Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

devnull wrote: »

Indeed, if you ask them for a single policy other than delivering Brexit of Farage's none of them can say anything and when you tell them about his tax plans and workers rights they say that is all 'project fear' and speculation even though he's openly said it himself.

Some of them are so desperate for Brexit they'd sell their family down the river to get it.

The fact that the brexit party got away with running for office without a manifesto says it all.

Water John

If it is structured right then a confirmatory Ref of Johnson Deal V Remain has a good chance of getting through. I would expect the DUP to back as a get out of jail card. Have they the bravery to do it? It's their one option left to get rid of checks in the Irish Sea. Would expect them to vote for it.

Guy:Incognito

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People will probably disbelieve me when I say this, and I understand why but my primary motivation for supporting another referendum is to legitimise Brexit, ie to ask the people, "Given what has transpired and come to light in the past three years, is this huge change what you want?"

If people want to take the all but guaranteed economic hit, to turn cracks in the Union into chasms and to jettison the UK's standing in the world all for the whims of a few shadowy financiers then that's their call. This was far from clear in 2016. It is now so there's nothing anyone like me can say or do to question the legitimacy of a People's Vote whatever the result is.

The UK deserves a chance to rethink this, to show that it is better than the libertarian Tory right and to vote based on facts and not fantasies. I doubt there is a single member of the "We knew what we were voting for" brigade who desired turning the Prime Minister into a supplicant of the French president three times. I want to end this with a remain vote but I want Brexit voters to have the chance to be 100% sure so that the fallout will be entirely on them regardless of the fantasies they've been sold by the likes of Rothermere, Murdoch and Desmond.

They need 2 votes though.

First on the deal and then on deal V remain. Rerunning the referendum without a clear line on what leave means is just the same thing again.

It needs to be clear that leave is this exact deal (or whatever or they eventually agree on, no deal ect.)

But there theres the Scotland situation to consider too. Do they stay in the union if its remain?

A Dub in Glasgo

devnull wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1185842754385043458

I think this sums up the Tory party quite well right now and you'd have to ask yourself why the hell are they betting each other and secondly, if this shows that they are not as united as they seem to be, with Gove once again throwing people under the bus.

Reminds of that scene in Trading Places where the two Duke brothers reveal they fecked everything up for a $1 bet

A Dub in Glasgo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1185835835859652608

Would SNP and Lib Dems support this?

I am not sure the SNP should unless each constitiuent country in the 'union' has to vote for Brexit in order for the UK to leave

ancapailldorcha

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They need 2 votes though.

First on the deal and then on deal V remain. Rerunning the referendum without a clear line on what leave means is just the same thing again.

It needs to be clear that leave is this exact deal (or whatever or they eventually agree on, no deal ect.)

But there theres the Scotland situation to consider too. Do they stay in the union if its remain?

Depends on how things pan out. If we have a GE and Boris wins on a no deal mandate then it's GG. If Corbyn wins on a second referendum mandate then he can ditch the deal and either wins some token concessions for his own and run a referendum for that. He won't have no deal on the ballot anyway as his supporters will not tolerate that.

Regarding Scotland, I think they will want out regardless but I would expect them to get much more extreme in the event of no deal, even potentially plumping for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence if they are refused another IndyRef from London. Northern Ireland is getting special treatment so why shouldn't Scotland? I am aware of the GFA being the difference but Scotland will want special arrangements or independence.

Brexit will scupper the union make no mistake.

Guy:Incognito

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Reminds of that scene in Trading Places where the two Duke brothers reveal they fecked everything up for a $1 bet

I made the mistake of putting the youtube clip of that a few mins ago, forgetting where I was. It vanished

It was the first thing that came to mind for me too.

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am not sure the SNP should unless each constitiuent country in the 'union' has to vote for Brexit in order for the UK to leave

If you start imposing those kind of conditions before the vote you'll simply never get it to the starting line at all. Leave side just wont engage and that would be a problem. SNP has always backed second vote so i imagine they would be on board with a straight Johnson deal v remain if that can be delivered.

J Mysterio

RE the extension request...

HOC have still not voted on the WA.

Might it make sense for the EU to say, sorry, we will not entertain an extension untill you have voted on the agreement we literally just negotiated? They havent even tested it yet.

Water John

SNP have been quite clear that if Remain is an option, that is what they would support. They have said they're first priority is not to have Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people.
It's the only way to break the logjam.

If the HOC vote for the WA then it's game over, there is no other vote.

FrancieBrady

fergiesfolly wrote: »

You're absolutely right.
But JRM knew the crowd would be abusive and still took his child through it. Worse still, he dressed him up to look like a miniature version of himself, drawing even more attention to them and putting his child in danger.
I don't like him or his politics, but to to that to his own son proves what a vile, odious cretan he is.

My main criticism would still be with those who seen the situation and couldn't contain themselves.

Everyone has responsibilities here and abuse like that should be condemned FIRST. Like racist chants your opinion of the abused is secondary tbh.

Joe_ Public

J Mysterio wrote: »

RE the extension request...

HOC have still not voted on the WA.

Might it make sense for the EU to say, sorry, we will not entertain an extension untill you have voted on the agreement we literally just negotiated? They havent even tested it yet.

I dont see there is an issue with the extension. Whether deal passed or not they'll need it. Even if it passes hoc it still then has to go to brussels to be ratified, academic process but still requires time. So its just a matter of how long for extension not if. I imagine EU leaders themselves remain concerned about no deal.

J Mysterio

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont see there is an issue with the extension. Whether deal passed or not they'll need it. Even if it passes hoc it still then has to go to brussels to be ratified, academic process but still requires time. So its just a matter of how long for extension not if. I imagine EU leaders themselves remain concerned about no deal.

Well, I guess the Benn act gives the EU the flexibility to offer whatever extension they like.

Tired Gardener

A second referendum would be ideal, I do suspect that a good chunk of those who voted for Leave would just spoil their ballot paper as they feel betrayed. There was a recent trend in Brexiteer's spoiling their ballot papers in local elections if I recall correctly... not to sound judgemental, but the average Brexiteer isn't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

The second referendum should have 3 options:

Remain,
Leave without a deal,
Leave with Johnson's deal.

I imagine this would be a majority win for Remain, which as an Englishman living in Ireland who voted Remain in the previous referendum suits me fine!

Joe_ Public

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A second referendum would be ideal, I do suspect that a good chunk of those who voted for Leave would just spoil their ballot paper as they feel betrayed. There was a recent trend in Brexiteer's spoiling their ballot papers in local elections if I recall correctly... not to sound judgemental, but the average Brexiteer isn't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

The second referendum should have 3 options:

Remain,
Leave without a deal,
Leave with Johnson's deal.

I imagine this would be a majority win for Remain, which as an Englishman living in Ireland who voted Remain in the previous referendum suits me fine!

That would be great but its fantasy to think you'd engineer a scenario with 2 leave options. Recipe for chaos imho.

J Mysterio

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A second referendum would be ideal, I do suspect that a good chunk of those who voted for Leave would just spoil their ballot paper as they feel betrayed. There was a recent trend in Brexiteer's spoiling their ballot papers in local elections if I recall correctly... not to sound judgemental, but the average Brexiteer isn't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

The second referendum should have 3 options:

Remain,
Leave without a deal,
Leave with Johnson's deal.

I imagine this would be a majority win for Remain, which as an Englishman living in Ireland who voted Remain in the previous referendum suits me fine!

There's no way 'leave without a deal' should be put forward as an option.

54and56

fr336 wrote: »

Sky News saying that one amendment put in front of house this week could be for a permanent customs union for all of UK. Which the DUP could back. And Boris would be screwed.

This would be the sweetest of sweetest outcomes. I can't see it really happening though but for sure the DUP will use it for maximum leverage.

liamtech

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They need 2 votes though.

First on the deal and then on deal V remain. Rerunning the referendum without a clear line on what leave means is just the same thing again.

It needs to be clear that leave is this exact deal (or whatever or they eventually agree on, no deal ect.)

But there theres the Scotland situation to consider too. Do they stay in the union if its remain?

I agree, there should/could be two questions on the referendum, with the second only attaining meaning depending on the first

Do you still wish to leave the EU

Do u wish to leave with the deal, or a clean break No Deal Brexit

That would be the only way to properly ensure that the will of the electorate is clear - if you have 2 questions with the first being REMAIN/LEAVE - and the second being LEAVE DEAL/LEAVE NO DEAL

Easy to accomplish this

Also having 3 options on the ref is a terrible idea for the obvious reason it divides the leave vote - if remain got 40% with 30 for deal, 30 for no deal - remain wins - but the polarization continues

Water John

No Deal would not be on the ballot paper, They have a negotiated twice, WA that or Remain. The EU may wait a few days to see what develops in the HOC.
The Johnson Deal may be passed, a Ref or a GE. That would dictate the length. The length of the Ext is always in the gift of the EU.

robinph

J Mysterio wrote: »

RE the extension request...

HOC have still not voted on the WA.

Might it make sense for the EU to say, sorry, we will not entertain an extension untill you have voted on the agreement we literally just negotiated? They havent even tested it yet.

Saw some tweets yesterday from some MPs saying that the WA had actually been agreed on yesterday by default but it happened was lost amongst the confusion when Johnson saying he wouldn't send the letter.

Edit: Here :

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1185629149500710912?s=09

Imreoir2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1185835835859652608

Would SNP and Lib Dems support this?

I believe SNP policy would be to vote for the ammendment but against the overall deal.

Professor Genius

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1185835835859652608

Would SNP and Lib Dems support this?

Will the DUP ??? That’s the question !!

Tired Gardener

J Mysterio wrote: »

There's no way 'leave without a deal' should be put forward as an option.

While I loathe the notion of it, it is looking very likely to happen unless something major happens. Also splitting the Leave vote into the two camps based upon what the two factions are calling for gives them what they want, while also undermining any strength in numbers their vote has.

Capt'n Midnight

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

can i just say this though in relation to a 2nd ref.

can you imagine yourself having just voted for/against a certain referendum, election whatever, then to have some well intention-ed person tap you on the shoulder and tell you that you were misled, misinformed or just ignorant, and to try again.

in fairness how would you feel?

personally i think i would explode. all logic would be lost. emotion would take over.

Of the people who voted in the last referendum about one million have since died. And about two million people who didn't vote are now eligible.

So even if not a single person changed their vote from last time Remain would win now.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
- L. P. Hartley


The other difference is that some people may have changed their minds based on new information.

Like the way the economic outlook has changed from pre referendum promises of "easiest trade deals ever, unicorns for all" to "the crash will be worse than the last recession".

Water John

Unless you use a transferable vote, 3 options don't work. Say Remain gets 40% and the other two get 30% each. People in the UK aren't used to voting 1,2,3.

J Mysterio

robinph wrote: »

Saw some tweets yesterday from some MPs saying that the WA had actually been agreed on yesterday by default but it happened was lost amongst the confusion when Johnson saying he wouldn't send the letter.

Edit: Here :

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1185629149500710912?s=09

That is... Mindblowing? I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

Saw some tweets yesterday from some MPs saying that the WA had actually been agreed on yesterday by default but it happened was lost amongst the confusion when Johnson saying he wouldn't send the letter.

Edit: Here :

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1185629149500710912?s=09

Very interesting thread. From what i can gather the WA is on the statute book but hasnt fully been given approval yet. Bit beyond my pay grade to work out what that actually means in practice.

J Mysterio

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Very interesting thread. From what i can gather the WA is on the statute book but hasnt fully been given approval yet. Bit beyond my pay grade to work out what that actually means in practice.

I suppose it means that if each piece of legislation required for the WA is passed through the house, then the WA is approved and ratified.

The issue is that Westminster thinks it can continue to amend everything, including the legislation underpinning the WA. That will surely not be the case.

Tired Gardener

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That would be great but its fantasy to think you'd engineer a scenario with 2 leave options. Recipe for chaos imho.

Seeing how split the Leave side are it makes more sense to give them more nuanced option to better fit their odd ideology.

We had Leave or Remain, which is too simplistic. Remain or Leave with Johnson's deal is again too simplistic.

Ideally the ballet should have four options, but Remain isn't split.

Given the situation the UK is in, with three camps emerging binary options aren't going to work. It will most likely not be a 3 option vote, but that isn't to say that it shouldn't be

Edit, also regarding it being a recipe for Chaos, the UK is already looking chaotic.

devnull

When you amend a bill, for the amendment to go through, you have to pass the whole bill (as amended).

If you don't, the amendment doesn't count, but this is only the first reading.