Brexit!

[twoleftfeet]

Listening to Any Questions on radio 4 tonight a  remainer said no deal was not an option, as nobody voted for a no deal Brexit. So we should have a second referendum who and somebody must have, voted for a second referendum. Otherwise by the same nobody voted for it logic it cant be an option either. 

[HappyHamza]

16 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Apart from the ONE WEEKS PAID HOLIDAY for all workers who's wagss were set by trade union boards, so it did provide the legal right for some workers to paid holiday.  www.unionhistory.info

Ok well if there was some rights for some workers, this only became a legal right for all workers in 1998 (not 1995 as I'd put earlier). 

[HappyHamza]

3 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Listening to Any Questions on radio 4 tonight a  remainer said no deal was not an option, as nobody voted for a no deal Brexit. So we should have a second referendum who and somebody must have, voted for a second referendum. Otherwise by the same nobody voted for it logic it cant be an option either. 

That's incredibly bad logic.

[WigstonWanderer]

10 hours ago, Charl91 said:

 

Far too complicated?!?!

 

If someone finds that far too complicated, then there's absolutely no way they should be voting on an issue as complicated as Brexit.

I meant organisationally. Are you suggesting 2 seperate referendums? If so, I can’t see that ever happening.

 

If on the same ballot paper, as Strokes suggested, do remainers not get a vote for the type of Brexit? Single transferable vote ensures that the most widely supported option (or perhaps more realistically the least hated) succeeds, and simply asks voters to place in order of preference the options on the ballot paper.

 

There seems to have been something of a rise in the pound today. Are Johnson’s attempts at cobbling a deal together likely to succeed?

[fuchsntf]

12 hours ago, Benguin said:

I’m way too outnumbered in this thread to get into a debate. Where’s Mattp and Webbo? 

 

I guess my final comments are:

 

No one can deny the mess trying to leave the EU has been, then again no one can do more than predict the mess/success actually leaving the EU will result in. 

 

People can and and are manipulated. I think it’s a pretty level playing ground for which side it effects though.

 

Once you lot are done congratulating yourselves on how clever you are and how wrong brexiteers are, remember we will leave and we will all suffer/gain from it. 

Nobody manipulates me..!!!  You First ask my wife...then my 4 kids,then my gran-kids!!!  

I Spit in the eye of manipulationI I give wittingly & honestly,my tax collector sees to the rest....!!

[Guest Kopfkino]

Revokers are just the opposite side of the delusional coin to No dealers. 

[Silebyfox_89]

Probably not a popular opinion but does anyone think the Lib Dems pushing the Remain stance to increase their popularity will polarise the electorate even further? 

[StanSP]

18 minutes ago, Silebyfox_89 said:

Probably not a popular opinion but does anyone think the Lib Dems pushing the Remain stance to increase their popularity will polarise the electorate even further? 

In what way? It's polarised enough between Remain and Leave as it is? 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

In what way? It's polarised enough between Remain and Leave as it is? 

I would say it's becoming polarised between no deal and anti-no deal at the moment. There are plenty that do not want a no deal but would prefer to leave the EU and would baulk at remain. If the Lib Dems position themselves as the scrap article 50 party then it does split the anti no deal vote. Labour, I think, are the second referendum party, but yet to see the terms of the second referendum. If Lib Dems say they are the scrap article 50 party then it will make any sort of coalition untenable unless they go back on a core promise again. They should be the second referendum party with remain on the ballot, any coalition would then be on that proviso. This means they could have a coalition with Labour to prevent a no deal Brexit.

[Nick]

Thread summary:

 

 

[The Guvnor]

2 hours ago, Silebyfox_89 said:

Probably not a popular opinion but does anyone think the Lib Dems pushing the Remain stance to increase their popularity will polarise the electorate even further? 

Not sure that it will, but like the Brexit party once a deals been secured they will return to the same level of popularity they were before.

[ousefox]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Revokers are just the opposite side of the delusional coin to No dealers. 

Do you really think that? A remainer by extension is a revoker. That would be the aim for them in any second referendum - I think a second referendum is more likely than a no deal at this point in time. I also think those that 'accept the result of the referendum' who originally voted remain would likely vote remain again. I guess this all depends on an election which is impossible to predict though.

 

No deal was always a very small minority of people and has become quite purposefully and dangerously normalised over the last few months by those in no.10. Unsurprisingly, it seems to have influenced exactly the people you'd expect it to influence.

[bovril]

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Revokers are just the opposite side of the delusional coin to No dealers. 

Many of the people who want to revoke are the mirror image of the no deal purists, I agree.

However, I don't think the two positions are that comparable. I favour a soft Brexit or even the W.A at the moment to another divisive referendum. However, I still think that both of those will be almost certainly worse than our current position in the EU. Pragmatically, revocation should still be an option. It's the status quo. No deal is disrupting supply chains and putting up barriers to trade, there is nothing sensible or pragmatic about it. 

[BlueSi13]

15 minutes ago, bovril said:

Many of the people who want to revoke are the mirror image of the no deal purists, I agree.

However, I don't think the two positions are that comparable. I favour a soft Brexit or even the W.A at the moment to another divisive referendum. However, I still think that both of those will be almost certainly worse than our current position in the EU. Pragmatically, revocation should still be an option. It's the status quo. No deal is disrupting supply chains and putting up barriers to trade, there is nothing sensible or pragmatic about it. 

You see, that's one the biggest myths of this entire thing.  That staying in the European Union somehow represents the status quo.  There IS no status quo when it comes to the EU.  Every year more and more powers are drained away from nation states to fulfil Brussels dream of a centralised federal Europe or USE.

 

Where would you stand when the next big treaty comes along with another huge power grab if the UK ends up staying in?  Will we get a vote on that?  

 

Will we get a say on this?

 

 

 

 

Extremely chilling and dangerous.  The sooner we are out on the 31st the better.

[WigstonWanderer]

6 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

You see, that's one the biggest myths of this entire thing.  That staying in the European Union somehow represents the status quo.  There IS no status quo when it comes to the EU.  Every year more and more powers are drained away from nation states to fulfil Brussels dream of a centralised federal Europe or USE.

 

Where would you stand when the next big treaty comes along with another huge power grab if the UK ends up staying in?  Will we get a vote on that?  

 

Will we get a say on this?

 

 

 

 

Extremely chilling and dangerous.  The sooner we are out on the 31st the better.

You do know the UK have a veto?

[BlueSi13]

Meanwhile in other Brexit related news:

 

Northern Irish court dismisses claims that a WTO Brexit and hard border damages the NI peace process.  Also confirms that Boris' advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was lawful:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/northern-irish-court-dismisses-case-against-no-deal-brexit

 

Leave.EU to face NO further criminal investigations over Brexit campaign spending.  Aaron Banks has now called for enquiry in to the Electoral Commission to answer questions about its political bias and whether it is fit for purpose:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/13/scotland-yard-finds-insufficient-evidence-continue-investigating/

[BlueSi13]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

You do know the UK have a veto?

Possibly not for long...no more opt-outs, no more vetoes.  

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

3 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Possibly not for long...no more opt-outs, no more vetoes.  

 

 

Well that’s what he wants, but I understand that vetoes extend to vetoing removal of vetoes

[leicsmac]

@BlueSi13 - I'm asking this question again and apologies for that, but I've not had a clear answer from any Brexiteer as yet (and the question is open, of course.

 

Is there no issue you can think of (other than military/power projection, it's funny how those who disparage the idea of an EU military force seem to love NATO, btw, conscription ideas aside) where authority of a supranational entity like the EU gives better results all round than a single nation state and if so should we be thinking of babies and bathwater?

[The Guvnor]

Leavers have discussed their fear of a federal Euopean Union and been laughed at .

I can see the reasons Guy Verhofstadt wants this level of reform to simplify the management of the union but for sceptics who see a more federal Europe in a failed Eurozone as a disaster waiting to happen it should hopefully placate the feral lynch mob that have 'come out of the woods' on FT.

 

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Revokers are just the opposite side of the delusional coin to No dealers. 

 

I tend to agree. Given the impasse, I can see a case for (and against) a second referendum - but not for revoking without consulting the electorate.

 

There will be lasting division regardless of the Brexit outcome. But, as with No Deal, it would surely be on quite another scale with Revoke?

A major motivation for the Leave vote was people feeling ignored by "the elite".....and people like Swinson want to just ignore the referendum result and revoke?!? 

That seems like a solution tailor-made to increase toxic divisions and alienation from the democratic process - possibly leading to public disorder, thuggery & the rise of the Far Right....

 

Swinson says she's made the switch from Referendum to Revoke because it would be nonsense for an explicitly Remain party to try to negotiate a Brexit Deal to put to a referendum. Yet, they've vocally advocated a referendum since 2016.

In a referendum, they could also put May's Deal, any deal that Boris negotiates or even No Deal to a vote with Remain. That would be a lot more respectful of the electorate than just revoking!

 

I presume this is cynical "product differentiation" by the Lib Dems. They see much (though not all) of Labour inching onto their old Referendum terrain and want to differentiate themselves as "the Remain party" to win seats.

Most of their target seats are prosperous Tory seats in the SE & SW with a big Remainer vote, so I presume they want to avoid Remain voters there drifting to Labour, causing them to miss out on seats.

 

In reality, it's highly unlikely that the Lib Dems will be negotiating Brexit. Polls suggest they could gain a number of seats, but not that they'll be anywhere near being the biggest party in parliament.

But if an election happens before Brexit is sorted, a hung parliament with more Lib Dem MPs is distinctly possible. Their Revoke stance would surely make it much harder to get either a Soft Brexit Deal or a Second Referendum.....unless they back down.

 

I do wonder where the Lib Dems will end up once Brexit is finally sorted, which might be within a couple of months. They've essentially become a Remain party. What other policies are they promoting?

Like them or not, Labour has a raft of other policies (as they did in 2017). If we do end up with a November election after leaving the EU with or without a deal at Halloween, what platform will the Lib Dems stand on? 

 

 

[BlueSi13]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

@BlueSi13 - I'm asking this question again and apologies for that, but I've not had a clear answer from any Brexiteer as yet (and the question is open, of course.

 

Is there no issue you can think of (other than military/power projection, it's funny how those who disparage the idea of an EU military force seem to love NATO, btw, conscription ideas aside) where authority of a supranational entity like the EU gives better results all round than a single nation state and if so should we be thinking of babies and bathwater?

What better results are you talking about?  

Who would benefit the most?  

Who would be in charge?  

What and whose set of norms and values would we have to follow?  

Why does Europe NEED a supranational entity?  

Why does the UK need to surrender sovereign power over its own defence, laws, trader and borders to a bunch of random Polish, Dutch and Luxemborgian politics so they can fulfil their fantasies of acting big on the world stage and talking tough to the USA?

If we as a COUNTRY want to go in a different direction, how do we do that?

How is this progress?  

 

[yorkie1999]

What exactly is The Deal? Is it we pay them 40 billion quid and the french will promise not to hold up Spanish tomatoes on the docks or something. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

What better results are you talking about?  

Who would benefit the most?  

Who would be in charge?  

What and whose set of norms and values would we have to follow?  

Why does Europe NEED a supranational entity?  

Why does the UK need to surrender sovereign power over its own defence, laws, trader and borders to a bunch of random Polish, Dutch and Luxemborgian politics so they can fulfil their fantasies of acting big on the world stage and talking tough to the USA?

If we as a COUNTRY want to go in a different direction, how do we do that?

How is this progress? 

 

Thank you. One at a time, and I'm going to use one very very specific example that I'm well-known for:

 

What better results are you talking about?  Better energy generation and enforceable environmental regulations across a larger area of the world.

Who would benefit the most?  Everyone in the long term, everyone apart from the coal and oil companies in the short term.

Who would be in charge?  EU Parliament.

What and whose set of norms and values would we have to follow?  Hopefully the ones that say that the future is actually important.

Why does Europe NEED a supranational entity?  Because the countries by themselves are not doing enough to counter this problem and that has potentially dire consequences.

Why does the UK need to surrender sovereign power over its own defence, laws, trader and borders to a bunch of random Polish, Dutch and Luxemborgian politics so they can fulfil their fantasies of acting big on the world stage and talking tough to the USA? Not on defence, not on all laws and not all trades. Just the ones that affect everyone - as the above does.

If we as a COUNTRY want to go in a different direction, how do we do that? On varying matters that don't affect everyone, there should absolutely be a veto and autonomy should remain. On this particular matter, however, I'm struggling to extend the idea of free will to screwing over the future for one and everyone else.

How is this progress? Taking a course of action most likely to prevent the downfall of civilisation in the future is what I would call progress, but of course that's only my take.

 

Of course, this is only one matter where I believe a supranational entity is needed, but it is a critical one, no matter how much people might put their heads in the sand about it. There has to be some nuance - some things fall under the head of national sovereignty, some do not, it's not a simple either-or.

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, ousefox said:

Do you really think that? A remainer by extension is a revoker. That would be the aim for them in any second referendum - I think a second referendum is more likely than a no deal at this point in time. I also think those that 'accept the result of the referendum' who originally voted remain would likely vote remain again. I guess this all depends on an election which is impossible to predict though.

 

No deal was always a very small minority of people and has become quite purposefully and dangerously normalised over the last few months by those in no.10. Unsurprisingly, it seems to have influenced exactly the people you'd expect it to influence.

The point being revokers thinking everything can go back to being broadly the same as it was, particularly without a referendum, is exactly the same as no dealers thinking everything will be fine. I don't have a problem with wishing to remain but its not as simple as revoke and everything is alright just like its not as simple as no deal and we are free of the EU.

 

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Many of the people who want to revoke are the mirror image of the no deal purists, I agree.

However, I don't think the two positions are that comparable. I favour a soft Brexit or even the W.A at the moment to another divisive referendum. However, I still think that both of those will be almost certainly worse than our current position in the EU. Pragmatically, revocation should still be an option. It's the status quo. No deal is disrupting supply chains and putting up barriers to trade, there is nothing sensible or pragmatic about it. 

It's not quite as bonkers as no deal but as above, its only the status quo if you think everything returns to broadly how it was before 2016 but that only happens if everyone suffers a 4 year amnesia. It can be partly legitimised as an option through another referendum otherwise its irresponsible.