Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

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.

The people shouting most loudly about "democracy" are the likes of Spiked Online, the Daily Telegraph, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Cummings ie. right wing authoritarians who have hijacked a sham of a referendum.

It's fascinating to watch how the people with the least democratic credentials in the UK are the ones shouting "democracy, democracy, democracy" from the rooftops.

ToBeFrank123

quokula wrote: »

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.

In defence of May and whoever negotiates for the UK, its difficult if not impossible to get an agreement that is supported by a majority in the HoC.

May was after all a remainer herself and would probably have preferred to remain or get a deal that had a close relationship to CM and SM.

She was likely looking over her shoulder at the ERG when she came up with her red lines.

May was never going to deliver a deal, not with Johnson and Rees Mogg hovering in the background.

From what I can see, Johnson agreeing a deal with the EU is the easy bit. Its getting it through the HoC is the hard bit.

ToBeFrank123

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

There's no guarantee more people will vote the next time and probably less if people feel their vote is going to be ignored.

Oafley Jones

LeinsterDub wrote: »

She is 93 in fairness

She normally seems to be more in line with people at least 15 years her junior, but yeah, that's the first time I though she looked old old. Even her voice has shifted.

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

The people shouting most loudly about "democracy" are the likes of Spiked Online, the Daily Telegraph, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Cummings ie. right wing authoritarians who have hijacked a sham of a referendum.

I'd disagree re Cummings. He seems like much more of an anarchistic libertarian who would happily destroy the British state or at least most of it. It would surprise me if he'd ever voted Tory.

Strazdas wrote: »

It's fascinating to watch how the people with the least democratic credentials in the UK are the ones shouting "democracy, democracy, democracy" from the rooftops.

Yeah but they get a pass because they say the right things. It's like a football match. If a player on your team fouls someone on the other side you cheer. If someone on the other side does it, you threaten the referee.

farmchoice

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

In defence of May and whoever negotiates for the UK, its difficult if not impossible to get an agreement that is supported by a majority in the HoC.

May was after all a remainer herself and would probably have preferred to remain or get a deal that had a close relationship to CM and SM.

She was likely looking over her shoulder at the ERG when she came up with her red lines.

May was never going to deliver a deal, not with Johnson and Rees Mogg hovering in the background.

From what I can see, Johnson agreeing a deal with the EU is the easy bit. Its getting it through the HoC is the hard bit.

May had a choice after her disastrous election (as thing turned out it might not have been all that different if she never called the election).
she could have acknowledged there was more support in the nation for a soft brexit and reached across the aisle to the Opposition. or she could go as hard as possible and try and keep the hard liners on side.
with the benefit of hind sight it is obvious that either path would result in her political end.
option one might actually have delivered some sort of brexit but it would have be derided as BRINO by the ERG and she would have been a goner.
option 2.... well we know how that went and she was a goner.
option 1 is now off the table for Boris and option 2 now is less likely to succeed then it was back in May's day, even though this appears to be the Johnson plan.

NotToScale

LeinsterDub wrote: »

She is 93 in fairness

That and she's quite possibly reading a long speech she doesn't necessarily agree with. I've never understood why the PM doesn't just lay out their programme for government like a normal country and leave the Queen to get on with symbolic queen type stuff.

I've seen a few old Queen's speeches and she never looks particularly comfortable. Also the hat weighs a ton.

Even the speech always seems somewhat 'infantile' in how it's written. It's certainly never a rousing, reflective or even remotely interesting piece. It's just a rather bland and pedantic list of: "My government will do .. " "My government..." "My government..."..."My government..."

Then in reality "My Government..." does what ever the hell it likes anyway and the speech is only some kind of vague outline of fuzzy objectives like what you might put in some kind of a pitch for a project in college.

They've a serious issue with pageantry over practicality in England though and it's something that I think is likely to be part of their undoing eventually.

c.p.w.g.w

I find it worrying that whenever the "a 2nd referendum would be undemocratic" line is thrown out.

There is no mention of the fact that if the referendum was legally binding, the courts would have in all likelihood voided it due to all shady sh!t by Cummings et al(e.g red bus and arron banks mystery money)

Tea Shock

NotToScale wrote: »

Also the hat weighs a ton.

The hat she wore when delivering her 2017 speech was much better and there's no way on Earth it was an accident either.

NotToScale

Possibly not and she was reportedly really annoyed by being summoned to Parliament do to that in the middle of the horse racing. She was on her way to one of her favourite events of the year, got almost not notice and also Westminster was stiflingly hot.

The one thing that it drives home to me is how useful the Presidency in Ireland actually is. The Irish presidency has really become a bit of a reflective position and a useful check and balance, certainly since the 1990s and Mary Robinson's tenure anyway.

The Queen has no democratic mandate and seems to be acutely aware of that and confines herself to just being more or less a mascot. I think people read far too much into how she might feel about something.

We just don't know what her opinions on this are. I mean on the one hand she's lived through the end of WWII and been in the role all through the period of post war European positivity and rebuilding stability, but on the other hand she could be hankering after the days when she and her ancestors were symbolic rulers of a vast empire. Although, outwardly, she seems like a very reasonable woman and I thought how she has dealt with Irish-British relations has been head and shoulders above what we're seeing now. The whole laying a wreath and bowing at the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin was an absolutely huge symbolic gesture and I don't think it was really planned, certainly not in huge detail anyway. She's also been extremely friendly and open to members of Sinn Fein - cracking jokes with Martin McGuinness for example.

I don't agree with the concept of monarchy at all but, as monarchs go, she's doing a pretty exemplary job of staying totally politically neutral.

However, people project what they want her to be onto her. The Brexiteers see her as being on their side and I think the Remainers and others assume she's a progressive figure who sees the value of the EU and so on. It's just a case of her being so apolitical nobody knows and we may never know.

A Dub in Glasgo

quokula wrote: »

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.

The polls open at 0700 and close at 2200 - I don't buy the 'I was too busy to vote' line

Leroy42

TM was not a remainer. She had very serious issues with the ECJ and immigration was a major issue for her.

She, very reluctantly and disinterested, backed remain during the ref. But did so with as much enthusiasm as Corbyn. It was simply the political thing she chose, sticking with the PM.

And from the moment Cameron stepped down she was a fully fledged Leaver. And she went for a full on hard Brexit, even claiming No Deal was acceptable.

That the deal was so against what the Brexiteers wished for was the reason she was labelled a remainer. That was necessary as otherwise they would have had to accept that Brexit itself was the issue.

Kermit.de.frog

True...

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1183673365359411200

gooch2k9

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The polls open at 0700 and close at 2200 - I don't buy the 'I was too busy to vote' line

When you hear of people having two hour train commutes around London I'd buy it. Add in delays to that mix and it's very possible people couldn't make it before 2200.

NotToScale

I think TM has been reconstructed as somehow this pragmatic and reasonable character that I don't really think she ever was. If you look at her tenure as Home Secretary in particular, she was one of the most right wing and authoritarian holders of that office and was utterly fixated on controlling immigration at all times.

Things like the infamous 'Go Home Vans' were all part of her legacy.

Perhaps we're seeing her as more reasonable and pragmatic just by comparison to the extremists that hold cabinet positions now, but she certainly was not some victim of events nor did she ever seem committed to EU values, other than maybe the purely economic and transactional ones.

There are reasonable tories, John Major for example always strikes me as a genuine statesman and is both extremely pragmatic and intelligent in how he approaches everything he does. That was the side of the Tories that were Ireland's friends and drove parts of the Northern Irish peace process. The element that is in office now were always sceptical of the GFA and saw Northern Ireland as something to be dealt with as a simple security issue, not a political one.

I also think we confuse ignorance about Northern Ireland with a very deliberate disinterest.

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM was not a remainer. She had very serious issues with the ECJ and immigration was a major issue for her.

She, very reluctantly and disinterested, backed remain during the ref. But did so with as much enthusiasm as Corbyn. It was simply the political thing she chose, sticking with the PM.

And from the moment Cameron stepped down she was a fully fledged Leaver. And she went for a full on hard Brexit, even claiming No Deal was acceptable.

That the deal was so against what the Brexiteers wished for was the reason she was labelled a remainer. That was necessary as otherwise they would have had to accept that Brexit itself was the issue.

Absolutely. I figure she may well have voted to remain in the referendum herself, but as soon as she came out with the fatuous and dense "brexit means brexit" line she had nailed herself to the hard brexit mast and there was no going back. Long before that, she was definitely one of the most cruel and heartless home secretaries in modern times. One of the big things i recall is her office putting out a tweet basically telling people they suspected of being in sham marriages that they were coming to get them. No redeeming qualities there whatsoever for me.

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM was not a remainer. She had very serious issues with the ECJ and immigration was a major issue for her.

She, very reluctantly and disinterested, backed remain during the ref. But did so with as much enthusiasm as Corbyn. It was simply the political thing she chose, sticking with the PM.

And from the moment Cameron stepped down she was a fully fledged Leaver. And she went for a full on hard Brexit, even claiming No Deal was acceptable.

That the deal was so against what the Brexiteers wished for was the reason she was labelled a remainer. That was necessary as otherwise they would have had to accept that Brexit itself was the issue.

Without the threat of No Deal, there was nothing to bring the EU to the table. We've seen that in recent weeks. When the EU thought Boris was serious about No Deal, they also got serious about negotiations. Its about the only bargaining chip the UK has.

(Not that I agree with it, but if they didn't have it, the withdrawal process would drag on with neither side willing to compromise).

As for May, she voted remain. She was entitled to run for leader of the party, but once she got the position, she felt she had to represent the majority view in the party. The party also ran on a Brexit platform in 2017.

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Without the threat of No Deal, there was nothing to bring the EU to the table. We've seen that in recent weeks. When the EU thought Boris was serious about No Deal, they also got serious about negotiations. Its about the only bargaining chip the UK has.

(Not that I agree with it, but if they didn't have it, the withdrawal process would drag on with neither side willing to compromise).

As for May, she voted remain. She was entitled to run for leader of the party, but once she got the position, she felt she had to represent the majority view in the party. The party also ran on a Brexit platform in 2017.

Some bargaining chip. Give me what I want or I'll shoot my kneecaps off.

A Dub in Glasgo

gooch2k9 wrote: »

When you hear of people having two hour train commutes around London I'd buy it. Add in delays to that mix and it's very possible people couldn't make it before 2200.

Anyone on the electoral register can apply to vote by post

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-postal-vote

Varta

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Without the threat of No Deal, there was nothing to bring the EU to the table. We've seen that in recent weeks. When the EU thought Boris was serious about No Deal, they also got serious about negotiations. Its about the only bargaining chip the UK has.

(Not that I agree with it, but if they didn't have it, the withdrawal process would drag on with neither side willing to compromise).

This is not true. The EU has always been willing to talk and that is what they are doing now. On the other hand, the threat of no deal has brought the UK to the table with a willingness to compromise.

CelticRambler

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Without the threat of No Deal, there was nothing to bring the EU to the table. We've seen that in recent weeks. When the EU thought Boris was serious about No Deal, they also got serious about negotiations. Its about the only bargaining chip the UK has.

"No deal" was never a threat or a bargaining chip, because there never was and never will be any such thing as a "no deal" Brexit. The day after a crash-out Brexit, the UK would need a deal. Everyone on the EU side of the table knew that, and a fair few people on the UK side did too - only not the idiots that make up the government. The light is (finally) now beginning to dawn on that particular group.

The EU has been serious about negotiations ever since the referendum was announced, and were already preparing for a "Leave" outcome before the result. It's what the EU does: imagine worst case scenarios and plan for them. Ireland was part of that planning, and making sure that Irish interests were going to be looked after while the Leave campaign were still trundling around the UK on Big Red Buses.

one armed dwarf

gooch2k9 wrote: »

When you hear of people having two hour train commutes around London I'd buy it. Add in delays to that mix and it's very possible people couldn't make it before 2200.

Just do add to this, the referendum occurred on the same day as a really bad storm which left lots of trains cancelled
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/uk-weather-storms-light-up-the-skies-as-rain-and-floods-expected/

Most of the people in our office voted in the morning (I think). But it was near impossible to get anywhere after work.

Funnily enough on the day after the vote it was a lovely summer day

ToBeFrank123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some bargaining chip. Give me what I want or I'll shoot my kneecaps off.

You know well that No Deal will do as much damage to Ireland as anywhere.

Tell us what other bargaining chip they had to try to get a deal which can get past the HoC? We've seen a permanent backstop won't get far.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Without the threat of No Deal, there was nothing to bring the EU to the table. We've seen that in recent weeks. When the EU thought Boris was serious about No Deal, they also got serious about negotiations. Its about the only bargaining chip the UK has.

How are you still regurgitating this garbage? There is no real threat to Europe in no deal as the UK will always still have to come back looking for some form of trade agreement and they will have them over a barrel on that.

Also the EU have been sitting waiting to negotiate, Johnson is the one who publicly announced he was stopping sending people to brussels last month.

You are living in some form of warped fantasy land solely informed on events by the telegraph and express.

ToBeFrank123

Varta wrote: »

This is not true. The EU has always been willing to talk and that is what they are doing now. On the other hand, the threat of no deal has brought the UK to the table with a willingness to compromise.

Up until about the 1st October, the EU, Ireland and UK repeatedly said there was little prospect of a deal.

When the possibility of No Deal came into view, all sides got focussed.

They've all said in the last week, that a deal is now possible, pathway to a deal, etc. Funny how that happened when the threat of No Deal was on the table.

I don't agree with No Deal, in fact its the very worst case scenario. But it has focused minds.

CelticRambler

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Tell us what other bargaining chip they had to try to get a deal which can get past the HoC?

This isn't about bargaining, it's about process. The UK voted to Leave; the EU said "Fine, you can leave. Tell us when you're going, and what you want to sacrifice on the way out."

The UK responded "Huh? What sacrifices ...?"

The rest has been the UK squabbling with itself over whether or not it's ready to make sacrifices in the name of a Glorious Brexit, and if so what.

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You know well that No Deal will do as much damage to Ireland as anywhere.

Tell us what other bargaining chip they had to try to get a deal which can get past the HoC? We've seen a permanent backstop won't get far.

Oh I see. So the No Deal "bargaining chip" is actually a threat to damage Ireland's economy if they don't get their own way in talks. Nice.

farmchoice

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You know well that No Deal will do as much damage to Ireland as anywhere.

Tell us what other bargaining chip they had to try to get a deal which can get past the HoC? We've seen a permanent backstop won't get far.

you often revert back to an argument that is loosely based on


'' the house of commons is deeply divided, what is the EU going to do about it, how is it (the EU)going to fashion an agreement that reflects this fact.


the make up of the HOC is not nor should it ever be a factor in any EU/IRELAND negotiating position, it is an entirely internal British matter and if it results in the British government often taking near nonsensical positions to reflect this the EU should not be expected to engage with them just because they reflect internal British dis-functionality.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Up until about the 1st October, the EU, Ireland and UK repeatedly said there was little prospect of a deal.

When the possibility of No Deal came into view, all sides got focussed.

They've all said in the last week, that a deal is now possible, pathway to a deal, etc. Funny how that happened when the threat of No Deal was on the table.

I don't agree with No Deal, in fact its the very worst case scenario. But it has focused minds.

With the Benn Act being passed, No Deal was kicked at least three months down the road.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

How are you still regurgitating this garbage? There is no real threat to Europe in no deal as the UK will always still have to come back looking for some form of trade agreement and they will have them over a barrel on that.

You are living in some form of warped fantasy land solely informed on events by the telegraph and express.

I'm living in the reality as pointed out by our Irish Central Bank. Down 6% growth, recession, 110,000 less jobs - that's reality. You probably don't even listen to the Irish Central Bank FFS.

So yeh cut out the lies about getting this from the telegraph or you're heading for ignore. No-one likes a liar.