Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not to mention leavers voting to remain because they feel angry about being duped and lied to first time around.

Whatever way you cut it, the outcome of a ballot would be a tie.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, here is the evidence that shows what I suggested - that a vote would be very close but, with enough scrutiny and debate over several months, I am confident that Johnson's deal would win and that this serves to Leave in some compromised capacity, whilst also respecting the result of the referendum.

If it was as clear to Remain as some have suggested, it would not be a tie.

That link just looks at the deal. It shows nothing for comparing it to remaining in the EU. From the same source:



Source.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, here is the evidence that shows what I suggested - that a vote would be very close but, with enough scrutiny and debate over several months, I am confident that Johnson's deal would win and that this serves to Leave in some compromised capacity, whilst also respecting the result of the referendum.

If it was as clear to Remain as some have suggested, it would not be a tie.

I know this isnt a court of law, but polls dont and never have constituted evidence. Especially so far out from any potential ballot.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, here is the evidence that shows what I suggested - that a vote would be very close but, with enough scrutiny and debate over several months, I am confident that Johnson's deal would win and that this serves to Leave in some compromised capacity, whilst also respecting the result of the referendum.

If it was as clear to Remain as some have suggested, it would not be a tie.

That article does not suggest that "Leave would win by a bigger margin" as you claimed. Nor does it discuss a Remain versus Leave poll. What you claimed is wrong and has no factual basis whatsoever.

A Dub in Glasgo

Akrasia wrote: »

Why would you take the word of a pathological liar (Donald Trump)

people want to believe a narrative and then will put anyone up as evidence even if the person they use is a demonstrable liar

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

See above. There is no shame in arguing for the nation-state and it doesn't carry with it the obscene implications carried by your post.

I don't want to go back to the old concept of European nation states that not only meant antagonism but also meant tariffs. If you were to start over with how European countries trade with one another - if you had the ambition of free trade between nearly 30 economies - then you would soon find yourself wanting, nay needing, some kind of central way of organising that. The alternative would be trying to construct an ad-hoc economic union out of a veritable galaxy of deals between individual countries, which would not only be slower, but potentially be a nightmare of contradictions.

And the problem with having a simple Council of Europe would be that the same people who are currently against the EU would even be against this as for them any abstraction of democracy is unacceptable.

The EU is ultimately something that is a human idea, so it will never be perfect. As it stands, however, I would much rather live within its remit in order to limit the influence of the corporatist United States as much as possible. And the less said about Russia or China getting their hooks into Europe the better.

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

people want to believe a narrative and then will put anyone up as evidence even if the person they use is a demonstrable liar

Especially when they are quoting a discussion between Trump and Farage. Both consummate liars.

MrMusician18

What is an independent trade policy? Once any sort of alliance is made such as a FTA it really is no longer independent.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That link just looks at the deal. It shows nothing for comparing it to remaining in the EU. From the same source:



Source.

When you take away "Don't knows":

- 56% voting for a Leave option.

- 44% combined for Remain/Revoke.

That's exactly what I said; a clear margin for Leave.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Evidence suggests that Leave would win by a bigger margin, and I would suspect many Remainers would opt to Leave simply to respect the result of the original referendum.

Evidence? What evidence?

The YouGov analysis for the Evening Standard of 300 surveys shows “concrete” evidence that the country shifted against quitting the European bloc in the year after the June 2016 referendum and has steadfastly stuck to this position ever since.

One of the most striking findings is that 204 out of 226 polls since July 2017 have shown Remain ahead, with just seven for Leave, and 15 ties.

So far this year, just one poll in the series has put Leave ahead, compared to 74 for staying in the EU.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden. United States of America. Iceland. South Africa. Australia. New Zealand. Singapore. Japan. South Korea.

All successful nation-states.

Could you define what you mean by successful nation states? I'd have question marks over a couple of them in my definition of what a successful nation state is. For example, South Africa if you are to listen to the coach and captain of the Rugby World Cup yesterday.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

When you take away "Don't knows":

- 56% voting for a Leave option.

- 44% combined for Remain/Revoke.

That's exactly what I said; a clear margin for Leave.

If there is to be a referendum, it will be

1. Leave the EU with the negotiated WA (Johnson deal)
2. Remain in the EU

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If there is to be a referendum, it will be

1. Leave the EU with the negotiated WA (Johnson deal)
2. Remain in the EU

Yes - and I think it's highly likely that the Johnson Deal would be accepted.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes - and I think it's highly likely that the Johnson Deal would be accepted.

Great. Well, let's hope it goes to a vote, just to confirm.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes - and I think it's highly likely that the Johnson Deal would be accepted.

It's a pity you don't have any evidence to support that claim.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's not.

See above. There is no shame in arguing for the nation-state and it doesn't carry with it the obscene implications carried by your post.

All are also willing to cede control in one form or another to trading partners. There is no such thing as the 'nation state' as you put it. No nation can stand alone and maintain full control of their resources, economy or even laws and exist in today's world. The weak are just picked off by the strong and that's exactly what will happen to the UK. And my 'obscene' implications are shared by many commentators analysing why Britain chose to vote for isolationism.

Leroy42

The elephant in the room is that even the most ardent leavers want a FTA. Any FTA will require alignment on standards and regulations. Since the EU is one of the biggest regulation setting blocks in the world which regulations do people think they will align?

It will either be UK regulations, which the EU would have to align to or the UK will align to the EU. One of them is going to have to accept regulations over which they have no control over.

Which is the more likely outcome. The best pointer is to look at the deal which the UK just secured. A deal with gave the EU everything that they wanted and say Johnson sacrificing part of the union in the drive from Brexit.

Strazdas

Ahwell wrote: »

Evidence? What evidence?

And keep in mind that Leave was behind for most of the first half of 2016. They got incredibly lucky with the narrow referendum win (and know it....it's why they are violently opposed to a second referendum).

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that even the most ardent leavers want a FTA. Any FTA will require alignment on standards and regulations. Since the EU is one of the biggest regulation setting blocks in the world which regulations do people think they will align?

It will either be UK regulations, which the EU would have to align to or the UK will align to the EU. One of them is going to have to accept regulations over which they have no control over.

Which is the more likely outcome. The best pointer is to look at the deal which the UK just secured. A deal with gave the EU everything that they wanted and say Johnson sacrificing part of the union in the drive from Brexit.

A poll from Friday, excluding don't knows at 13%:

Remain 44%
Close Alignment with EU 17%
Clean Break 39%


From Thursday excluding don't knows at 4%:

Remain 54%
Leave 46%

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A poll from Friday, excluding don't knows at 13%:

Remain 44%
Close Alignment with EU 17%
Clean Break 39%


From Thursday excluding don't knows at 4%:

Remain 54%
Leave 46%

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit signals the return of the nation-state.

It's back, and people may as well get used to it.

The UK is not even a nation-state. It's a state that contains three and a bit nations. It's a smaller, less equitable and in some respects less democratic version of the EU.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's take Donald Trump's words instead, who stated just 3 days ago in an interview with Mr Farage, that the NHS isn't up for discussion in any way, shape or form.

The reality is, even if figures in Washington are mooting the idea, it doesn't mean it will happen.

It won't.

It's a total red herring; the largest such herring produced by Remainers.

But Trump has also said the exact opposite, as has his ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, as have several people in US pharmaceutical companies, and why wouldn't they want to get a bite of the NHS cake?

Of course they do, they're business people. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't.

And we know Trump says whatever suits him at any particular instant.

So no, nobody should take Trump's word for anything over just about anyone else. His record shows that anyone naive enough to believe Trump will probably lose his shirt.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

Please explain how Johnson's deal is Close Alignment given that the term relates to the customs union, single market and regulatory alignment.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

In no objective assessment is it reasonably or any other way 'close alignment'. Staying out of the Single Market is the exact opposite of close alignment. Likewise the customs union.

But you've made the assertion, so perhaps you could back it up with reference to the agreement?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

The polls were evidence a page back, now you cant really extrapolate. Which is it?

And whats overwhelming? 70%? 80%? Does a million people marching in London not count for anything?

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

That may not be possible, depending on how this election works out. In the eventuality that there is yet another hung parliament, and the usual party political games are played and the deal cannot be ratified, then the only way around that is for the people of the UK to have a direct say. Maybe that would be something the political parties could finally agree to let happen. It may be tiresome, but it's still better than no deal, by far. Judging from GE polls, there isn't anything like a majority for no deal.

gooch2k9

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Please explain how Johnson's deal is Close Alignment given that the term relates to the customs union, single market and regulatory alignment.

It's Farage's line isn't it, that Johnson's deal is basically still in the EU treaties.

Professor Moriarty

gooch2k9 wrote: »

It's Farage's line isn't it, that Johnson's deal is basically still in the EU treaties.

Yeah, Farage is lying. But so is Johnson, so all is fair in love and war.

prawnsambo

gooch2k9 wrote: »

It's Farage's line isn't it, that Johnson's deal is basically still in the EU treaties.

Farage clearly can't read. Every brexit starts with "The Treaties will cease to apply". It's there in Article 50.

McGiver

They really need to change to a PR system. Doesn't have to be STV. Any PR would be a huge improvement. Without that UK politics will never get fixed. Ever. This is the root cause of almost all UK's issues.

And reform the Lords so that it's elected like a proper upper chamber.

And codify the constitution.

A lot is deficient in the UK political system, whilst they've think they are the most democratic system in Europe (and probably world).

I'm surprised no one campaigns for PR. Not even LibDems?
Even Labour wouldn't be seriously damaged by PR, with good 30-35% they would always had a high chance to be in the government, albeit in a coalition. In years to come it's unlikely Labour could get a majority, it would make sense to bite the bullet and go for it now in my opinion.