Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Bannasidhe

Forty Seven wrote: »

People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.

On both sides?

Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are?

Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications.

It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out.
Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means.

Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred?
One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant.
Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal.
Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park.
So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there.

Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)

Water John

The best way to create a middle ground that will help a healing process of deep divisions is probably a soft Brexit a la Lb option. The soft Brexit option is what TM should have followed instead of her 3 red lines. However she was blinded by her obsession with immigration control. She would have got it across the line with a lot of Lb MPs, despite the ERG.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On both sides?

Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are?

Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications.

It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out.
Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means.

Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred?
One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant.
Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal.
Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park.
So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there.

Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)

People know that Remain voters knew what they were voting for and Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. Some people choose to ignore this fact for whatever reasons and will not listen to rational argument.

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

Not the norm for referendums. How many of those have been rerun in the UK within 5 years?

Yes, but the UK doesn't really get this whole referendum thing, and hasn't worked out what a referendum can and cannot do (as the present shambles testifies). The referendum is a constitutional novelty in the UK, and the UK political system is handling it like a 12-yar old that has just been given the keys to a Porsche.

SeaBreezes

Something I am not clear on, if anyone could clarify? The SC decision that 'it never happened' does that give Boris a graceful out that he never broke the law (as it never happened) did the SC actually let him get away with breaking the law?

VinLieger

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Something I am not clear on, if anyone could clarify? The SC decision that 'it never happened' does that give Boris a graceful out that he never broke the law (as it never happened) did the SC actually let him get away with breaking the law?

No he broke the law but there's not likely to be any kind of punishment beyond the political ramifications.

If Brexit is the will of the people, why are Brexiters so terrified of a confirmatory vote?

SeaBreezes

VinLieger wrote: »

No he broke the law but there's not likely to be any kind of punishment beyond the political ramifications.

But surely that's not his or parliaments call? If you break the law, police must enforce.. though I suppose if there is a punishment for lying to the queen it's probably beheading :-)

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Now that a deal (or none in this case) has been agreed on, it's been revealed that Brexit will harm an awful lot of the population. A good Govt would revert back to the population and ask them a simple," Should Britain leave under these terms?" ballot.

“I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish."

- Jay Rayner, food critic

Peregrinus

He didn't "break the law" in the sense of committing a crime, and the police will not become involved. And the court conspicuously avoided finding that he lied to the queen, or even asking itself that question. The advice he gave was unlawful not because of his motive or intent in offering it, but because of the effect implementing it would have had.

L1011

Peregrinus wrote: »

He didn't "break the law" in the sense of committing a crime, and the police will not become involved. And the court conspicuously avoided finding that he lied to the queen, or even asking itself that question. The advice he gave was unlawful not because of his motive or intent in offering it, but because of the effect implementing it would have had.

Did the Scottish courts not find he had lied to the queen, with that ruling upheld?

Seth Brundle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

“I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish."

- Jay Rayner, food critic

Point of order - a food critic should probably know that a dolphin is not a fish!
(but let's not derail the discussion)

coolshannagh28

Water John wrote: »

The best way to create a middle ground that will help a healing process of deep divisions is probably a soft Brexit a la Lb option. The soft Brexit option is what TM should have followed instead of her 3 red lines. However she was blinded by her obsession with immigration control. She would have got it across the line with a lot of Lb MPs, despite the ERG.

The UK is at the limit of democracy , the referendum was too close and TM could have initially looked for consensus and should have looked across the house sooner but those looking back were too entrenched to back her deal , while she was outflanked by the DUP .
They are still in a bind and any if the Labour conference is anything to go by and the ERG and DUP have their way civil strife could result.

Shelga

Genghis wrote: »

Anyone listen to Eamon Dunphys latest podcast on The Stand. Regular contributor Brendan O'Neill appears.
I've listened to him contribute a few times, always infuriating.

I decided to quote done of his bull.

Brendan O’Neill is eviscerated rather amusingly by Alex Andreou in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1176621623891386368?s=21

I would not even waste breath on the man though. He is dangerously ill-informed. You should save your anger for media outlets who choose to give him a platform- Sky News, Eamon Dunphy etc. He serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pour petrol onto the fire of an ill-informed, brainwashed electorate.

Zubeneschamali

Forty Seven wrote: »

5 years too. I'm cool with another go in 2021 if you are.

I think it is likely that the EU will extend until 2021 if you ask nicely.

Seth Brundle

Boris Johnson joked on Tuesday that if some members of parliament had their way Brexit would be an endless process like the torment of the Greek mythological figure Prometheus...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3swcXEV4YV4

prawnsambo

Shelga wrote: »

Brendan O’Neill is eviscerated rather amusingly by Alex Andreou in this Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1176621623891386368?s=21

I would not even waste breath on the man though. He is dangerously ill-informed. You should save your anger for media outlets who choose to give him a platform- Sky News, Eamon Dunphy etc. He serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pour petrol onto the fire of an ill-informed, brainwashed electorate.

I wouldn't be so kind as to call him ill-informed. Spiked is a Koch brothers funded organ of misinformation and Brendan does as his masters require.

Shelga

Peregrinus wrote: »

He didn't "break the law" in the sense of committing a crime, and the police will not become involved. And the court conspicuously avoided finding that he lied to the queen, or even asking itself that question. The advice he gave was unlawful not because of his motive or intent in offering it, but because of the effect implementing it would have had.

This is a very important point, and explains why I’m slightly uneasy with everyone saying he was found to have misled the Queen. That is not the conclusion the Supreme Court reached

However, if they ruled that the effect of his prorogation was to frustrate parliament in carrying out their duties, can anyone really argue that this was not Boris’s intention, when he didn’t prove that he had a sound justification for the prorogation?

Shelga

I suppose what I’m saying is- they didn’t prove he lied, but the government didn’t prove that they didn’t lie?? Apologies for the double negatives!

Also I’m assuming that matters of constitutional law are very different from a criminal court case, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Call me Al

I'm watching BBC broadcasting outside parliament.
It's sad. Politicians on panels arguing with anger in their voice, literally pointing fingers at the faces of those on the panel they disagree with. Shouting at one another. The emotive provocative language they're using.

Citizens in organised interviews arguing about the vote and the situation they've found their country in. Shouting at one another.

It's just awful awful awful to watch.

Forty Seven

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.

On both sides?

Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are?

Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications.

It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out.
Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means.

Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred?
One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant.
Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal.
Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park.
So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there.

Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)

Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Do you want a European army?
Do you want blanket corporate tax rates?
Do you want more federalisation?

People voted leave. They likely want a deal but there is not a deal acceptable to both sides. I believe Boris wants a deal. He is playing hardball. We will see if he succeeds. If not then we leave anyway. The country is no closer to a remain majority than it was. I don't want another referendum. I've had enough. I want it done as does everyone I know.

jmayo

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I've been giving this considerable thought. For me this is the most exciting thing since the A-team, it really is gripping. And so far the arch villain cannot exclaim that I love it when a plan comes together

Check out Ahir Shah on Mash Report last week.

Not sure if ok to put in link, but it is actually funny.

https://www.facebook.com/thedailymash/videos/742203889551767/

Forty Seven wrote: »

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

You are moving the goalposts regarding majority. No deal was not defined. In or out. Out won. Moving the posts to the cornerflag is a churlish endeavour in this context.
Scottish independence referendum was also defeated by a majority.

Those are the majorities I'm talking about as you well know. You can huff and puff as is your right but it changes nothing.

Didn't know democracy was fixed in time or that there are time limitations on putting things to the electorate ?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem.
You chose to leave something. That something was left vague and has now resulted in vastly different views on what it is that you should leave.
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the SM?
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the CU?
Did everyone who voted leave do so to stop immigration despite the UK govt not effectively using the laws already in existence?
Did everyone who voted leave expect to be able to travel to the EU as before?
Did they expect to continue to have no mobile phone roaming charges?
Did they expect the imminent break up of the UK with either NI or Scotland jumping first followed quickly by the other?
A binary vote should never have been put to the people!

The problem was leave meant different things to different people.
There was never a consensus agreed.

And sadly a big chunk of the leavers thought, and probable still think, that they could leave EU, pull up the drawbridges stopping those pesky foreigners from being anywhere near old Blighty, but yet have all the benefits of being in the EU single market.

Of course it doesn't help they bought the decades of media rubbish about the EU interference, still view British history through old Ealing or Elstree movies, and think Capt Scott and Dunkirk were heroic failures rather than shambolic examples of British hubris at it's worst.

ballsymchugh

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wouldn't be so kind as to call him ill-informed. Spiked is a Koch brothers funded organ of misinformation and Brendan does as his masters require.

Master now, in the singular. one of them popped his clogs a few weeks ago.

prawnsambo

Shelga wrote: »

This is a very important point, and explains why I’m slightly uneasy with everyone saying he was found to have misled the Queen. That is not the conclusion the Supreme Court reached

It's possibly dancing on the head of a pin, but this is what the court said:

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect.

54and56

VinLieger wrote: »

No he broke the law but there's not likely to be any kind of punishment beyond the political ramifications.

Nope, there's a very subtle but important difference between something being unlawful and it being illegal.

Unlawful means what you did is not in accordance with the law.

Illegal means you have broken a law.

BoJo's Prorogation was not "ilegal" as there is a law (or preogative) which allows him to Prorogue parliament but he used Prorogation in an unlawful manner to do one thing (silence parliament from scrutinising his govt in particular in relation to Brexit) whilst lying to parliament and the Queen that it was solely to facilitate a new Queens speech. The fact that neither BoJo or anyone in No 10 would sign an affidavit confirming the sole purpose of the Prorogation was to facilitate a Queens speech was self incriminating.

jmayo

Forty Seven wrote: »

Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Do you want a European army?
Do you want blanket corporate tax rates?
Do you want more federalisation?

People voted leave. They likely want a deal but there is not a deal acceptable to both sides. I believe Boris wants a deal. He is playing hardball. We will see if he succeeds. If not then we leave anyway. The country is no closer to a remain majority than it was. I don't want another referendum. I've had enough. I want it done as does everyone I know.

Actually I would be anti EU, as in the federal type of EU that has even been mooted as far back as the beginning of the ECSC.

I have long been admonished and even chastised for being anti EU around these parts by europhiles.

But I know well enough there have been historically and still are major benefits in it's membership, especially in funding, it's open trade and open movement of people.
Ehh BTW that last part doesn't include economic migrants from outside EU mind you.

And I know that you can't just pick and chose the bits you like as a lot of Brexiteers seem to believe.
Hell even my 6 year old son knows that you can't jump out of a club and yet still have all the benefits of being a member.

Actually if the British, as one of the biggest economies, could have helped steer the direction of the EU over the years if they really wanted to.
Instead they appeared to adopt the principle joked about in Yes minister decades ago about screwing up the EEC (laterally EU) from within.

Actually I would proffer it was one of the reasons they had very few friends in the EU, apart from us with our intertwined relationship, when they went looking for a deal on exit.

Forty Seven

Forty Seven wrote: »

Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Do you want a European army?
Do you want blanket corporate tax rates?
Do you want more federalisation?

People voted leave. They likely want a deal but there is not a deal acceptable to both sides. I believe Boris wants a deal. He is playing hardball. We will see if he succeeds. If not then we leave anyway. The country is no closer to a remain majority than it was. I don't want another referendum. I've had enough. I want it done as does everyone I know.

Those 3 things aren't up for debate as Ireland for one will exercise it's veto on all those.

Why do you think the UK wouldn't?

Strazdas

Shelga wrote: »

Brendan O’Neill is eviscerated rather amusingly by Alex Andreou in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1176621623891386368?s=21

I would not even waste breath on the man though. He is dangerously ill-informed. You should save your anger for media outlets who choose to give him a platform- Sky News, Eamon Dunphy etc. He serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pour petrol onto the fire of an ill-informed, brainwashed electorate.

The guy is an utter political extremist : I've no idea how he can be a 'media commentator'.

It would be like having some dissident republican type on the airwaves here.

Seth Brundle

Forty Seven wrote: »

People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides.

No they weren't! How could they be informed if nothing have been agreed upon before Art 50 was triggered?
The majority of British are not informed politically - in fact there's a massive disengagement there driven in part by the rags such as the Sun and by anti-EU filth such as the Express and Daily Mail.
The majority of people in Britain were, and possibly still are, unaware of where exactly the NI border lies. The border was not discussed by the British prior to negotiations despite it being raised as a potential issue in Ireland.
people were misled. they were told how easy it would be to get a trade deal, etc. The leave campaign was based on lies propped up by the likes of anti-EU propoganda in the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express.

FFS, the former Brexit secretary was unaware of the importance of the Dover Calais shipping route. If the person leading Brexit isn't fully informed, what hope had the population?

Forty Seven wrote: »

Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.

Democracy is about change. There was a close call result with one side having been proven to have manipulated the electorate using effective online targeting.
A referendum on Brexit should never have happened or if the government were adamant on one then there needed to be multiple referenda.
A simple in or out referendum for such a complex matter shows how little the British know about their membership!

Bannasidhe

Forty Seven wrote: »

Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Do you want a European army?
Do you want blanket corporate tax rates?
Do you want more federalisation?

None of those things are certainties and each one of them can be vetoed by a single member state.

So it is disingenuous to suggest they are givens.