Brexit!

[yorkie1999]

don't know what yer doin'

don't know what yer doin'

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

Again, what compromise? 

 

You can't take an extreme position, and say "well it's a compromise because it could be even more extreme". That's not a compromise.

I meant "the compromise option".

 

As I stated earlier, the document Boris had submitted is there to start a negotiation.

[Leicester_Loyal]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

We hear a lot about the 17.4 million Leavers. But there were also 16.1 million Remainers. An approach of "We won, we're going to do everything the 51.9% want & the 48.1% can fvck off" won't make for a happy nation. We all live here.

I mean, if you win the lottery, I'd happily compromise on you giving me 99% of your winnings, but that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation, would it?

 

If it was the other way round would we be leaving with a deal? If Remain had 17.4 million and Leave had 16.1 million? I don't think so. People have constantly asked for a deal, due to no deal being like 'diving off a cliff edge', now he's put one together and people aren't happy again? The deal is a compromise for both leavers and remainers (if it goes through). Others don't want no deal and are now unhappy with any form of deal, obviously because they don't want to leave at all.

[Leicester_Loyal]

40 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The leave campaign comes replete with these silly little slogans, “remoaners”, “project fear”, etc, presumably straight out of Dominic Cummings’ propaganda factory. Reminds me of the sheep in Animal Farm: “4 legs good, 2 legs bad...”.

As opposed to extremists, racists, xenophobes, nazis and little Englanders? All of which have been said in this very thread

[Charl91]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I meant "the compromise option".

 

As I stated earlier, the document Boris had submitted is there to start a negotiation.

 

Ok, I see -  I do agree that a compromise is needed. As much as I would like to remain (and I presume you would've preferred a 'clean break'), to go to far to one extreme or the other is only going to continue to exacerbate the divisions that we're seeing.

 

I don't think Boris' plan will work, is a compromise, or even a good starting point for negotiations though. Sadly, I think Theresa May's deal is probably the best option we have at this point, and I'd happily (well grudingly) back that. Better to leave everyone mildly unhappy at least, rather than leave a country completely divided. 

[Charl91]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If it was the other way round would we be leaving with a deal? If Remain had 17.4 million and Leave had 16.1 million? I don't think so. People have constantly asked for a deal, due to no deal being like 'diving off a cliff edge', now he's put one together and people aren't happy again? The deal is a compromise for both leavers and remainers (if it goes through). Others don't want no deal and are now unhappy with any form of deal, obviously because they don't want to leave at all.

If it was the other way round, we wouldn't be going full on Europhile and joining the Euro and the Schengen area.

 

This "deal" isn't a compromise - May's was far more of a compromise for remainers than this one. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

3 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

If it was the other way round, we wouldn't be going full on Europhile and joining the Euro and the Schengen area.

 

This "deal" isn't a compromise - May's was far more of a compromise for remainers than this one. 

Yet it wasn't voted through? Even though the majority of Conservatives voted for it.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

A second referendum does nothing to solve anything, if Remain wins the Tories surely still go into the next general election promising to leave (I mean why would any leaver seriously respect the result of second referendum) and if Leave wins we still have the same mathematics in parliament.

 

The compromise is I think, the only way out of the impasse. Peter Hitchens brought up a very good point in the MoS that a hard no deal Brexit that is disastrous could lead to us rejoining on even worse terms, a lot of the people on my side of the arugment should also be concerned about that.

 

I appreciate that there are a lot of problems with a second referendum. That's why I opposed it for so long - and would still prefer an acceptable compromise.....but that's never been offered. A referendum would be a divisive process itself - and would take months to set up. Your points are fair, at least in part. I'm sure that some Leave voters would not respect a Remain result, though a lot of people on all sides just want the issue over with, so more than you think might want to move on. For that reason, if Remain won, would it be a successful electoral strategy for the Tories to go into the next election promising to Leave? After the SNP lost their referendum, they opted to put IndyRef2 on the back burner.

 

Of course, Leave might well win again. I'm absolutely assuming, though, that we'll have had an election before any referendum happens. So, the parliamentary mathematics might be similar or they might be very different. A second referendum is a flawed solution, but I don't see a better one, in the absence of a reasonable compromise.

 

Who knows where the Tory Party is heading in the medium-term. They are no longer a centre-right broad church, it seems, but are now a party of the Eurosceptic Populist Right, a sort of cross between Farage and Trump. Did you see that Rory Stewart has resigned from the party and won't re-stand in Cumbria? I wonder where they go if the Brexit divorce is resolved somehow or other? If Brexit happens, unlikely that Boris could fund the populist stuff in the medium-term, particularly if we suffer serious economic harm.....and the global outlook seems bleak, even without Brexit.

 

On Hitchens' point, I'm sure the terms would be much worse if we did end up leaving and rejoining. Personally, I'm convinced that No Deal would be an utter disaster, worse than anything since WW2. A Hard Brexit Deal wouldn't be as bad, but would still be pretty bad - and would exacerbate divisions and hostility between people. But I suspect that it would take a long time for the EU to even accept us rejoining, after this long, painful debacle, plus whatever follows. I'd love to see the Govt bring forward a genuine compromise Brexit that could win the acceptance of a substantial majority of MPs and the public (nothing will unite everyone). But May wasn't prepared to do that, unsuccessfully prioritising Tory Party unity, and Boris has gone the full hog with Eurosceptic populism, probably more out of personal ambition than out of conviction. I cannot see anything other than bitter division under his leadership.

[Charl91]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Yet it wasn't voted through? Even though the majority of Conservatives voted for it.

It's not the oppositions job to vote through the Government's policy. Labour thought they were capable of getting a better deal - of course they were going to vote against it. 

 

If you want to blame someone, blame the ERG who voted against it because it wasn't Brexity enough for them.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, Charl91 said:

It's not the oppositions job to vote through the Government's policy. Labour thought they were capable of getting a better deal - of course they were going to vote against it. 

 

If you want to blame someone, blame the ERG who voted against it because it wasn't Brexity enough for them.

No I think we'll blame Labour and the other parties who now say we can't leave without a deal, yet rejected a deal which they thought was better than the one Boris has put forward.

 

For someone who is a bumbling oaf, BoJo seems to be doing pretty well

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Charl91 said:

I also find it a tad weird that you're calling people who voted remain "remoaners", especially as you claimed to vote remain (which I find difficult to believe, but ok). Not particularly the language of compromise, is it? 

Why do you find it difficult to believe? I voted remain. I like Europe but not a desperately huge fan of the EU. I would've preferred us to stay, that's why I made the decision to go with remain.

I don't think the word 'remoaner' is especially derogatory language, considering what both sides (particularly those on the harder edges) have yelled at each other in the past 3 years.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Like @Charl91, I'm surprised that you use the mildly insulting "Remoaners" if you are one yourself.

The message from that word is: "You lost, so your opinions are just worthless moaning & you need to shut up & accept whatever we demand": i.e. it's a subtle attempt to shut down democratic debate to impose a hard-line solution

I habitually refer to Leave supporters as "Brexiteers" (a neutral term, I'd say). Would it help calm debate if I switched to "Brexshitters" instead?

I voted remain, we lost, I'm not moaning about it - it's democracy - so am a remainer rather than remoaner. Not everyone who voted remain is a remoaner.

Alf, you generally speak moderately about political subjects, which I like, even if I disagree at times.

It's not trying to shut down debate whatsoever, subtly or otherwise, I listen to a wide range of views on various topics because I don't want to live in an echo chamber.

Brexit is obviously a divisive issue but I believe the 'leavers' (or Brexshitters) currently seem more willing to compromise.

[Charl91]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

No I think we'll blame Labour and the other parties who now say we can't leave without a deal, yet rejected a deal which they thought was better than the one Boris has put forward.

 

For someone who is a bumbling oaf, BoJo seems to be doing pretty well

 

What?

 

Labour said "We don't want May's deal, it isn't good enough" and voted against it. That's fair enough. Are you saying they should have have had a time machine, and should have known that Boris would put forward an even worse one? Labour think, rightly or wrongly, that they will get a better deal than May or Boris (and in my opinion they would, purely because they're not restricted by May's red lines). Now I have been very critical of Labour and their poor opposition, but it is laughable to blame them for the Governments inability to get their own policy through.

 

And Borris is doing well? Jesus christ, I would hate to see what the parameters for doing badly are, then. He has lost his majority by an overwhelming amount, unlawfully shut down government, come up with a fantasy deal that isn't worth the paper it's written on as it will never get accepted, and his is record in parliament is worse than the Brazil vs. Germany score. If this is doing pretty well, then I would hate to see what doing badly is.

[Charl91]

5 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

but I believe the 'leavers' (or Brexshitters) currently seem more willing to compromise.

In what way?

 

People keep saying this, but I've yet to see anyone explain how they have shown more willing to compromise.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If it was the other way round would we be leaving with a deal? If Remain had 17.4 million and Leave had 16.1 million? I don't think so. People have constantly asked for a deal, due to no deal being like 'diving off a cliff edge', now he's put one together and people aren't happy again? The deal is a compromise for both leavers and remainers (if it goes through). Others don't want no deal and are now unhappy with any form of deal, obviously because they don't want to leave at all.

 

No, of course we wouldn't Leave with a deal if we had narrowly voted Remain! But, as Charl91 points out, we wouldn't be signing up to the Euro or Schengen open borders either. That awareness of the substantial Eurosceptic currents in the UK that has kept successive govts from adopting an "extreme Remain" position, if you want to think of it that way.

 

The referendum outcome narrowly supported us Leaving the EU - and ideally I think that should happen, even though I voted Remain. But the referendum didn't approve any particular sort of Brexit. So, responding to a narrow win by seeking to leave the Single Market & Customs Union, not providing meaningful guarantees regarding rights and standards, and, in Boris' case, causing major problems in Ireland, risking both an economic crisis and the return of terrorism....is not my idea of compromise.

 

Johnson's proposal is designed to appeal to ERG and DUP hardliners, and to voters who've defected to the Brexit Party. He must know that it will be rejected by the EU - and any attempt to negotiate major changes would be rejected by the hardliners he's appealing to. It's all a sham in preparation for a toxic general election in which he hopes to win a majority by further exacerbating divisions in the nation, dishonestly blaming Parliament, the judges and the EU for the lack of a deal.

[Leicester_Loyal]

12 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

What?

 

Labour said "We don't want May's deal, it isn't good enough" and voted against it. That's fair enough. Are you saying they should have have had a time machine, and should have known that Boris would put forward an even worse one? Labour think, rightly or wrongly, that they will get a better deal than May or Boris (and in my opinion they would, purely because they're not restricted by May's red lines). Now I have been very critical of Labour and their poor opposition, but it is laughable to blame them for the Governments inability to get their own policy through.

 

And Borris is doing well? Jesus christ, I would hate to see what the parameters for doing badly are, then. He has lost his majority by an overwhelming amount, unlawfully shut down government, come up with a fantasy deal that isn't worth the paper it's written on as it will never get accepted, and his is record in parliament is worse than the Brazil vs. Germany score. If this is doing pretty well, then I would hate to see what doing badly is.

There was always a risk that rejecting that deal could lead to a no deal? The EU said there would be no negotiating, so quite frankly Boris shouldn't have been able to even get another deal at all from the EU. Everyone knew this from the start, yet it was still rejected by Parliament.

 

Compromise, remember?

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Why do you find it difficult to believe? I voted remain. I like Europe but not a desperately huge fan of the EU. I would've preferred us to stay, that's why I made the decision to go with remain.

I don't think the word 'remoaner' is especially derogatory language, considering what both sides (particularly those on the harder edges) have yelled at each other in the past 3 years.

 

I voted remain, we lost, I'm not moaning about it - it's democracy - so am a remainer rather than remoaner. Not everyone who voted remain is a remoaner.

Alf, you generally speak moderately about political subjects, which I like, even if I disagree at times.

It's not trying to shut down debate whatsoever, subtly or otherwise, I listen to a wide range of views on various topics because I don't want to live in an echo chamber.

Brexit is obviously a divisive issue but I believe the 'leavers' (or Brexshitters) currently seem more willing to compromise.

 

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, were trying to shut down debate - and completely agree with not living in an echo chamber (partly why I get in debate here and not on some pro-Remain, lefty political forum).

I was highlighting the underlying meaning and intention of the word, whoever invented it (tabloids?).

 

It takes a lot to offend me and I'm an argumentative twat, so it won't shut me up. I just don't think it's respectful or helpful in keeping a divisive debate civil - it helps fuel the polarisation, and equivalent insults from the Remain side.

Particularly as an awful lot of Remain voters are open to compromise and accept that we should Leave....they just don't like the deals that have been offered so far, a perfectly reasonable, non-moaning stance.

Even those (unlike me) who have always supported a second referendum have made some decent points about the disgraceful referendum campaign (on both sides). Reject the idea as undemocratic, by all means, but opinions are not "moaning".

 

From 1997 to 2010, was every person who criticised Labour Govt policies just a "moaner" (with the implication that they were not entitled to express their views because they had lost the vote)?

 

Agree to disagree on the idea that May or Johnson have offered anything close to a compromise.....shame that the indicative votes and May-Corbyn negotiations didn't go anywhere, in that regard.

[Charl91]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

There was always a risk that rejecting that deal could lead to a no deal? The EU said there would be no negotiating, so quite frankly Boris shouldn't have been able to even get another deal at all from the EU. Everyone knew this from the start, yet it was still rejected by Parliament.

 

Compromise, remember?

 

See, this just shows me that you don't really understand what compromise means. Saying "If you don't accept this extreme position, then we'll have this really extreme position"? That's not compromise.

 

It's the equivalent of trying to sell your house for £200,000, and someone coming up to you and saying "sell it to me for £50,000, or I'll burn your house down". You really don't want your house burned down, but that doesn't mean that the £50,000 is a compromise,.

Edited 4 October 2019 by Charl91

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

See, this just shows me that you don't really understand what compromise means. Saying "If you don't accept this extreme position, then we'll have this really extreme position"? That's not compromise.

 

Or you just want a deal which is exactly like remaining? So it's pretty pointless having a deal.

 

Bojo still on 33% in the latest election polls and he's doing this badly? I'd hate to see him doing well, it would be up to 40/45!

[Charl91]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

Or you just want a deal which is exactly like remaining? So it's pretty pointless having a deal.

 

Bojo still on 33% in the latest election polls and he's doing this badly? I'd hate to see him doing well, it would be up to 40/45!

 

No, you don't understand. What I want is to remain. What I would accept as a reasonable compromise is a deal that takes us out of the EU, but doesn't put us at a big economic risk - an EFTA deal, similar to Norway and iceland, etc.

 

I mean yes, I think it is pretty pointless having a deal when the optimal solution for me, and many others would be to remain. It's certainly not what I want, but it's a suitable half-way point between the 52% and the 48%. 

 

And if I trained my Dog to say "we'll leave on the 31st of October", that'd probably be on 33% in the polls too. Maybe more.

[iniesta]

23 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

See, this just shows me that you don't really understand what compromise means. Saying "If you don't accept this extreme position, then we'll have this really extreme position"? That's not compromise.

 

It's the equivalent of trying to sell your house for £200,000, and someone coming up to you and saying "sell it to me for £50,000, or I'll burn your house down". You really don't want your house burned down, but that doesn't mean that the £50,000 is a compromise,

I would happily reverse article 50 if promised these tedious remainer metaphors would stop. 

 

 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, iniesta said:

I would happily reverse article 50 if promised these tedious remainer metaphors would stop. 

 

 

 

Both sides are at it to be fair. Completely fed up of the bullshit "In any negotiation you have to be prepared to walk away" ones.

Edited 4 October 2019 by Voll Blau

[StanSP]

15 hours ago, bovril said:

She is, yes. Maybe I'm missing something but a politician with a known authoritarian streak shouting that she'll "take control" and end freedom of movement doesn't fill me with great joy. 

Same old rubbish that's been spouted for last few years. 'take control' means square root of fvck all in reality. 

 

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If it was the other way round would we be leaving with a deal? If Remain had 17.4 million and Leave had 16.1 million? I don't think so. People have constantly asked for a deal, due to no deal being like 'diving off a cliff edge', now he's put one together and people aren't happy again? The deal is a compromise for both leavers and remainers (if it goes through). Others don't want no deal and are now unhappy with any form of deal, obviously because they don't want to leave at all.

Eh? This bit makes no sense. If we voted to remain there wouldn't be any deal to discuss? Because we'd be remaining in the EU and things wouldn't be as ridiculously complicated as they've become. 

 

[bovril]

I think the first helpful thing would be to realise that 'compromise' is not synonymous with 'what England wants'. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

I've never understood the idea that if you voted for something and it didn't win that you should accept it because DEMOCRACY. 

 

If you didn't vote than fair enough but if you're on the losing side then you should be absolutely critical of everything the party/decision you haven't voted for tries to implement/s if you don't agree with it. 

[bovril]

Just now, Bobby Hundreds said:

I've never understood the idea that if you voted for something and it didn't win that you should accept it because DEMOCRACY. 

 

If you didn't vote than fair enough but if you're on the losing side then you should be absolutely critical of everything the party/decision you haven't voted for tries to implement/s if you don't agree with it. 

No word has ever been abused as much as "democracy" has in the UK recently.