existing financial commitments.

And time and again the media frame it that it was only defeated in Parliament because of the backstop, when in fact the vast majority of MPs who voted against it did so because they were looking for a closer relationship with customs union and / or single market membership.

LeinsterDub

roosterman71 wrote: »

I thought the queen was looking a bit shook today when she was doing her bit in the pageant

She is 93 in fairness

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

All i'm trying to say is, there seems to be this notion among some people - not saying you btw, just in general - that it's really not all that complicated, we'll just get to a second vote, maybe something between may deal and remain or whatever, and remain will win and everything is hunky dory again. Simples. But it's borderline delusional to think that imo. People tend to forget just how fractious and contested the framework for the vote was the first time around, think that may have ended up in the courts if my memory serves me. Look at all the legal farrago surrounding recent brexit events? Only think i'm certain about is that a second public vote will be a bitter, nasty contest long before it even gets to the people. Not saying thats a reason not to pursue that course, just that people - MPs especially - should be more honest and aware about it.

This is why Corbyn's plan is the only credible one right now. A referendum prior to an election has so many problems around what the question will be, and what the outcome might be.

A Labour government putting a referendum between an EFTA-style deal and Remain will guarantee a minimally damaging outcome. Of course there will be a lot of hardcore Brexiteers who see it as a betrayal, but there's also a lot of "just get on with it" voters who would be fine with EFTA.

And crucially, Labour are actually looking at the chronically underfunded public services and degradation in society that led to the vote in the first place. If they get Brexit in name only, but they can actually start getting timely appointments at the local hospital again, that will go a long way to appeasing people.

All of this is predicated on a Labour government of course (or most likely a Lab / SNP / Green / Plaid coalition) which is not helped when half their MPs are out undermining the party's policy and calling for a referendum before an election.

Joe_ Public

I keep hearing sky correspondents talk about Coveney's "note of optimism" this morning. I saw the interview they are referring to and that is not the conclusion i would arrive at at all. There was nothing in Coveney's words either way, he was just being as non-committal as he could possibly be which is the way it has to go. If by note of optimism, they mean absence of pessimism, i suppose they may have a point, but i think if Coveney was truly optimistic then he'd spell it out more clearly. I'd be fairly confident the tanaiste believes they are going nowhere fairly fast.

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

This is why Corbyn's plan is the only credible one right now. A referendum prior to an election has so many problems around what the question will be, and what the outcome might be.

A Labour government putting a referendum between an EFTA-style deal and Remain will guarantee a minimally damaging outcome. Of course there will be a lot of hardcore Brexiteers who see it as a betrayal, but there's also a lot of "just get on with it" voters who would be fine with EFTA.

And crucially, Labour are actually looking at the chronically underfunded public services and degradation in society that led to the vote in the first place. If they get Brexit in name only, but they can actually start getting timely appointments at the local hospital again, that will go a long way to appeasing people.

All of this is predicated on a Labour government of course (or most likely a Lab / SNP / Green / Plaid coalition) which is not helped when half their MPs are out undermining the party's policy and calling for a referendum before an election.

Seems to be a lot of internal pressure on the labour leader to switch to a referendum first position so interesting to see if he maintains his current stance. Hard to know. One issue with the referendum first position, i think, is that it surely requires an interim government and one that has to have Corbyn in charge (given it would be in place for likely a number of months) and when you have liberal democrats relentlessly outlining their opposition to corbyn, it may not be all that realistic. Unless there is some other way of getting a ref bill through the house, not sure on that.

I'm definitley not against Corbyns own position in principle. I dont see the big problem in a labour leader fundamentally unwilling to abandon voting areas that have long been labour heartlands. But not sure what he's going to get out of it, possibly nothing but heartache.

Edit: just to say i also understand the arguments against having a GE before a public vote, in that brexit just dominates the whole thing and the other fundamental issues are forgotten. I'd have thought that would be even as issue for Corbyn, but seems he prefers the GE first way.

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't think you'd see a successful general strike in a country that did vote to leave.
The real issue is though in my opinion is that I don't think the population fully grasp what they're about to lose.

You could well do in a country which was split 50-50 and where the result had been completely hijacked by the mostly unpleasant half of the country (the racists, xenophobes and general layabouts).

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

You could well do in a country which was split 50-50 and where the result had been completely hijacked by the mostly unpleasant half of the country (the racists, xenophobes and general layabouts).

It's a weird one. I'm part of a Facebook group which was setup to have genuine debate. I don't spend a lot of time on it but someone today asked why Leavers there still supported Brexit. The mod made a snarky comment about 52% and most of the responses were just quips about democracy, the 17.4 million, etc.. There was some stuff about EU membership discriminating against migration from Africa and poor countries but I suspect that that was not genuine.

briany

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is, that there is no form of brexit that doesn't leave the UK significantly worse off

You know how in the Brexit campaign, Leave said the UK gives 350 mil a week to the EU? It might have been wise for Remain to remind voters what the UK actually gets for its money. If leaving the EU were to actually cost the UK money, then it would surely mean that the UK were making more out of the EU than they were paying in. Did Remain not have a figure they could put on a bus?

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a weird one. I'm part of a Facebook group which was setup to have genuine debate. I don't spend a lot of time on it but someone today asked why Leavers there still supported Brexit. The mod made a snarky comment about 52% and most of the responses were just quips about democracy, the 17.4 million, etc.. There was some stuff about EU membership discriminating against migration from Africa and poor countries but I suspect that that was not genuine.

You know the old Brexiteer motto, "When in doubt, do a '17.4 million!' shout."

BarryD2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for people over the age of 18 who do not vote. They deserve nothing and no-one cares how much they complain. They had their chance to exercise their opinion when it mattered. And if they had voted, Brexit might have been very different.

Isn't that all the more reason to have a second or confirmatory referendum? To make sure the UK gets the widest possible representative vote.

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm amazed at how cowed into silence the Remain side have been.

In any other country, you'd probably see mass street demonstrations or even a general strike against Brexit.

There were large marches back in March I think, vast numbers. The Tory government seem disinclined to pay much notice at the time or since.