Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

No 10 had said, after the Letwin Adm was passed that it increased the likelyhood of a No Deal Brexit. Peston pushed him to justify the statement. Hancock waffled and eventually, used the worst defence, that he hadn't seen the statement.

Letwin_Larry

another pivotal/crucial week ahead then?
not really.

IT's GROUNDhog DAY!!!!!!

Joe_ Public

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Remember campaign pretty well and one thing im sure about is very few, if any, came out with deal or no deal line. Even farage wasnt peddling that for pitys sake.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Had it been sold to the British public on those terms, it would never have passed i.e. Vote Leave and the Daily Telegraph having to admit "We cannot guarantee Brexit will not decimate the UK economy".

They had to lie to the public to get it over the 50% threshold.

Mr.Nice Guy

devnull wrote:

Farage said if it was 52/48 before the referendum then it would be unfinished business.

What he meant was, only if he loses.

And he was getting slated for it by the very people who would end up calling for the same thing.

What they meant was, respect the result - provided we win it.

As regards the argument that the referendum was all things to all voters, that's not much much different to the 1918 general election in this country which was, and still is, cited as a sacrosanct democratic mandate for our independence.

SF won the election here fighting on a very vague definition of what Irish independence amounted to. There was very little detail spelt out at the time. The tough choices came after and much like with Brexit, the problems came in defining it. I'd still contend however that the British should have respected the outcome of that vote, whether they liked it or not.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

No I have not said that. I'm talking about brexit and the way it was sold. The Leave campaign even admitted that they knew it would fail miserably if they tried to define it. So they kept it vague and illusory. They didn't just ignore the issues, they denied them. I'd like to think (and brexit has helped here) that any other country would not allow such an important decision to be put to a referendum without a clear understanding of the risks and what they were voting for.

And 'deal or no deal' didn't even become a 'thing' until 2017. After the referendum. So to imply that people voted in that way is... disingenuous.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

No I have not said that. I'm talking about brexit and the way it was sold. The Leave campaign even admitted that they knew it would fail miserably if they tried to define it. So they kept it vague and illusory. They didn't just ignore the issues, they denied them. I'd like to think (and brexit has helped here) that any other country would not allow such an important decision to be put to a referendum without a clear understanding of the risks and what they were voting for.

And 'deal or no deal' didn't even become a 'thing' until 2017. After the referendum. So to imply that people voted in that way is... disingenuous.

The media should have been sounding all sorts of alarm bells about just how risky an ambiguous and ill defined Leave vote would be for the UK and drawing attention to just how flawed the actual referendum itself was.

Brexit was an absolute failure of the British media and political class

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its ridiculous this call to bring an amendment for an all UK customs union.

The deal was negotiated between the EU and the UK. Parliament can't just make whatever changes they fancy to this now and think that is ok. It's so arrogant.

Who says a customs union is now on offer? Who says that wouldn't require a different compromise from the UK? Quid pro quo. How would a customs union then affect the arrangements for Ireland?

The deal is the deal. It's the second deal. It's infuriating this idea that the UK can unilaterally change the deal now. Barnier was literally briefing ambassadors on the deal yesterday, and the UK is already trying to pick it apart again.

The UK need to understand that the latest deal is the deal unless and until there is agreement from the EU to alter it. The EU have no intention of changing the deal as they just concluded it literally days ago, miraculously pulling it out of the bag after some big compromises.

If the UK don't want to pass the deal, they should focus on getting an extension for a GE and/or a referendum. That also requires agreement of the EU if they don't want to crash out in 11 days.

Of course we don't know if the deal has a majority or not, because the HOC stopped the HOC asking the HOC. For ****s sake.

It took a few weeks to change the deal on the backstop, do you think it will take a lot of time for the EU to change the WA to a permanent customs union? We have to consider if it is in the interest of the EU to have a permanent customs union with the UK. If the answer is yes then it can be done. If the answer is no then it will be rejected. Do you think we will reject an option to cause less damage than Johnson's deal will do?

As for what the EU would think of the changing of the deal, if it means there is a majority that will accept a permanent customs union it makes it more likely to pass, which is what the EU will be interested in as well. So they should be welcoming if there is an indication from the HoC and Johnson if they will accept this.

Finally, most of those involved are seasoned politicians hence why the EU didn't fall for the 3 letters scam from Johnson. They know the game as they have been playing it as well. They know what the opposition will be trying to do and so they would have thought of what possibly could happen and might have some contacts with the plans as well. So the EU shouldn't be surprised by the moves of the opposition and I think they should be welcoming if it means a better deal than we have now, which a permanent customs union undoubtedly is.

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

There’s a direct contradiction in lines 3 and 4 in your post. Referenda don’t work when it’s a case of “either way”. Did they vote to leave with a deal or not ? Many of the Leave campaigners mentioned remaining in the SM/CU, the deal is therefore not implementing the “will of the people” as they see it ?

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brazilians in Tuam for starters, Indians in IT support roles and countless other imports to maintain growth.

Indians in IT support roles?

In Ireland?

And not outsourced in India?

Who is doing that exactly?

And in what numbers?

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is wrong with asking people if they are happy with the deal they've got? A simple confirmatory vote - Remain or the Deal. Why are Brexiteers so afraid of that?

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

lawred2

schmittel wrote: »

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

And what happens if a GE results in a hung parliament?

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

It took a few weeks to change the deal on the backstop, do you think it will take a lot of time for the EU to change the WA to a permanent customs union? We have to consider if it is in the interest of the EU to have a permanent customs union with the UK. If the answer is yes then it can be done. If the answer is no then it will be rejected. Do you think we will reject an option to cause less damage than Johnson's deal will do?

The difficulty will lie with a recalcitrant Johnson who won't want it. So how do they negotiate it? It's a completely mad idea to have a WA come out of the HoC that the negotiating party doesn't want.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

And what happens if a GE results in a hung parliament?

Indicative votes on the options available and let whichever one wins pass Parliament without opposition?

They have to go with something at some stage, even if it has no majority. Let the votes be secret.

Mr.Nice Guy

I'm really surprised that some on this thread still want the UK to stay in the EU after the way they've behaved the last couple of years. Why would anyone want a sullen member state that is going to most likely try to thwart the institution at every turn going forward? I think many EU member states wanted them to have a rethink early on, but my understanding is that most are now fed up and want to move on.

While I can see the amusement that would come with the Farages, Duncan-Smiths and Raabs etc. howling their calls of betrayal, that would quickly give way to less amusing ugliness outside of the Commons. One wouldn't want to be a non-national in such a poisonous atmosphere.

Best thing for Ireland and the other states at this point is an orderly withdrawal and allow the UK work out its identity issues in its own time. Perhaps England and Wales can vote to rejoin at some stage in the future, ideally after Scotland has already joined as an independent state, and NI has joined as part of a reunified Ireland.

hometruths

lawred2 wrote: »

And what happens if a GE results in a hung parliament?

Obviously that depends on the make up of the MPs - if Tories and Brexit Party can get enough numbers - then it is hard Brexit,

If Labour/Lib Dem can do a deal then you would have to fancy a 2nd ref with a remain outcome. Surely the Lib Dems could sign up to a coalition/confidence&supply if it is to thwart Tory Brexit.

Hung or not. Parliament should lean one way or another.

Water John

It really is the question of the majority in the UK being taken out in a Hard or Crash Out Brexit against their will. I wouldn't be bothered if they had gone for a Soft Brexit. It's what TM should have done on the 52/48, but her Tory Party was more important.

Kermit.de.frog

marno21 wrote: »

There’s a direct contradiction in lines 3 and 4 in your post. Referenda don’t work when it’s a case of “either way”. Did they vote to leave with a deal or not ? Many of the Leave campaigners mentioned remaining in the SM/CU, the deal is therefore not implementing the “will of the people” as they see it ?

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

Professor Moriarty

schmittel wrote: »

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

A GE is not the way to determine a single issue. Party allegiance will skew voting. Other issues will skew voting. Plus Britain has FPTP which means that a third of the electorate could determine the issue.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

The "left"? Seriously?

Water John

It was clearly indicated in the draft legislation what would happen after the abortion Ref.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

That's a detail.

No Deal is the equivalent of using a clothes hanger, and ya, that would be so absurd as a government position, it would demand a revote.

Kermit.de.frog

Water John wrote: »

It was clearly indicated in the draft legislation what would happen after the abortion Ref.

No it wasn't.

They hadn't decided how many weeks during the referendum.

So I ask again should that vote have been revoked?

On the basis of the arguments here on the Brexit vote it should absolutely have been overturned.

It's total hypocrisy by people who don't accept the democratically expressed wish of the people in the referendum in the UK to leave the European Union because they don't like it.

It's only complicated for them because it suits them to pretend it's complicated.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

Not a great example tbf. It was clear we were voting for it to be legislated for. And that we were handing that power to the Dáil. If we didn't like the idea of the Dáil deciding we could have rejected it. And it was a defined outcome. There would be abortion, which was the substantive issue. And the other difference is that it wasn't prescriptive. You don't have to have an abortion and you don't have to go to the longest possible term to have one. If you were to apply that logic to brexit, some people could brexit and some could remain.

hometruths

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A GE is not the way to determine a single issue. Party allegiance will skew voting. Other issues will skew voting. Plus Britain has FPTP which means that a third of the electorate could determine the issue.

At some stage the electorate as well as the MPs have to responsibility for their votes and at this stage if party allegiance and other issues skew the voting, then individuals influenced by these factors cannot complain that they wanted to revoke but they have a Tory hard brexit government.

If voters feel this is the biggest issue on the table they should vote accordingly. If they think that Jeremy Corbyn is a psycho socialist and could not vote Labour although they want a 2nd ref, fair enough, but don't whine when you don't get a 2nd ref.

Equally if you'd like to revoke but you have voted Tory all your life, you should vote Lib Dem and to hell with how you've voted in the past.

Bottom line is if other issues do skew the voting then we are overestimating the importance of Brexit and they should be happy to let whoever wins get on with whatever they said they'd do in their manifesto.

Or if Brexit is the biggest issue of the day, then other issues will not skew the voting, then they should be happy to let whoever wins get on with whatever they said they'd do in their manifesto.

Only a general election will give a government the strength and insight to solve this problem, whatever that solution is.

lawred2

schmittel wrote: »

Obviously that depends on the make up of the MPs - if Tories and Brexit Party can get enough numbers - then it is hard Brexit,

If Labour/Lib Dem can do a deal then you would have to fancy a 2nd ref with a remain outcome. Surely the Lib Dems could sign up to a coalition/confidence&supply if it is to thwart Tory Brexit.

Hung or not. Parliament should lean one way or another.

It already leans to remain

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

There would be abortion, which was the substantive issue.

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

It's not. Because as I said, it's not prescriptive. Everyone doesn't have to have an abortion because of that vote. Only those who choose and/or need to.

Letwin_Larry

this Brexit nonsense reminds me of a time i was on hols in the South of Spain some years ago.
we visit this area very often and are very familiar with it. we adore this little slice of paradise.

one of the villages we love visiting is a very old typical Mediterranean fishing village. on this day we decided to call into a small fish restaurant. this particular place has been there for generations and rightly prides itself as one of the finest fish restaurants on the Med. the decor is deceptively plain and simple, the service is efficient and friendly, most importantly the fish is fresh, delicious and perfectly cooked. it arrives daily not just Mediterranean, but from all over the globe.

an English couple (mid 50s i reckon) sat down next to us. they looked pleasant. our 7 year old caught their attention, we glanced at one another and smiled.


the lady was undecided. what kind of fish do you have? she asked. the waiter nonchalantly explained they had practically every type of fish it was possible to eat. he went through every fish that was available. bream, bass, hake, halibut, herring. trout, cod, crayfish & eel. sardines, swordfish, salmon & snapper, monkfish, perch and pollock. the list was exhaustive. some species of fish i had never heard of, and most i cannot recall.

he explained what some of these fish might taste like. their size, texture, their flavour. their boneiness. his knowledge was truly impressive. still undecided she insisted on further explanation. he proudly presented to her some dozen or more different fish. sadly none were impressive enough to sway her. in desperation the waiter took her behind the scenes into the kitchen area, where few if any customers ever venture.

this performance was now ongoing for some 40 mins. and had attracted the attention of almost everybody. some people were amused, some locals looked annoyed, most like me were just curious, my partner was resisting the urge to titter. my daughter was slurping her ice-cream in the midday heat. the poor waiter was by now close to total exasperation. the lady's husband was stoic and impressively patient. i was intrigued to see what exotic species she might eventually decide on. i deliberately lingered over my cafe con leche.

in the end the waiter by now exhausted, pleaded in quiet desperation "please lady tell me what do you want?"

after some hesitation, she said

"Ah! i'll stick with the Cod"

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

I actually agree overall but hate your analogy. I don't think there should be a referendum.

I used clothes hanger before. This time I'll make it more like Brexit.. The vote is "unborn babies can be killed." The people vote yes. The government says they will do this by killing the mother. That's No Deal.


They should have been voting on what the country should be. Not what it shouldn't be. Abortion is an exact thing. Leaving the EU is not.