Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

rogue-entity

Bit cynical wrote: »

But this means that by setting the threshold at whatever level you can achieve any desired result. The UK government did not want Brexit to pass so they could have set the threshold at 70% to ensure this result.

By the same token, it would ensure a decisive majority was reached and there would be no scope for the losing side to challenge the outcome.

The UK Government could have done this, they choose not to do this.

Bit cynical

rogue-entity wrote: »

By the same token, it would ensure a decisive majority was reached and there would be no scope for the losing side to challenge the outcome.

The UK Government could have done this, they choose not to do this.

Yes, certainly if the Leave side won by gaining more than the required (under this proposal) 70%, the Remain side would have little grounds for complaint as such an overwhelming majority had been reached.

But conversely, had they only gained, say, 69% and therefore lost, the Leave side would have grounds for complaint that the referendum was biased from the outset in favour of Remain. Remember that Cameron was doing it to shore up support for the Tories and rigging the referendum in this way would have defeated that purpose. He had to show that a majority were in favour of Remaining, not merely 30%. In Ireland, after all, the threshold for constitutional amendments is set at 50% and rarely are they passed with over 70%.

rogue-entity

Bit cynical wrote: »

But conversely, had they only gained, say, 69% and therefore lost, the Leave side would have grounds for complaint that the referendum was biased from the outset in favour of Remain.

Had Remain gotten 52% of the vote and won, I'm quite sure the Leave side would still make that very claim and we wouldn't hear the end of it. There were some rather doggedly determined Leave supporters who on record would not give up until they got what they wanted. Ever since, there has been a divisive bitterness with them accusing the Remain side of not accepting (read: shut up and stop talking about it) the referendum result.

It feels a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'; if you set a threshold to ensure that a sufficient majority was reached before pulling the trigger, you open yourself up to accusations of bias and one side won't accept the result. You don't set any thresholds and absent a sufficient majority and one side won't accept the result.

Would you know of a better solution that might have made things less acrimonious?

Bit cynical

rogue-entity wrote: »

Would you know of a better solution that might have made things less acrimonious?

I think the Leave side might have made slightly less of a deal out of it had they lost but that is due to the age profile of leave voters more than anything else.

But I think the problem is really that the culture of having a vote and the losing side accepting that they lost is gradually disappearing and no rigging of the vote one way or the other will fix that.

Donald Trump

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

More misinfo........You need to be an irish citizen which will cost you about a minimum of a grand........then you need to get your passport.

It's a great country.........pay taxes for years and get nowt not even dole if partner earns over limit even if not married...........then have to pay to become an Irish citizen. Refugee all is free.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html#l62fd2

Did I read that correctly?

You've been giving out about foreigners being able to travel to the UK to work.

While at the same time you yourself moved to Ireland and are moaning that somehow you might not be entitled to the dole here?

droidman123

So boredstiff is an immigrant in ireland while at the same time having an issue with immigrants in his own country

Junkyard Tom

theological wrote: »

the sun will rise and set like any other day.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Britain will not disappear down a hole

Well done lads, you've set the bar so low that anything short of economic devastation will be a relative success.

That's why there's little point in discussing this with you guys, Brexit is already a success from your point of view. If you can drag Ireland or the EU down as a consequence then all the better.

It's remarkable how the British press managed to manipulated the minds of a large section of the British public to be so hateful.

Grab All Association

Brexiteers sure do spend a lot of time on Twitter commenting under post by the EU, German and Irish government departments of how the EU and the €uro is falling apart. They mustn’t have jobs and will blame the EU when Boris cuts their benefits.

volchitsa

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I havent a clue but for the two of us we reckon it would be in the region of 3000 when we have solicitors paid and passports in hand.

So after 25 years here its simply a no go. we dont know what will happen but thats just the way it goes. Being turned away from dole is the biggest bummer though.

Ireland is great for silly laws.

It will cost you as much in the UK. And the passport is more expensive (being from NI, we have had both in our family)

I needed to call UK immigration once, to get information for a non EU friend's (adult) child who wanted to study in Cambridge - I had to give my credit card number before they would even answer the phone. Cost about 8€ IIRC and it wasn't the right department in the end....

Biggest scam going, I reckon.

theological

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Well done lads, you've set the bar so low that anything short of economic devastation will be a relative success.

That's why there's little point in discussing this with you guys, Brexit is already a success from your point of view. If you can drag Ireland or the EU down as a consequence then all the better.

It's remarkable how the British press managed to manipulated the minds of a large section of the British public to be so hateful.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I never said I wanted to drag anybody down particularly not my home country or the EU.

That said I'm not convinced by the horror stories the hard remainers keep churning out. Britain will continue to be a successful global economy after Brexit.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Argumentum ad hominem.

I never said I wanted to drag anybody down particularly not my home country or the EU.

That said I'm not convinced by the horror stories the hard remainers keep churning out. Britain will continue to be a successful global economy after Brexit.

As, more or less successful though? It's a pretty easy position to take that one of the worlds most important countries won't disappear but that shouldn't be the point.

The UK joined the EU in an attempt to make the UK more successful. They are leaving, apparently, with the expected outcome that it will be bad done not a complete disaster.

You are not convinced by the horror stories is all well and good, but what do you think is going to be the outcome? 6bn+ has already been wasted, that is a massive amount which could have been used elsewhere. All the money and time that will be spent in the future.

And for what?

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

But this means that by setting the threshold at whatever level you can achieve any desired result. The UK government did not want Brexit to pass so they could have set the threshold at 70% to ensure this result.

There were any number of ways that Cameron & Co. could have engineered a Remain result without coming across as (too) banana-republican - setting a threshold of 51% of the electorate, for example, or requiring a Leave majority in each of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom.

Their failure to successfully ensure the desired outcome has more to do with their political naïvety and the UK's lack of practice in holding, running and voting in referendums. And, of course, that the referendum was never really about what was best for Britain, but what was best for the Cameron side of the Tory party.

cryptocurrency

There is no need to be going over old ground of Cameron should of done this or that. Brexit is done.

Focus now on how Ireland is gonna get out of the corner Leo has painted us into doubling down on club EU as the UK looks for a harder brexit.

cryptocurrency

rogue-entity wrote: »

Had Remain gotten 52% of the vote and won, I'm quite sure the Leave side would still make that very claim and we wouldn't hear the end of it. There were some rather doggedly determined Leave supporters who on record would not give up until they got what they wanted. Ever since, there has been a divisive bitterness with them accusing the Remain side of not accepting (read: shut up and stop talking about it) the referendum result.

It feels a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'; if you set a threshold to ensure that a sufficient majority was reached before pulling the trigger, you open yourself up to accusations of bias and one side won't accept the result. You don't set any thresholds and absent a sufficient majority and one side won't accept the result.

Would you know of a better solution that might have made things less acrimonious?

The whole debate would have been shut down in 2016 if remain had won with 52%

Padre_Pio

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are not convinced by the horror stories is all well and good, but what do you think is going to be the outcome? 6bn+ has already been wasted, that is a massive amount which could have been used elsewhere. All the money and time that will be spent in the future.

And for what?

Horror stories are the only stories. Wheres the good stories? The stories saying that Britain will come good out of Brexit?

Britain is already stockpiling food and medicine, and plenty of the Project Fear stuff has come true.

CelticRambler

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There is no need to be going over old ground of Cameron should of done this or that. Brexit is done.

Only Brexit isn't done. Not really. And the problems that led to the referendum being held haven't been addressed.

This means that every discussion with the UK about its future relationship with the rest of the world will be contentious. Not because the EU is a problem, but because the British still haven't figured out how to get on with each other, and until they do, they won't be able to establish stable arrangements with other trading blocs.

Donald Trump

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The whole debate would have been shut down in 2016 if remain had won with 52%

I know. We'd never have heard from Nige again if remain had won. He'd have skulked off quietly into oblivion :pac:

Padre_Pio

Donald Trump wrote: »

I know. We'd never have heard from Nige again if remain had won. He'd have skulked off quietly into oblivion :pac:

There was no "will of the people" bollox then

Eric Cartman

rogue-entity wrote: »

Had Remain gotten 52% of the vote and won, I'm quite sure the Leave side would still make that very claim and we wouldn't hear the end of it. There were some rather doggedly determined Leave supporters who on record would not give up until they got what they wanted. Ever since, there has been a divisive bitterness with them accusing the Remain side of not accepting (read: shut up and stop talking about it) the referendum result.

It feels a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'; if you set a threshold to ensure that a sufficient majority was reached before pulling the trigger, you open yourself up to accusations of bias and one side won't accept the result. You don't set any thresholds and absent a sufficient majority and one side won't accept the result.

Would you know of a better solution that might have made things less acrimonious?

Literally everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at trying to stop or reverse brexit, its now formed to the rejoin campaign, had remain won there just wouldnt have been the amunition on the leave side to try go for another referendum etc... I say this as somebody who doesn't agree brexit was a good idea, the remain side has not accepted the will of the people and has tried to derail the entire thing in a way that has been given far more airtime and support than the piddly effort the leave side would have or could have made in the same circumstances.

Bit cynical

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Literally everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at trying to stop or reverse brexit, its now formed to the rejoin campaign, had remain won there just wouldnt have been the amunition on the leave side to try go for another referendum etc... I say this as somebody who doesn't agree brexit was a good idea, the remain side has not accepted the will of the people and has tried to derail the entire thing in a way that has been given far more airtime and support than the piddly effort the leave side would have or could have made in the same circumstances.

It's actually worked out worse for the Remain side than had they simply accepted the result. Refusal to countenance any form of brexit meant that a soft exit retaining close ties to the EU was impossible.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

There were any number of ways that Cameron & Co. could have engineered a Remain result without coming across as (too) banana-republican - setting a threshold of 51% of the electorate, for example, or requiring a Leave majority in each of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom.

Their failure to successfully ensure the desired outcome has more to do with their political naïvety and the UK's lack of practice in holding, running and voting in referendums. And, of course, that the referendum was never really about what was best for Britain, but what was best for the Cameron side of the Tory party.

The only thing Cameron could have done is not have held the referendum and I'm sure in retrospect he himself regrets it. In fact he would have to go back to before the election and remove the commitment to negotiations with the EU and subsequent referendum from the manifesto.

But I don't think there's ever been a referendum where 51% of the electorate (as opposed to votes cast) has been the rule. We certainly don't have anything like that here in Ireland. But yes you could engineer the desired result in this way but for Cameron's political purpose, this would not have worked as it would have been seen with some justification as rigging the result.

Historian Niall Ferguson who was a friend of Cameron, and argued for the Remain side during the referendum campaign, later said that Cameron should have visited one or two pubs around the UK before embarking on his path. He would then have known the mood of the people.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

It's actually worked out worse for the Remain side than had they simply accepted the result. Refusal to countenance any form of brexit meant that a soft exit retaining close ties to the EU was impossible.

Given what has transpired over the last few years, I think it very wrong to think that anything other than a hard Brexit was ever really on the cards. From TM's Lancaster speech to Johnson and his 'die in a ditch' rubbish.

The Remainers has simply be used as an excuse for the hard Brexit. There is absolutely nothing stopping Johnson for going with the closest of relationships, he has a massive majority and it is clearly what lots of people want and clearly many brexiteers are willing to accept pretty much anything they are told, once they are told they are winning.

So why has Johnson continued down this path of ever harder Brexit?

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Given what has transpired over the last few years, I think it very wrong to think that anything other than a hard Brexit was ever really on the cards. From TM's Lancaster speech to Johnson and his 'die in a ditch' rubbish.

The Remainers has simply be used as an excuse for the hard Brexit. There is absolutely nothing stopping Johnson for going with the closest of relationships, he has a massive majority and it is clearly what lots of people want and clearly many brexiteers are willing to accept pretty much anything they are told, once they are told they are winning.

So why has Johnson continued down this path of ever harder Brexit?

The answer is that for the very reason you point out of having a massive majority, Johnson can now do what he wants. But the remainers did damage to their own cause long before that.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The only thing Cameron could have done is not have held the referendum ...

There were several measures Cameron could have put in place to ensure that the referendum would yield a fair, democratic and practical result. At the very least, he could have sent a team over to Ireland to learn how best to frame the process and - most critically - the actual question. He could also have specified that the referendum result would be legally binding - that would have changed the whole legal landscape.

But he didn't, so instead the EU is about to start trade negotiations with a country that hasn't the foggiest idea of what it voted for or what it wants. And that against the backdrop of a country in which the government of the day does not have the backing of a majority of the population.

rogue-entity

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Brexit is done.

Technically the UK has left the EU but only the first stage is done, ratifying a withdrawal agreement; it remains to be seen what sort of trading arragements with the EU the UK will end up with, at best you can say it is 'done' on the 31st of December.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Focus now on how Ireland is gonna get out of the corner Leo has painted us into doubling down on club EU as the UK looks for a harder brexit.

Ireland is not painted into any 'corner', your blind (and unfounded) hatred of the EU notwithstanding. Government of the day took the only rational course of action that secured our interests - economically, politically and socially.

I cannot say that the UK Governments (present and previous) can say the same on all three counts considering Boris's predecessor made a complete pigs ear of the entire process, whether Boris can rectify that situation remains to be seen, he's made platitudes about 'bringing the country together' but that fell on deaf ears.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The whole debate would have been shut down in 2016 if remain had won with 52%

No it would not:
""In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.""

I would like to think the Remain side would have accepted things, had the vote been 66-33 in favour of Leave, but I wouldn't be surprised if events unfolded much the same as they have. Of course what is forgotten here, is that Remain stood to lose a massive amount, with no clear tangible benefit to be gained expressed by Leave.

CelticRambler wrote: »

the British still haven't figured out how to get on with each other, and until they do, they won't be able to establish stable arrangements with other trading blocs.

I'm not sure how the acrimonious division of British society today impacts their ability to form stable arrangements with other trading blocs; the Tories have a majority government and can do as they please, do trade deals have unilateral exit clauses? Should a non-Tory government get in at the next election, would they really undo whatever deals the UK signs with other countries?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Literally everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at trying to stop or reverse brexit, its now formed to the rejoin campaign, had remain won there just wouldn't have been the ammunition on the leave side to try go for another referendum etc... I say this as somebody who doesn't agree brexit was a good idea, the remain side has not accepted the will of the people and has tried to derail the entire thing in a way that has been given far more airtime and support than the piddly effort the leave side would have or could have made in the same circumstances.

There's no doubt that the Remain side didn't accept the vote, that they had the most to lose might have been a factor there, but refusal to accept the result was (to put it mildly) a bit childish. A more productive approach might have been to push for a soft-brexit as unlikely as that outcome was going to be (TM's red lines made that impossible).

Yet, I fully expect there to have been protests, accusations of 'rigging the vote' and all manner of anger expressed that would have culminated in a second referendum being demanded - one that is unlikely to have been offered - had Leave lost 48-52. Would it have rumbled on for as long as the remain-side's efforts to frustrate and block Brexit? Probably not, but to say that Leave would have quietly accepted the result and the issue would have died down to nothing is wishful thinking.

Bit cynical wrote: »

It's actually worked out worse for the Remain side than had they simply accepted the result. Refusal to countenance any form of brexit meant that a soft exit retaining close ties to the EU was impossible.

This is unfortunately true, they created a self-fulfilling prophesy and in the process gave the Leave camp more fuel to pour onto the fire that continues to divide the country.

CelticRambler wrote: »

There were several measures Cameron could have put in place to ensure that the referendum would yield a fair, democratic and practical result. At the very least, he could have sent a team over to Ireland to learn how best to frame the process and - most critically - the actual question. He could also have specified that the referendum result would be legally binding - that would have changed the whole legal landscape.

But he didn't, so instead the EU is about to start trade negotiations with a country that hasn't the foggiest idea of what it voted for or what it wants. And that against the backdrop of a country in which the government of the day does not have the backing of a majority of the population.

Indeed. May they live in interesting times.

CelticRambler

rogue-entity wrote: »

I'm not sure how the acrimonious division of British society today impacts their ability to form stable arrangements with other trading blocs; the Tories have a majority government and can do as they please, do trade deals have unilateral exit clauses? Should a non-Tory government get in at the next election, would they really undo whatever deals the UK signs with other countries?

It's entirely plausible - depending on what terms the current administration agrees to. Imagine a scenario where Johnson-Cummings are desperate for a UK-US deal to give a flagging campaign a last minute boost, as part of which they swap shares in the NHS for a job lot of chlorinated chickens to pacify the hungry masses (yes, I'm being liberal with the dramatic licence, but you get the point). Well, it would be entirely reasonable for a new government - Tory or otherwise - to immediately roll back that agreement, and even (shock horror) instruct the weary Whitehall negotiators to trek over to Brussels and beg the EU to revisit the 2020 bare-bones FTA that plunged the country into its worst recession ever.

Peregrinus

rogue-entity wrote: »

I'm not sure how the acrimonious division of British society today impacts their ability to form stable arrangements with other trading blocs; the Tories have a majority government and can do as they please, do trade deals have unilateral exit clauses? Should a non-Tory government get in at the next election, would they really undo whatever deals the UK signs with other countries?

Trade agreements typically do contain termination clauses. For example, the EU/Japan Economic Partnership Agreement, which entered into force just a year ago, can be terminated by either party by giving six months written notice to the other.

In addition - and, again, this is absolutely typical - the EU/Japan agreement can be amended by agreement between the parties. So if a new UK government felt an EU/UK trade agreement negotiated by the Tories was, um, suboptimal, they could talk to the EU about improving/upgrading it. If they wanted to improve it by aligning the UK more closely with the EU, I'm sure they'd get a ready hearing.

Finally, most trade agreements typically contain a periodic review provision - an agreement that, every five or ten year or whatever, the parties will talk to one another about how the agreement is working, whether they are happy with it, whether altered circumstances or a changed context mean that parts of it could usefully be revisited, etc. And this can lead to agreements to make changes or even, hypothetically, an agreement simply to terminate the deal. In the EU/Japan agreeement, the review happens ten years after the agreement enters into force, or whenever else the EU and Japan agree that it should happen.

Brexit team seeks to evade Irish Sea checks on goods

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-team-seeks-to-evade-irish-sea-checks-on-goods-mv3pqjkcm

If this is true, then it is truly bizarre that no. 10 are looking for ways around a deal that their fans think of as a massive win for Johnson.

theological

According to The Telegraph trade negotiations with the US will start in the next two weeks.

This is really good news. Good progress in these discussions would put the UK in a good place both in respect to US trade but also in showing that it is serious about moving to a more global focus for trade.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit team seeks to evade Irish Sea checks on goods

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-team-seeks-to-evade-irish-sea-checks-on-goods-mv3pqjkcm

If this is true, then it is truly bizarre that no. 10 are looking for ways around a deal that their fans think of as a massive win for Johnson.

Id leave them at that, if it succeeds it just gives them some sort of weird back channel to get around any tariff or sanctions imposed by the EU , but it has to come through Ireland to be done.

If it fails then sure we still have no border up the north.