Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Varta

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Low blow but very funny from jess phillips, praising Bercow for, among other things, being a great father to his children.

"And now to the prime minister...."

Would you consider it funny if it had been a Tory saying the same thing about Jess Phillips?

Joe_ Public

Varta wrote: »

Would you consider it funny if it had been a Tory saying the same thing about Jess Phillips?

If i considered that jess phillips was in any way a remiss parent then it would still be a low blow but I'd concede the wit of it for sure.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

I think that's the point - the SNP can't just declare independence even if they win every seat, because there was a referendum they lost quite recently. Instead they quite rightly are campaigning for a new referendum given the new circumstances.

By the same token the Lib Dems can't just declare that they'll revoke article 50 even if they get a majority, because it would be in violation of a referendum where far more people voted to leave than would vote for them (even if they somehow got a large majority) - instead they should be doing what the SNP are doing, or what Labour are doing, and campaigning to give the people a new say given the new circumstances and information available.

Technically they could just revoke, just like technically the SNP could just claim independence, but it would be severely damaging and is not a credible way forward.

I am sorry, and I am not trying to be difficult, but this is just more nonsense.

the SNP can't just declare independence even if they win every seat, because there was a referendum they lost quite recently. Instead they quite rightly are campaigning for a new referendum given the new circumstances.

The SNP cannot just declare independence even if they win every seat in Scotland because they still will not have a national majority that gives them the power to declare independence. Nothing to do with the fact they lost the referendum. That power lies with Westminster, like it or not. Yes, it shows there is a willingness in Scotland for independence but it is still up to Westminster.

By the same token the Lib Dems can't just declare that they'll revoke article 50 even if they get a majority, because it would be in violation of a referendum where far more people voted to leave than would vote for them

By the same token if the Lib Dems get a majority in Westminster they can revoke Article 50 - they have the power to do so and can do so if they wish. Yes some people will not like it, those who did not vote for them principally, but that is how elections work.

PropJoe10

Ken Clarke bowing out, lovely words from Bercow about a man that's given 49 years of his life to the House of Commons and the Tory front bench didn't even clap. Clarke is a great man.

Varta

Strazdas wrote: »

Swinson and Corbyn need to keep tearing into that slogan once the TV debates get underway. If they can expose it as a lie, they can do damage to Johnson.

But how do you expose it as a lie when it is turned back onto you as the person who stopped Brexit being done? It is a slogan that will work very well on the people it is aimed at, that is the sole intention. Swinson will be a disaster. She is vacuous. Corbyn, on the other hand, is now in his element and I look forward to seeing him in action.

Hurrache

Varta wrote: »

Would you consider it funny if it had been a Tory saying the same thing about Jess Phillips?

Phillips I don't think would deny her children and not be upfront about who, and how many, there are.

Strazdas

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Ken Clarke bowing out, lovely words from Bercow about a man that's given 49 years of his life to the House of Commons and the Tory front bench didn't even clap. Clarke is a great man.

Not being applauded by them is a compliment. They are the Brexit Party in disguise.

Varta

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If i considered that jess phillips was in any way a remiss parent then it would still be a low blow but I'd concede the wit of it for sure.

I feel that there is a lot of double standards with regard to standards.

Varta

Hurrache wrote: »

Phillips I don't think would deny her children and not be upfront about who, and how many, there are.

Phillips is poisonous in her own way.

jimmycrackcorm

Varta wrote: »

Phillips is poisonous in her own way.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

hometruths

shatners bassoon wrote: »

However much I would like to see the UK remain, the Libdem policy is profoundly undemocratic. The fact that it can be distilled into an easily digestible soundbite doesn't make it any more reasonable/admirable.

I could not disagree with this more. It is a policy that voters are welcome to vote for if they agree with it. If enough people vote for it that they win the election then that is democracy in action.

That is the whole point of a democracy. Parties can take whatever position they like, no one is forcing anybody to vote for them.

And surely it is bonkers that people are in the same breath complaining that Vote Leave lied so the referendum was illegal and should be null and void, (which I don't agree with), or that it was only an advisory referendum not legally binding, and at the same time saying that the Lib Dem policy is undemocratic!! Utter madness.

Zubeneschamali

quokula wrote: »

But why not put something better? Again, Labour aren't looking for unicorns or squeezing something out of the EU, they're looking to remove Theresa May's red lines that they don't believe in.

Well, if we take their Six Tests seriously, it is all a bit unicorny, since two were:

Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

The first one here is a bit ridiculous, and the second one is code for ending free movement, so they are not both happening.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, if we take their Six Tests seriously, it is all a bit unicorny, since two were:

Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

The first one here is a bit ridiculous, and the second one is code for ending free movement, so they are not both happening.

They are "unicorny" because they were based on the promises made by the Leave side during the referendum.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Not being applauded by them is a compliment. They are the Brexit Party in disguise.

Did notice Theresa Villiers applauding curiously enough, but she did seem to be the only one.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All I can see Labour getting is something akin to or identical to EEA status and that's just objectively inferior to remaining.

Every possible Brexit is objectively worse than remaining, but Brexiters tell us they are happy to pay a price. No one tells the Norwegians or the Swiss that they are nuts, even though they stopped short of full membership - if the UK like the sound of that sort of relationship, I say go for it.

Meanwhile, what will be really, really worse than remaining would be Johnson's deal, which will blow a Wales sized hole in the UK economy, according to the latest costings.

CelticRambler

Varta wrote: »

But how do you expose it as a lie when it is turned back onto you as the person who stopped Brexit being done?

"We took the Bill to the second stage and you pulled it. If you wanted to 'get Brexit done' why didn't you let us finish the job, instead of swerving off to a GE instead?"

Because the Tories have indulged in just about every form of doublespeak and hypocrisy in regard to Brexit, there's a huge amount of material with which the other parties can attack them - and that's before anyone starts on Johnson's personal peccadillos.

Varta

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate?

For example, she is happy to use threatening and abusive language to others but cries foul when it comes her way. She once threatened to knife Corbyn... or maybe that was just a metaphor. Except it wouldn't have been seen as a metaphor if it had been said about her. If there's one thing that getting older has taught me, it's not to be blinded by ideology or loyalty and to apply the same critique to all sides.

Zubeneschamali

Varta wrote: »

It's an excellent slogan when you support it with the idea that it was the opposition that stopped Brexit from being done.

What? May had a majority, and could have passed her own Brexit deal regardless of the opposition, but she called an opportunistic election and lost her majority.

Then she and Johnson both had a working majority with DUP support, but couldn't keep their own MPs or later the DUP onside.

They called the Brexit referendum, they lost it, they triggered A50 with no plan, they negotiated not one, but two deals with the EU, and they have accomplished nothing.

They own the entire fiasco from start to finish.

Tell me how

Varta wrote: »

Phillips is poisonous in her own way.

Any evidence, story, quote or film to support this?

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I could not disagree with this more. It is a policy that voters are welcome to vote for if they agree with it. If enough people vote for it that they win the election then that is democracy in action.

That is the whole point of a democracy. Parties can take whatever position they like, no one is forcing anybody to vote for them.

And surely it is bonkers that people are in the same breath complaining that Vote Leave lied so the referendum was illegal and should be null and void, (which I don't agree with), or that it was only an advisory referendum not legally binding, and at the same time saying that the Lib Dem policy is undemocratic!! Utter madness.

Its clearly a valid position to take if they so wish, but i do think it carries risks for them. Layla Moran on bbc politics earlier faced some tough questions about it and i wasnt entirely convinced by her answers. Seemed to suggest they've abandoned the second referendum position entirely, at least for now anyway, and that seems a bit dicey to me. Its not being realistic and i do think they could get a bit bogged down with it, for all it does offer a fairly simple clarity.

Varta

CelticRambler wrote: »

"We took the Bill to the second stage and you pulled it. If you wanted to 'get Brexit done' why didn't you let us finish the job, instead of swerving off to a GE instead?"

Because the Tories have indulged in just about every form of doublespeak and hypocrisy in regard to Brexit, there's a huge amount of material with which the other parties can attack them - and that's before anyone starts on Johnson's personal peccadillos.

I agree with you, but then I have an interest in politics. But to the voters that the slogan is aimed at it will sound like gobbledegook and they won't care. Know your audience and target your audience and ideally have several audiences, all of whom know little about the other audiences. That is how the clever tacticians will try to manipulate this election.

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Every possible Brexit is objectively worse than remaining, but Brexiters tell us they are happy to pay a price. No one tells the Norwegians or the Swiss that they are nuts, even though they stopped short of full membership - if the UK like the sound of that sort of relationship, I say go for it.

Meanwhile, what will be really, really worse than remaining would be Johnson's deal, which will blow a Wales sized hole in the UK economy, according to the latest costings.

If Brexit somehow meant there'd be no more hot water, Brexiteers would rejoice in the invigoration that cold showers provide, even in January.

Be wary of Brexiteers who say, "Let's see how it goes..." because there is no level the UK could sink to before they'd rethink their actions. Similarly, there's no limit to how well the UK could do before arch Remainers admit that perhaps it was a good idea to leave. This is why we should listen more to those in the middle, but it's hard to find anyone in the middle who's even saying that Brexit is a good idea on any level.

Varta

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What? May had a majority, and could have passed her own Brexit deal regardless of the opposition, but she called an opportunistic election and lost her majority.

Then she and Johnson both had a working majority with DUP support, but couldn't keep their own MPs or later the DUP onside.

They called the Brexit referendum, they lost it, they triggered A50 with no plan, they negotiated not one, but two deals with the EU, and they have accomplished nothing.

They own the entire fiasco from start to finish.

Thinking remain voters will agree with you (as do I) but that is not the target audience for the slogan. (actually, you could say that remain voters are, by definition, thinkers)

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They are "unicorny" because they were based on the promises made by the Leave side during the referendum.

So they are impossible and Labour cannot negotiate a Brexit deal with the EU which will fulfil them.

So the policy to renegotiate a Lexit deal and put it to the people is what, a sham to try and make them look less Remainy?

Joe_ Public

Varta wrote: »

For example, she is happy to use threatening and abusive language to others but cries foul when it comes her way. She once threatened to knife Corbyn... or maybe that was just a metaphor. Except it wouldn't have been seen as a metaphor if it had been said about her. If there's one thing that getting older has taught me, it's not to be blinded by ideology or loyalty and to apply the same critique to all sides.

To be fair she did accept maybe using that language was probably misjudged in hindsight, but we're in trouble if we cant decipher clearly targeted abuse, including death threats, with what everyone understands was a metaphor. I dont know of any instance where she has threatened anyone tbh.

Shelga

schmittel wrote: »

I could not disagree with this more. It is a policy that voters are welcome to vote for if they agree with it. If enough people vote for it that they win the election then that is democracy in action.

That is the whole point of a democracy. Parties can take whatever position they like, no one is forcing anybody to vote for them.

And surely it is bonkers that people are in the same breath complaining that Vote Leave lied so the referendum was illegal and should be null and void, (which I don't agree with), or that it was only an advisory referendum not legally binding, and at the same time saying that the Lib Dem policy is undemocratic!! Utter madness.

But trying to solve Brexit via a general election is idiotic. If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic?

If the Tories get a majority on 40% of the vote and push through a hard or no-deal Brexit, how is that democratic?

There should have been a referendum on Johnson’s deal v Remain, followed by an immediate GE. But UK politics is screwed up beyond repair.

Strazdas

Shelga wrote: »

But trying to solve Brexit via a general election is idiotic. If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic?

If the Tories get a majority on 40% of the vote and push through a hard or no-deal Brexit, how is that democratic?

There should have been a referendum on Johnson’s deal v Remain, followed by an immediate GE. But UK politics is screwed up beyond repair.

If the Lib Dems won an overall majority, you could argue the 2016 referendum result is completely defunct. The party that held the advisory referendum turfed out of office and their manifesto to implement the result rejected.

Zubeneschamali

Best for Britain group today on the election:

Johnson will be deprived of a majority and there’ll be a Remain majority in Parliament if 30% of Remainers vote tactically

However, if no tactical voting takes place, he’d win a majority of 44


https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1189482334397054976

Shelga

Strazdas wrote: »

If the Lib Dems won an overall majority, you could argue the 2016 referendum result is completely defunct. The party that held the advisory referendum turfed out of office and their manifesto to implement the result rejected.

“You could argue”- meaning you could take wild guesses at what 60% of the electorate actually want.

If you want an answer to a specific question, a referendum is the only way to do it. Yes, it would be divisive and toxic, but it’s the only way to ask the electorate to specify what they want done with Brexit.

hometruths

Shelga wrote: »

But trying to solve Brexit via a general election is idiotic. If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic?

If the Tories get a majority on 40% of the vote and push through a hard or no-deal Brexit, how is that democratic?

There should have been a referendum on Johnson’s deal v Remain, followed by an immediate GE. But UK politics is screwed up beyond repair.

I agree that a second referendum is logical proposition, but plenty of people don't including most importantly the majority of democratically elected MPs in the current parliament. So there is no point going on about a solution that is not currently only the table.

What is currently on the table is a general election.

And I really fail to see how if (assuming they stick to their manifesto commitments) any party gets a majority in the House of Commons somehow this outcome can be described as undemocratic.

If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic?

In this scenario, are you suggesting that it would be undemocratic because the results implies 60% of the electorate favour Brexit?

I really don't understand why you (and so many others) think it would be undemocratic. Can you explain why?