Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

So you have moved on to Scotland now:rolleyes:

Therefore what Scotland voted for in 2014 no longer exists - Scotland is not leaving a United Kingdom with full access to a single market, and within the largest trading block in the world

It would be leaving a reclusive isolationist Right wing basket case, run by Right Wing English nationalists, with a currency falling through its own backside

In a post-Brexit world, I agree to let the Scots have a referendum on whether to maintain the status quo with powers at Westminster etc., or whether they wish to transfer those powers from Westminster to Brussels and become an independent nation within the Eurozone.

I'm quite confident they will choose their own, sensible future.

Whatever their decision, we must respect the result.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

In a post-Brexit world, I agree to let the Scots have a referendum .

the fact you use the phrase 'I agree to let the Scots' says a lot

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Liberal Democrats would be anti-democratic to implement their revocation policy?

I am suggesting that FPTP is fundamentally anti-democratic, and no British government in recent memory has had a mandate to do anything that was on their manifesto. If the LDs were to emulate the Conservatives and gain power with a "majority" of 40%, then their first duty (after putting Brexit on hold, for the sake of national unity) ought to be to reform the UK's electoral system and make it more democratic. I dare say you and I would find ourselves in alignment on some - or even many - of the measures needed to achieve that.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

I am suggesting that FPTP is fundamentally anti-democratic, and no British government in recent memory has had a mandate to do anything that was on their manifesto. If the LDs were to emulate the Conservatives and gain power with a "majority" of 40%, then their first duty (after putting Brexit on hold, for the sake of national unity) ought to be to reform the UK's electoral system and make it more democratic. I dare say you and I would find ourselves in alignment on some - or even many - of the measures needed to achieve that.

On that, I agree.

I find FPTP repulsive.

I would rather a Liberal Democrat power in government, than the current FPTP system that infects democracy in the UK now.

At least, then society can agree on the direction they want the country to take - quite affirmatively.

liamtech

CelticRambler wrote: »

I am suggesting that FPTP is fundamentally anti-democratic, and no British government in recent memory has had a mandate to do anything that was on their manifesto. If the LDs were to emulate the Conservatives and gain power with a "majority" of 40%, then their first duty (after putting Brexit on hold, for the sake of national unity) ought to be to reform the UK's electoral system and make it more democratic. I dare say you and I would find ourselves in alignment on some - or even many - of the measures needed to achieve that.

Deleted User wrote: »

On that, I agree.

I find FPTP repulsive.

I would rather a Liberal Democrat power in government, than the current FPTP system that infects democracy in the UK now.

At least, then society can agree on the direction they want the country to take - quite affirmatively.

It is the reason why an election on Brexit is fundamentally flawed - for me along the same lines as the 'Popular Vote Versus Electoral Colleges' issue in the US - its how ye get Trump, and Bush Jnr - antiquated electoral systems

I suspect the Pro Remain or at least Pro Soft Brexit parties, will get a larger % of the vote this time - but that wont mean a thing when the Tory's have a majority

The Lib Dems take some of the blame they should have insisted on Electoral reform as a condition for going into coalition - instead they accepted a lob-sided Referendum, in which the Tory's campaigned against reform, and labour just kinda sat there and didn't do much - but thats history now

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

On that, I agree.

I find FPTP repulsive.

I would rather a Liberal Democrat power in government, than the current FPTP system that infects democracy in the UK now.

At least, then society can agree on the direction they want the country to take - quite affirmatively.

FPTP led to Brexit in many ways, as it contributed to the mindset that a 50.1% majority would have been a "clear and strong mandate to leave".

In any other country, there would have been an immediate debate about the fact that the country was deeply divided and the result was problematic and contentious going forward.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50.

The only way for LD to get a majority would be in a landslide where they made huge inroads into the 60% of safe Westminster seats held by Tory/Labour.


Because of those seats are safe a Tory or Labour majority in and of itself wouldn't represent a change in opinion and so wouldn't be the same sort of popular mandate.



Boris has already rolled back promised corporation tax cuts because there's no money for the NHS.

IF the UK economy was expected to do well there would have been no issue borrowing this money until the taxes rolled in.



That should tell everyone just how much Brexit will cost when even the Tories in their new populist mode throwing billions at the electorate are afraid to commit.

Or to dumb it down Boris is saying "f*ck business" again.
Be assured that the foreign owners of almost all of the UK car industry won't have missed this.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Boris has already rolled back promised corporation tax cuts because there's no money for the NHS.

IF the UK economy was expected to do well there would have been no issue borrowing this money until the taxes rolled in.

That should tell everyone just how much Brexit will cost when even the Tories in their new populist mode throwing billions at the electorate are afraid to commit.

The reasons you are condemning a Boris Administration, is the same reasons you are presumably supporting a Corbyn regime?

Which is it? Or does it matter who says what?

liamtech

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The only way for LD to get a majority would be in a landslide where they made huge inroads into the 60% of safe Westminster seats held by Tory/Labour.


Because of those seats are safe a Tory or Labour majority in and of itself wouldn't represent a change in opinion and so wouldn't be the same sort of popular mandate.



Boris has already rolled back promised corporation tax cuts because there's no money for the NHS.

IF the UK economy was expected to do well there would have been no issue borrowing this money until the taxes rolled in.



That should tell everyone just how much Brexit will cost when even the Tories in their new populist mode throwing billions at the electorate are afraid to commit.

Or to dumb it down Boris is saying "f*ck business" again.
Be assured that the foreign owners of almost all of the UK car industry won't have missed this.

The should probably be in the General Election thread but apparently BoJo wrote to Corbyn asking that the main topic of the debate tomorrow should be brexit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/18/itv-election-debate-boris-johnson-throws-four-question-challenge/

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

The should probably be in the General Election thread but apparently BoJo wrote to Corbyn asking that the main topic of the debate tomorrow should be brexit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/18/itv-election-debate-boris-johnson-throws-four-question-challenge/

Entirely reasonable questions, independent of whether you support Labour or Tory.

Mr Johnson challenged Mr Corbyn to say if he would vote to leave or remain in a second referendum, back Labour conference policy to extend freedom of movement, reveal how much extra he would pay the EU for market access and guarantee every Labour candidate would back his Brexit policy.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Entirely reasonable questions, independent of whether you support Labour or Tory.

Possibly true - but in terms of election Johnson has not payed the piper so he ought not call the tune

Free flowing debate, let Corbyn Stick it to him on everything - if Bojo wins he wins - Never say die, Fortune Favor the Bold

liamtech

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-voters-boris-johnson-corbyn-candidates-party-dislike-a9205536.html

Tactical voting especially if on remain lines could be massive in stopping Boris from getting his majority

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From nobody. Nobody at all. Certainly not me.

In fact, what democrats generally believe is that you implement the result of one vote, then decide, in a second later vote, whether to alter the directional course.

What's generally frowned upon is having a vote taken, then having a second vote demanded by the losers in order to overturn the first before it has been implemented.

Sometimes there is no clear mandate to implement. This often happens with general elections that fail to provide the basis for any party or parties to form a government whereupon fresh elections are called. In your world this would not be allowed. Imagine if calling fresh elections was forbidden in such circumstances.

There is no clearly desired form of Brexit. 52% of those who voted in 2016 wanted some form of Brexit, ranging from extremely soft to extremely hard. Then Theresa May proposed a relatively hard Brexit with all those red lines and she lost her slim majority so whilst one can argue that the electorate still wanted some form of Brexit, the variant looked to have shifted to "softer rather than harder".

Just have a proper national debate with real options being debated and then vote again with all the information like good chaps. The British are not infallible.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

The reasons you are condemning a Boris Administration, is the same reasons you are presumably supporting a Corbyn regime?

Referring to one as an 'administration' and the other as a 'regime' is pretty childish.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

There is no clearly desired form of Brexit. 52% of those who voted in 2016 wanted some form of Brexit, ranging from extremely soft to extremely hard. Then Theresa May proposed a relatively hard Brexit with all those red lines and she lost her slim majority so whilst one can argue that the electorate still wanted some form of Brexit, the variant looked to have shifted to "softer rather than harder".

The Johnson Deal is a fair compromise that the EU and Varadkar are happy to sign up to.

If it's good enough for the EU and Varadkar, it's good enough for me and the vast majority of Brexiteers and democratic Remainers.

The extremists at both ends - both the Brexit Party loyalists and Liberal Revocationists - can now readily be dismissed from the conversation.

That's why, between them, they've only harnessed 18-20% of the vote in most polls.

J Mysterio

Arron Banks Twitter account has been hacked. The hackee has made available all his PMs and such for download from his account. lol!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Arron_banks

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is a fair compromise that the EU and Varadkar are happy to sign up to.

If it's good enough for the EU and Varadkar, it's good enough for me and the vast majority of Brexiteers and democratic Remainers.

The deal is indeed good enough for the EU because it is bad for the UK. That's how negotiations work - Johnson was between a rock and a hard deadline, so he had to take the bad deal that the EU offered (via Varadkar).

So democratic Remainers, who don't want Brexit at all, would have to be complete idiots to back this terrible deal.

And the deal is only good enough for Varadkar if the UK actually engages and agrees a trade deal before the end of the transition period, with or without an extension. WTO terms at the end of 2020 would be very bad for Ireland, and the only reason we are going along is that we got a deal on the Border, No Deal right now is worse, and maybe the horse will learn to sing.

robindch

While the video's good, it's a little hard to square it with Labour's official policy of equivocating over freedom of movement and reducing immigration into the UK from EU countries (and ignoring immigration from outside the EU, and emigration of UK citizens elsewhere):

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1196016202147086337

robindch

robindch wrote: »

While the video's good, it's a little hard to square it with Labour's official policy of equivocating over freedom of movement and reducing immigration into the UK from EU countries (and ignoring immigration from outside the EU, and emigration of UK citizens elsewhere):

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1196016202147086337

I've heard that point made many times.

It's a bit of a null point, because nobody is arguing for currently present legal migrants to be thrown out of the country.

Instead, it's about controlling the numbers of people who want to move to the UK.

That retrospective line of questioning is a cheap way out of the argument.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

nobody is arguing for currently present legal migrants to be thrown out of the country.

But that is certainly what is going to happen, just as it happened to the Windrush folks.

If there are 3.5 million EU nationals in the UK and 99.5% of them have some sort of settled status by the end of the transition period, that will leave...

17,500 illegals.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

Instead, it's about controlling the numbers of people who want to move to the UK.

You seem very energised by the sanctity of borders and immigration controls. You earlier offered New Zealand as a shining example but you ignored my question about how this squares with the Australia-New Zealand migration agreement.

Have you a view on that?

Danzy

robindch wrote: »

While the video's good, it's a little hard to square it with Labour's official policy of equivocating over freedom of movement and reducing immigration into the UK from EU countries (and ignoring immigration from outside the EU, and emigration of UK citizens elsewhere):

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1196016202147086337

It'll take more than a 2 minute corporate spin video to sell Labour's extreme free market position on migration to their voter base.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a bit of a null point, because nobody is arguing for currently present legal migrants to be thrown out of the country.

The Tories aren't arguing for it - they're just getting on with throwing legal migrants out, and refusing to grant settled status to many, many, many EU migrants of those who have applied for it - people married, settled and working in the UK for as much as three decades.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

You seem very energised by the sanctity of borders and immigration controls. You earlier offered New Zealand as a shining example but you ignored my question about how this squares with the Australia-New Zealand migration agreement.

Have you a view on that?

Yes, I do.

The Trans-Tasman travel arrangement is between two countries of roughly similar history, peoples, background, economies and so forth; it's the equivalent of the common travel area between the UK and Ireland.

I think those types of agreement are sensible given the close historic ties between these peoples.

That's very different to throwing open the door to half a billion people and, if Diane Abbott has her way, extending free movement to much of the rest of the world.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

The Trans-Tasman travel arrangement is between two countries of roughly similar history, peoples, background, economies and so forth; it's the equivalent of the common travel area between the UK and Ireland.

So its back to a cultural issue for you?

Danzy

First Up wrote: »

So its back to a cultural issue for you?

It is economic as well, New Zealand and Auz are largely the same economically.

Freedom of movement as Labour want it is very different, that is what makes it so aggressively anti worker.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

So its back to a cultural issue for you?

Danzy has pretty much said it for me:

Danzy wrote: »

It is economic as well, New Zealand and Auz are largely the same economically.

Freedom of movement as Labour want it is very different, that is what makes it so aggressively anti worker.

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I do.

The Trans-Tasman travel arrangement is between two countries of roughly similar history, peoples, background, economies and so forth; it's the equivalent of the common travel area between the UK and Ireland.

I think those types of agreement are sensible given the close historic ties between these peoples.

That's very different to throwing open the door to half a billion people and, if Diane Abbott has her way, extending free movement to much of the rest of the world.

I'm not normally one to bang the republican drum but I find your implication that Ireland and the UK have a roughly similar history to be deeply insulting. Statements like that show a complete lack of knowledge of the history between Ireland and the UK.

You do understand that by leaving the EU and decreasing the number of European migrants you'll be increasing the number of immigrants from countries that do not have 'roughly similar history, peoples, background, economies and so forth' as the UK? This is already happening.

IAmTheReign

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I'm not normally one to bang the republican drum but I find your implication that Ireland and the UK have a roughly similar history to be deeply insulting. Statements like that show a complete lack of knowledge of the history between Ireland and the UK.

The UK and Ireland share cultural links; close population ties; important economic ties; and so forth.

There is a shared history, even if it hasn't always been harmonious.

I won't dwell further on this point, as it may derail the conversation away from Brexit.

First Up

Danzy wrote:

It is economic as well, New Zealand and Auz are largely the same economically.

There is a considerable difference in size. The similarities are cultural, historical geographical more than economic.

But none of that argues why migration makes sense between those countries (and for example across the USA) but not between countries that share a market, common standards and a common trade relationship with the rest if the world.

If the economic arguments make sense, then the only difference is cultural.