Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

While I agree that the Laura K and the BBC has a pro establishment bias, on this occasion I feel it's just an observation that is highly valid.

The mere reaction from Remainers to this observation kind of speaks for itself. They refused to accept the result of the democratic vote 3 years ago and haven't shut up about it since.

This is simply not true. Remainers did refuse to accept the result, the 2017 election shows that. What they wanted was the brexit promised and not the mess that has been served up to them.

It should be stated that the likes of Johnson and ERG have wilfully ignored the result to fashion their own version.

timetogo1

timetogo1 wrote: »

Id say in 10 years you won't be able to find anybody who admits they were a Brexiter.

The scenario you'd typically imagine is promised benefits but some not working out. Brexit is no promised benefits but the hope that some materialise out of thin air.

hotmail.com

listermint wrote: »

As is their democratic right.

I don't think you like democracy as much as you say you do

I never said I liked democracy.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

:pac: :pac: :pac: Remainers have a poor grasp of reality?

Absolutely!

Ask any Remainer what staying in the EU means for Britain and they can tell you, positives and negatives. Ask the Leavers what Brexit means and you'll be lucky to get two matching opinions in a group of three people. That's why May failed to get her WA through, and why Johnson is on track to fail in his stated objective too. Note my use of the word "stated" - because who knows what his real objective is ... of if he's even got so far as defining one. :rolleyes:

While I would agree that no side has a complete grasp of reality, Remainers from the moment of the referendum result were in a state of denial and this caused them to make decisions that moved them further away from their goals than would otherwise have been the case.

I think it is fair to say that most Remainers, had they realized that ignoring the referendum result was unrealistic, would have chosen a relatively soft version of Brexit. But their wanting to cancel Brexit in its entirety meant that they could not distinguish between hard or soft or any form of Brexit. To them, all equally evil. The ERG and other hard-Brexiteers were able to use this to their advantage and it is their vision that prevailed.

CelticRambler

robinph wrote: »

We'll all have our own unicorn and it will have it's own blue pet passport.

Inadvertent irony there, robinph! Or is it? I tried several times to get eskimohunt to engage on the topic of pet passports, but he never took the bait. Pet Passports were an entirely British invention, brought in to get rid of the quarantine requirement for cats and dogs whose British owners wanted them to enjoy European holidays. The whole project was so well conceived and executed that it was extended to cover the entire European Union and beyond. And now the Brits have decided to remove themselves from the scheme because the blue is tainted by those gold stars ... :rolleyes:

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Absolutely!
While I would agree that no side has a complete grasp of reality, Remainers from the moment of the referendum result were in a state of denial and this caused them to make decisions that moved them further away from their goals than would otherwise have been the case.

I think it is fair to say that most Remainers, had they realized that ignoring the referendum result was unrealistic, would have chosen a relatively soft version of Brexit. But their wanting to cancel Brexit in its entirety meant that they could not distinguish between hard or soft or any form of Brexit. To them, all equally evil. The ERG and other hard-Brexiteers were able to use this to their advantage and it is their vision that prevailed.

I feel like you're making a good point here, but I'm trying to remember how hard or soft May's red lines were and what she could have achieved with parliament's support. It feels like ten years ago by now.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Absolutely!
While I would agree that no side has a complete grasp of reality, Remainers from the moment of the referendum result were in a state of denial and this caused them to make decisions that moved them further away from their goals than would otherwise have been the case.

I think it is fair to say that most Remainers, had they realized that ignoring the referendum result was unrealistic would have chosen a relatively soft version of Brexit. But their wanting to cancel Brexit in its entirety meant that they could not distinguish between hard or soft or any form of Brexit. To them, all equally evil. The ERG and other hard-Brexiteers were able to use this to their advantage and it is their vision that prevailed.

How is it the fault of remainers who wanted to remain in the EU that the extreme no deal brexiteers managed to get the upperhand over the softer end of the brexiteer spectrum? The soft brexiteers became hard brexiteers purely so they could join in with the shouts of "We won, just accept it" to the remainers.

If any version of Brexit had benefits and the brexiteers had been open to negotiating their position to one that matched the referendum result of 52/48 then maybe something could have been found somewhere in the middle. The remain side did accept the result, the MP's voted to start eh A50 process and there were court cases to ensure that MP's got to have their say in the matter (it was about re-gaining sovereignty apparently), and three times a no-deal crash out was prevented from happening by remainers. Surely that is remain helping out the softer brexiteers from getting landed with a no-deal that they don't want either?

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

How is it the fault of remainers who wanted to remain in the EU that the extreme no deal brexiteers managed to get the upperhand over the softer end of the brexiteer spectrum? The soft brexiteers became hard brexiteers purely so they could join in with the shouts of "We won, just accept it" to the remainers.

By undermining May's soft Brexit deal and thereby undermining TM herself, parliamentary Remainers became useful idiots for the ERG and other hard-Brexiteers in the UK Parliament.

If any version of Brexit had benefits and the brexiteers had been open to negotiating their position to one that matched the referendum result of 52/48 then maybe something could have been found somewhere in the middle.

You're talking here as if the the hard-Brexiteers have lost: "If only the Brexiteers had done X then they would not find themselves in their predicament. They have only themselves to blame..."

The Brexiteers have not only won but the version of Brexit that is now likely to happen is much closer to the hard Brexit they have been aiming at than would have been the case had May's deal passed.

The remain side did accept the result, the MP's voted to start eh A50 process and there were court cases to ensure that MP's got to have their say in the matter (it was about re-gaining sovereignty apparently), and three times a no-deal crash out was prevented from happening by remainers. Surely that is remain helping out the softer brexiteers from getting landed with a no-deal that they don't want either?

MPs in the two main parties started off by stating that they accepted the result. That is true. But there was always a Remain movement outside of the UK parliament that never accepted the result and this gradually gained influence and eventual dominance within the parliamentary Labour party resulting in actions which had the overall result of a harder Brexit.

GM228

CelticRambler wrote: »

Inadvertent irony there, robinph! Or is it? I tried several times to get eskimohunt to engage on the topic of pet passports, but he never took the bait. Pet Passports were an entirely British invention, brought in to get rid of the quarantine requirement for cats and dogs whose British owners wanted them to enjoy European holidays. The whole project was so well conceived and executed that it was extended to cover the entire European Union and beyond. And now the Brits have decided to remove themselves from the scheme because the blue is tainted by those gold stars ... :rolleyes:

Just like the single market which was the brainchild of the UK.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Inadvertent irony there, robinph! Or is it? I tried several times to get eskimohunt to engage on the topic of pet passports, but he never took the bait. Pet Passports were an entirely British invention, brought in to get rid of the quarantine requirement for cats and dogs whose British owners wanted them to enjoy European holidays.

Also I think in order to get a pet passport the owner must show that the pet has been vaccinated against rabies which is still a problem in some Continental areas.

VinLieger

Bit cynical wrote: »

By undermining May's soft Brexit deal and thereby undermining TM herself, parliamentary Remainers became useful idiots for the ERG and other hard-Brexiteers in the UK Parliament.

Soft Brexit? So your just rewriting history and ignoring all her red lines?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like you're making a good point here, but I'm trying to remember how hard or soft May's red lines were and what she could have achieved with parliament's support. It feels like ten years ago by now.

Only it is not ten years ago. The final deal was fairly soft (regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK). It was still in play until a few months ago.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

You're talking here as if the the hard-Brexiteers have lost: "If only the Brexiteers had done X then they would not find themselves in their predicament. They have only themselves to blame..."

The Brexiteers have not only won but the version of Brexit that is now likely to happen is much closer to the hard Brexit they have been aiming at than would have been the case had May's deal passed.

No, I consider us all to have lost. Just some people don't realise it yet.

Bit cynical

VinLieger wrote: »

Soft Brexit? So your just rewriting history and ignoring all her red lines?

It was not as soft, of course, as no brexit or continued full membership of the single market and customs union but softer than the Brexit the UK is now headed for.

I think in hindsight most can agree that it would have been better to have voted for May's deal. The only defence I can see as remotely possible is that the Remainers could not have seen what was coming when they voted the same way as the ERG. But I would not agree with this either. I think the problem is that they did not want to see.

I don't think it is rewriting history because I don't regard the internal narrative of Remainers as history.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

No, I consider us all to have lost. Just some people don't realise it yet.

Oh I see.

Irish Praetorian

Bit cynical wrote: »

It was not as soft, of course, as no brexit or continued full membership of the single market and customs union but softer than the Brexit the UK is now headed for.

I think in hindsight most can agree that it would have been better to have voted for May's deal. The only defence I can see as remotely possible is that the Remainers could not have seen what was coming when they voted the same way as the ERG. But I would not agree with this either. I think the problem is that they did not want to see.

I don't think it is rewriting history because I don't regard the internal narrative of Remainers as history.

Are we not at the situation now though, where the UK has had to offer the EU an even better deal than they would have under Mrs. May, simply in order to provide the UK populace with the impression of progress under Mr. Johnson? I mean the big 'red line' of separating Northern Ireland out from the rest of the UK economically, is quite frankly something I think that would have had the ERG screaming bloody murder before Mr. Johnson got into power, but after his accession, was seen as some kind of genius master-stroke.

I'm left with the impression that Mr. Johnson might end up offering a far softer Brexit than we might otherwise expect, and being saluted for it, so long as he dresses it up correctly with all the language of 'taking back control' etc. Whatever change the election has produced within British political structures, it hasn't really altered the overall strategic situation the UK find itself in, and what kind of leverage it has in order to obtain a deal. If anything, the new self-imposition of timed deadlines seems to have had them tie one hand behind their own backs going into any future negotiations.

reslfj

Bit cynical wrote: »

Only it is not ten years ago. The final deal was fairly soft (regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK). It was still in play until a few months ago.

No, TM's backstop had a UK-wide Customs Union, but regulatory alignment would be for NI only (Irish Sea regulatory border)

As the CU would make smuggling for profit close to impossible, regulatory checks would have been very much easier. regulatory checks are already in place for e.g. animals.

The mixed customs status for NI is much of the reason for the now expected problems for NI-GB trade.

Lars

Strazdas

GM228 wrote: »

Just like the single market which was the brainchild of the UK.

Leaving the Single Market seems utterly bonkers, but it seems the hard right politicians and electorate are doing so for purely political reasons, either not knowing or caring that it will deliver a big hit to the economy.

It will be fascinating to watch how this 'nationalist experiment' unfolds : an already independent and sovereign state putting nationalism and 'identity' ahead of even its own economic interest.

Bit cynical

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Are we not at the situation now though, where the UK has had to offer the EU an even better deal than they would have under Mrs. May, simply in order to provide the UK populace with the impression of progress under Mr. Johnson? I mean the big 'red line' of separating Northern Ireland out from the rest of the UK economically, is quite frankly something I think that would have had the ERG screaming bloody murder before Mr. Johnson got into power, but after his accession, was seen as some kind of genius master-stroke.

Well I think we'll need the dust to settle to see who came out on top but I think Boris emerged with a more defensible position over all. The ERG were never happy with any part of the UK being in regulatory alignment so objected to the first May deal but the solution of regulatory alignment across the whole of the UK was even worse from their point of view.

The EU might have viewed this second deal as problematic since the UK would still have control over immigration from the EU and vice-versa and so the scrapping of it by Boris could be seen as a sort of backing down.

However, the point is not that the EU did not make gains but rather that the overall Brexit from the point of view of Remainers is now a harder one overall.

As an aside, I've never seen a lot of evidence that the EU strongly resisted the final May deal though they may have had a few reservations about it. Weak though May was at the time, she did not have much trouble getting it agreed by the EU.

But like I said, this is a harder Brexit more in line with the ERGs vision than what would have been the case under May.

I'm left with the impression that Mr. Johnson might end up offering a far softer Brexit than we might otherwise expect, and being saluted for it, so long as he dresses it up correctly with all the language of 'taking back control' etc. Whatever change the election has produced within British political structures, it hasn't really altered the overall strategic situation the UK find itself in, and what kind of leverage it has in order to obtain a deal. If anything, the new self-imposition of timed deadlines seems to have had them tie one hand behind their own backs going into any future negotiations.

A softer Brexit is possible and I think Johnson I think will keep his options open. If I was forced to guess I would say somewhere between May's deal and the ERG's vision is likely but it is really hard to say. But under May's deal which was rejected primarily by Remainers, a lot of this stuff had already been worked out and agreed with the EU. In principle, the EU had already agreed to trading with the UK on goods in a similar manner to which they had been trading as members of the EU.

Bit cynical

reslfj wrote: »

No, TM's backstop had a UK-wide Customs Union, but regulatory alignment would be for NI only (Irish Sea regulatory border)

You are right but being a member of a customs union means in practice regulatory alignment for those areas covered by the CU.

timetogo1

Bit cynical wrote: »

As an aside, I've never seen a lot of evidence that the EU strongly resisted the final May deal though they may have had a few reservations about it. Weak though May was at the time, she did not have much trouble getting it agreed by the EU.

The original "May" deal was negotiated between the UK and the EU. You don't typically disagree with your own deal.
Well the UK did but that was more down to the weakness of their own government. And it wasn't rejected primarily by remainers. The 4th vote was rejected 344 to 286. I think there's another bit of revision going on there by trying to blame remainers again.

Bit cynical

timetogo1 wrote: »

The original "May" deal was negotiated between the UK and the EU. You don't typically disagree with your own deal.
Well the UK did but that was more down to the weakness of their own government. And it wasn't rejected primarily by remainers. The 4th vote was rejected 344 to 286. I think there's another bit of revision going on there by trying to blame remainers again.

Well, I'm not sure. Yes, you don't disagree with your own deal but there's normally evidence of internal opposition to it if it is problematic even though you agree to it in the end. But regardless, I don't think moving in the direction of the ERG away from May's deal can be regarded as success for Remainers who voted against the deal.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure. Yes, you don't disagree with your own deal but there's normally evidence of internal opposition to it if it is problematic even though you agree to it in the end. But regardless, I don't think moving in the direction of the ERG away from May's deal can be regarded as success for Remainers who voted against the deal.

If Mays Brexit deal wasn't acceptable to people who voted for Brexit, then why should people who didn't even vote for Brexit be considered the ones who should be supporting it? It is in no way at all the fault of remainers that Brexit is a bad idea or that a bad brexit deal or no deal happens.

Yes they could have done things differently in order to better stop it happening in the first place, but the blame for the deal (or success if that is what happens) is entirely down to the brexit supporters. They can take the glory if it ends up being great, but don't blame remainers for if it isn't.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

If Mays Brexit deal wasn't acceptable to people who voted for Brexit, then why should people who didn't even vote for Brexit be considered the ones who should be supporting it? It is in no way at all the fault of remainers that Brexit is a bad idea or that a bad brexit deal or no deal happens.

I'm not disputing people's right to vote whichever way they see fit. But this started out as an examination of which way history would judge the various players in the Brexit thing. As such, the effect of that vote is what will count. If voting against May's deal led to a deal more in line with vision of the ERG was this still the right thing to do?

Yes they could have done things differently in order to better stop it happening in the first place, but the blame for the deal (or success if that is what happens) is entirely down to the brexit supporters. They can take the glory if it ends up being great, but don't blame remainers for if it isn't.

They could also, imo, have done things differently after the referendum and the overall result might have been better from their own perspective. I think they should have said, "Right we've lost the referendum and so Brexit is happening. Our interests now lie in minimizing the effect of Brexit by voting according to the options now available to us."

robinph

robinph wrote: »

If Mays Brexit deal wasn't acceptable to people who voted for Brexit, then why should people who didn't even vote for Brexit be considered the ones who should be supporting it? It is in no way at all the fault of remainers that Brexit is a bad idea or that a bad brexit deal or no deal happens.

First, the General Election produced a decisive mandate for Brexit to be delivered and, with Johnson's majority, he has the mandate to do as he pleases.

Second, it's a welcome development that Johnson has outlawed and extension and vetoed the prospect of alignment with EU rules. If the EU don't budge, then that is fine. WTO Exit preparations will be fast-tracked over the coming 12-13 months to ensure that Britain leaves as smoothly as possible.

I don't believe the apocalyptic predictions either. I don't even think it will come close to that, perhaps a few hiccups here and there, but that's always the case in politics regardless.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not disputing people's right to vote whichever way they see fit. But this started out as an examination of which way history would judge the various players in the Brexit thing. As such, the effect of that vote is what will count. If voting against May's deal led to a deal more in line with vision of the ERG was this still the right thing to do?

They could also, imo, have done things differently after the referendum and the overall result might have been better from their own perspective. I think they should have said, "Right we've lost the referendum and so Brexit is happening. Our interests now lie in minimizing the effect of Brexit by voting according to the options now available to us."

They did accept that Brexit was happening, they voted to invoke A50. Turns out what was then presented as Brexit was still unacceptable, but the result of the referendum was accepted.

What they did wrong was letting the "will of the people", "brexit means brexit", "leave means leave", "no deal is better than a bad deal" messages take hold. As soon as that nonscence was being parroted out there needed to be a decent opposing slogan from remain to counter it all. But despite the fact that the majority of people voted for non-brexit parties in the election last week the narrative has been to suggest that the population now matches the 60%+ brexit make up of the HoC. It doesn't.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

First, the General Election produced a decisive mandate for Brexit to be delivered and, with Johnson's majority, he has the mandate to do as he pleases.

Lets be honest here he only has a "mandate" due to the objectively undemocratic FPTP voting system, remain parties got over 50% of the electoral vote therefore under the rules and standards brexiteers have been shouting about since the referendum results surely remain won the election?

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

First, the General Election produced a decisive mandate for Brexit to be delivered and, with Johnson's majority, he has the mandate to do as he pleases.

There is nothing whatsoever decisive about 52/48.

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, it's a welcome development that Johnson has outlawed and extension and vetoed the prospect of alignment with EU rules. If the EU don't budge, then that is fine. WTO Exit preparations will be fast-tracked over the coming 12-13 months to ensure that Britain leaves as smoothly as possible.

When has putting deadlines on yourself in a negotiation ever been a successful plan before? The removal of the potential extension is of no concern to the EU.

"I'm going to shoot myself in the foot, but if you don't give me what I want by 31st December then I'll shoot myself in both feet."

How is that a threat to the EU?

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe the apocalyptic predictions either. I don't even think it will come close to that, perhaps a few hiccups here and there, but that's always the case in politics regardless.

Maybe, but I see no reason to be optimistic about it. If Brexit is a success then fantastic, but there is absolutely zero reason to think it will be as of yet.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I've never seen a lot of evidence that the EU strongly resisted the final May deal though they may have had a few reservations about it. Weak though May was at the time, she did not have much trouble getting it agreed by the EU.

To date, it has been the EU drafting all the variations of all the deals and waiting for the UK to sign off on them. This is why "history" will give the benefit of the doubt to the Remainers: at least they knew that the status quo was something that could be improved upon (from a British point of view) by remaining part of the Union. Despite the slogans to the contrary, the disorganised multi-factional Leavers have handed a huge amount of control to "Brussels" - something they will never get back.

Bit cynical wrote: »

You are right but being a member of a customs union means in practice regulatory alignment for those areas covered by the CU.

Being an exporter to the EU means regulatory alignment ... no choice, and no say in the regulations. Another lose for the Leavers.

Bit cynical wrote: »

It was not as soft, of course, as no brexit or continued full membership of the single market and customs union but softer than the Brexit the UK is now headed for.

I think in hindsight most can agree that it would have been better to have voted for May's deal.

My view is that the one grave error by the Remainers was to have allowed Johnson to call that election, instead of swallowing their inter-party disagreements and forming a government of national unity long enough to put the whole project on hold.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

First, the General Election produced a decisive mandate for Brexit to be delivered and, with Johnson's majority, he has the mandate to do as he pleases.

Second, it's a welcome development that Johnson has outlawed and extension and vetoed the prospect of alignment with EU rules. If the EU don't budge, then that is fine. WTO Exit preparations will be fast-tracked over the coming 12-13 months to ensure that Britain leaves as smoothly as possible.

I don't believe the apocalyptic predictions either. I don't even think it will come close to that, perhaps a few hiccups here and there, but that's always the case in politics regardless.

This comment is the epitome of a hostage to fortune.