Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

fly_agaric

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If everyone agrees.

That is the problem I see with it (a new extension). Alot of people have to agree on something.
I can't see that happening now. It is far more difficult for Boris Johnson now for example than it would have been in the spring or the summer. He'd have to back down at the last minute after all his rhetoric as opposed to exercising a right built into a treaty (where the EU would look bad for refusing it). There's also to my mind some in the EU that might be reluctant and the time is extremely limited (impossible??) for all that to happen.

No agreement is the likely outcome now, and I'm pessimistic that the results of that will poison the well for more negotiations next year.
It is going to hurt both sides to an extent, but the UK moreso. The UK govt. will of course blame the EU for that. Also if the UK quickly takes some of the actions its been mooting re fishing alot of people are going to get quite hot under the collar! Doesn't matter if fishing is not that large a sector economically or that the UK has a "right" to do this once outside the EU - it will cause anger and result in retaliations I think.

MrMusician18

kalych wrote: »

By this logic there's no point in preparation for ANY deadline. Sure what's the point in studying for the leaving cert. Isn't it only an artificial deadline that can easily be changed if we all agreed on it? Or for example the financial year end for a company. No point is preparing the year-end report as the deadline is purely artificial.

At some point in life childish excuses have to make way for realities of life, which are: sooner or later we all have to either do the work or face the consequences of our procrastination and the UK is long overdue in presenting a realistic proposal to a deal.

Look at your leaving cert this year. Look at how that managed to be pushed out and eventually cancelled. The world didn't end.

Deadlines set by people and made so others can move on one way or another. As someone who works entirely under the shadow of them, I know how arbitrary and artificial the vast majority are. The deadline they are working to is entirely arbitrary anyway.

Hurrache

Well the UK got their end to freedom of movement a little earlier, and not in the way, they expected.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1341053525003001857

edit: he's deleted it, but it was basically that he said there was an EU-wide ban on traveling from the UK.

kalych

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Look at your leaving cert this year. Look at how that managed to be pushed out and eventually cancelled. The world didn't end.

Deadlines set by people and made so others can move on one way or another. As someone who works entirely under the shadow of them, I know how arbitrary and artificial the vast majority are. The deadline they are working to is entirely arbitrary anyway.

I've no issues with that. My issue is with using it as an argument against something. Like my post said, by this logic we need NEVER to prepare for ANYTHING. Sure, outliers happen but not as often as implied. At some point the deadline for Brexit will be reached and failure to prepare will come to bite the British government.

MrMusician18

kalych wrote: »

I've no issues with that. My issue is with using it as an argument against something. Like my post said, by this logic we need NEVER to prepare for ANYTHING. Sure, outliers happen but not as often as implied. At some point the deadline for Brexit will be reached and failure to prepare will come to bite the British government.

The question is, does that deadline need to come in the midst of the covid crisis? Of course it doesn't. This is a natural crisis compounded by an artificial one - it's an utter failure.

Then again perhaps Kissenger was right: Whatever must happen ultimately should happen immediately.

Brussels Sprout

Hurrache wrote: »

Well the UK got their end to freedom of movement a little earlier, and not in the way, they expected.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1341053525003001857

Looks like he deleted that tweet and posted a follow up saying there's confusion about it now.

yagan

The ERG want a No Deal, the EU knows that Johnson is hamstrung so there's really no alternative than letting the UK slide into No Deal chaos. When the masses panic shop etc Boris can spotlight the ERG holdouts and force them on board. If they don't relent then the UK is heading for another election in the midst of a pandemic and food supply disruptions.

Brussels Sprout

yagan wrote: »

If they don't relent then the UK is heading for another election in the midst of a pandemic and food supply disruptions.

They've got a pretty big majority so I can't see an election happening. There'll be a leadership contest before there'd be an election I'd say.

Johnson won them an election and, as looks increasingly likely, is about to get them a No-Deal Brexit. He serves no further purpose at this point. Best to throw him under the bus as a blood sacrifice to appease the public anger over any chaos occurring from a No-Deal Brexit.

CelticRambler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The question is, does that deadline need to come in the midst of the covid crisis? Of course it doesn't. This is a natural crisis compounded by an artificial one - it's an utter failure.

You might think that, but Johnson & Co. decided that the Covid crisis was not a good enough reason to extend the deadline, and they're the ones with the most at stake. So if the 31st Dec is good enough for them, why should the EU seek to persuade (or bully) them into remaining aligned with us any longer than agreed?

The current twist in the Covid saga was entirely predictable, and almost all EU nations have reacted a lot faster to the emergence of a new strain of unknown virulence than they did in respect of the Bergamo outbreak. That's a good argument in favour of coordinated Europe-wide responses to contagious disease, but largely irrelevant to trade with the UK post Brexit.

fash

yagan wrote: »

The MEP elections weren't FPTP.

I read an interesting articles (long time ago can't remember where etc) about the fact that one important cause for Brexit was the clash between the Westminster FPTP system and the MEP election system. Effectively the FPTP system systematically destroys small parties (such as UKIP) ensuring a stable 2 party system. The European Parliament elections allowed such parties to survive for more time than would otherwise be the case. This allowed them to become a thorn in the side of the Tory party, splitting votes etc in the FPTP system - leading to the pressure from the right wing on Cameron for Brexit

forgottenhills

yagan wrote: »

The ERG want a No Deal, the EU knows that Johnson is hamstrung so there's really no alternative than letting the UK slide into No Deal chaos. When the masses panic shop etc Boris can spotlight the ERG holdouts and force them on board. If they don't relent then the UK is heading for another election in the midst of a pandemic and food supply disruptions.

Labour will not vote against a Brexit deal in the HOC so there is nothing stopping the Conservatives bringing back and passing a Brexit deal in the HOC if they wish to do so, regardless of the position of some or all of the ERG.

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

I read an interesting articles (long time ago can't remember where etc) about the fact that one important cause for Brexit was the clash between the Westminster FPTP system and the MEP election system. Effectively the FPTP system systematically destroys small parties (such as UKIP) ensuring a stable 2 party system. The European Parliament elections allowed such parties to survive for more time than would otherwise be the case. This allowed them to become a thorn in the side of the Tory party, splitting votes etc in the FPTP system - leading to the pressure from the right wing on Cameron for Brexit

But the European Parliament couldn't have anything but a multi party system - 27 countries and dozens / hundreds of parties.

I would argue that the deeply dysfunctional UK system was a far bigger driver of Brexit.

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

But the European Parliament couldn't have anything but a multi party system - 27 countries and dozens / hundreds of parties.

I would argue that the deeply dysfunctional UK system was a far bigger driver of Brexit.

That - and the fact that it was uniquely allergic to the European parliamentary system

listermint

fash wrote: »

I read an interesting articles (long time ago can't remember where etc) about the fact that one important cause for Brexit was the clash between the Westminster FPTP system and the MEP election system. Effectively the FPTP system systematically destroys small parties (such as UKIP) ensuring a stable 2 party system. The European Parliament elections allowed such parties to survive for more time than would otherwise be the case. This allowed them to become a thorn in the side of the Tory party, splitting votes etc in the FPTP system - leading to the pressure from the right wing on Cameron for Brexit

Did this article originate...... In the UK....

fash

listermint wrote: »

Did this article originate...... In the UK....

Sure

L1011

Its very likely that under any sensible PR system, UKIP or even the Referendum Party would have entered Westminster in 1992 or 1997 with a small number of seats, and would likely have been shown to be fruitcakes quite quickly and fizzle away.

Additionally, the Torys and Labour would be about eight parties not two.

peter kern

Strazdas wrote: »

But the European Parliament couldn't have anything but a multi party system - 27 countries and dozens / hundreds of parties.

I would argue that the deeply dysfunctional UK system was a far bigger driver of Brexit.

i do not think FPTP is a good system, but if we look at how long it takes to form governments in Spain recently, not to mention Belgium if we look at italy having a new government about every 1.5 years, i struggle to call this system deeply dysfuntional. and i do not think this is the cause of brexit.
at the end of the day while we dont like the result there was a democratic referendum and the voting system is not to blame that politicians get away with lies, the problem is the VOTERS that did not study enough what they were voting for .

Sam Russell

peter kern wrote: »

i do not think FPTP is a good system, but if we look at how long it takes to form governments in Spain recently, not to mention Belgium if we look at italy having a new government about every 1.5 years, i struggle to call this system deeply dysfuntional. and i do not think this is the cause of brexit.
at the end of the day while we dont like the result there was a democratic referendum and the voting system is not to blame that politicians get away with lies, the problem is the VOTERS that did not study enough what they were voting for .

The UK is not the only country with problems with their electoral system.

Belgium is a country with internal language problems. Italy has a North/South/wealth problem. Spain is not long out of dictatorship, as is Greece, and is Portugal.

The EU is not perfect nor are the member states.

murphaph

peter kern wrote: »

i do not think FPTP is a good system, but if we look at how long it takes to form governments in Spain recently, not to mention Belgium if we look at italy having a new government about every 1.5 years, i struggle to call this system deeply dysfuntional. and i do not think this is the cause of brexit.
at the end of the day while we dont like the result there was a democratic referendum and the voting system is not to blame that politicians get away with lies, the problem is the VOTERS that did not study enough what they were voting for .

Or we could look at all the other countries in Europe that use some form of PR (virtually all of them) and note that stable government is absolutely the norm.

CelticRambler

peter kern wrote: »

at the end of the day while we dont like the result there was a democratic referendum and the voting system is not to blame that politicians get away with lies, the problem is the VOTERS that did not study enough what they were voting for .

You can't blame the voters for voting in an non-binding referendum that was run against a background of foreign interference, considerable rule-breaking and the complete absence of a detailed explanation of what would follow from changing the status quo. Voters in the UK are nowhere near as used to voting in referendums as we (Irish) or the Swiss are.

yagan

peter kern wrote: »

i do not think FPTP is a good system, but if we look at how long it takes to form governments in Spain recently, not to mention Belgium if we look at italy having a new government about every 1.5 years, i struggle to call this system deeply dysfuntional. and i do not think this is the cause of brexit.
at the end of the day while we dont like the result there was a democratic referendum and the voting system is not to blame that politicians get away with lies, the problem is the VOTERS that did not study enough what they were voting for .

Actually Italy's bicameral system certainly doesn't allow any fringe movement enough momentum to get anywhere, as can be seen by Salvini's failed election.

Even when you have a system like our PR STV you can end up with a bizarre situation where a minority party can rule as if it had a working majority, as happened in the last government which Fianna Fail propped up as silent partner.

In the long historians may look back on that term as huge mistake as it gave FG a hubris far exceeding its voter base.

peter kern

CelticRambler wrote: »

You can't blame the voters for voting in an non-binding referendum that was run against a background of foreign interference, considerable rule-breaking and the complete absence of a detailed explanation of what would follow from changing the status quo. Voters in the UK are nowhere near as used to voting in referendums as we (Irish) or the Swiss are.

Well the Swiss did reject full eu membership 3 times in a referendum .

are you saying to vote for a party in an election takes less preparation than voting in a referendum?
I don't think you say you can blindly follow a party election program but when it comes to a referendum you can't trust the party...
I do of course understand what you mean, maybe some people did not fully apprehend how important they vote was . but the fact remains gulable voters elected politicians that were lying.but again the problem here is not primaraley which voting system is used but that populism was allowed to become so strong.
The main issue is that it took us way to long to decide what we do with fake news.
Totally regardless of voting systems populist parties have risen massively in every voting system.

Sam Russell

peter kern wrote: »

Well the Swiss did reject full eu membership 3 times in a referendum .

are you saying to vote for a party in an election takes less preparation than voting in a referendum?
I don't think you say you can blindly follow a party election program but when it comes to a referendum you can't trust the party...
I do of course understand what you mean, maybe some people did not fully apprehend how important they vote was . but the fact remains gulable voters elected politicians that were lying.but again the problem here is not primaraley which voting system is used but that populism was allowed to become so strong.
The main issue is that it took us way to long to decide what we do with fake news.
Totally regardless of voting systems populist parties have risen massively in every voting system.

Populism is not new.

Fooling the electorate with three word slogans is not new.

The Romans had the Coliseum to keep the mob distracted.

The USA had the prohibition movement that got into law giving rise to the organised criminal mobs.

There are plenty of other examples throughout history. It is not new, just the medium of spreading the lies is new.

kowloon

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are plenty of other examples throughout history. It is not new, just the medium of spreading the lies is new.

Even with game-changers like the internet and television you still see so much similarity. History does run in cycles because it's shaped by human nature, which hasn't changed.

An Ciarraioch

The British demand for a 60% reduction in the EU fishing quota has now been reduced to 35%, and given Barnier's already at 25%, a deal will surely be done now?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/boris-johnson-rejects-calls-extend-brexit-talks-2021

Jizique

yagan wrote: »

Actually Italy's bicameral system certainly doesn't allow any fringe movement enough momentum to get anywhere, as can be seen by Salvini's failed election.

Even when you have a system like our PR STV you can end up with a bizarre situation where a minority party can rule as if it had a working majority, as happened in the last government which Fianna Fail propped up as silent partner.

In the long historians may look back on that term as huge mistake as it gave FG a hubris far exceeding its voter base.

German system is decent, where you need to hit a 5% hurdle to enter parliament; would get rid of a bunch of local yokels in national parliament, although they could combine as a “countryside alliance” or “lefty alliance”.
This would have given the UKIP crowd a voice in parliament and would have encouraged Cameron to resist the drag to the right (and Labour the drag to the left) and we would not be in this position

CelticRambler

peter kern wrote: »

are you saying to vote for a party in an election takes less preparation than voting in a referendum?
I don't think you say you can blindly follow a party election program but when it comes to a referendum you can't trust the party...

That's not what I'm saying, but yes, voting for a party out of blind loyalty takes less effort than making a rational, well-informed choice in a referendum.

The problem with Brexit is that it was not the result of a rational, well-informed choice, nor was it the (inevitable) consequence of that referendum. It came about, on the one hand, through the progressive disenfranchisement (socio-economic and political) of middle and working class by those with their hands on the levers of power; and on the other, through the deliberate manipulation of the referendum process, by a relatively small number of actors with excessive influence.

Even Johnson's re-election was a carefully targetted exercise in sloganeering and negative campaigning, and - as has been pointed out several times - achieved on the back of a minority share of the vote.

That is a recipe for a post-Brexit disaster for the UK. Not only has Johnson no hope whatsoever of delivering a Brexit deal that's acceptable to the hard core while simultaneously pandering to the less suicidal Tories; but whatever outcome he achieves by Jan 1 will be foisted on the majority that didn't vote for him.

Throw into the mix an invigorated Scotland aggressively pursuing independence and a Wales that's starting to flirt with the idea too, and you have a hell of a lot of negative consequences for the UK, all stemming from the malign influence on English politics of FPTP.

Widdensushi

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The British demand for a 60% reduction in the EU fishing quota has now been reduced to 35%, and given Barnier's already at 25%, a deal will surely be done now?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/boris-johnson-rejects-calls-extend-brexit-talks-2021

Sounds complicated and like it would be forever disputed.

Jizique

The problem with Brexit is that it was not the result of a rational, well-informed choice, nor was it the (inevitable) consequence of that referendum.

Tory on sky earlier saying no risk to Christmas food supplies - but not asked about next week

View

murphaph wrote: »

Or we could look at all the other countries in Europe that use some form of PR (virtually all of them) and note that stable government is absolutely the norm.

That’s correct but it should be noted that the PR system used is almost always open party list or closed party list PR.

In both cases a voter casts their ballot for a party but under open they can vote for their preferences of the party’s nominated candidates (ie 1,2,3.. for party X) whereas under closed the party has predetermined the order of their nominated candidates and hence their chances of getting elected. Hence, the emphasis in an election is more on the party’s national electoral platform and less on personality politics.