Brexit thread III

2456769

Comments

  • The Wombat wrote: »
    Opportunities if we go, opportunities if we stay. Problems if we go, problems if we stay. Seems a very fine Balance to me. Isn't there a way we can have our Cake and eat it ? - Well most of our Cake anyway.

    It really isn't a fine balance. There are virtually no opportunities if we go. None that the British people actually want. The problems if we stay are mostly domestic UK ones that would be changed but not solved by leaving.

    But here's the real killer: we already have a 'cake and eat it' deal. The UK enjoys all the benefits of EU membership but has no commitment to the Eurozone, various specific exemptions and a large rebate on our financial contributions.

    What more could a sane, reasonable country want?*

    AFZ

    *yes, the clue is in the question!
  • Yes, that's the irony. If only we could have frictionless trade, with control over immigration, under the Free Movement Directive . Yet this is what we have now. But I think this rational kind of approach ignores the suicidal impulses that sometimes affect people. We have been betrayed, so let's jump off the cliff, and maybe we can even go back to the 30s!
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    'We want our country back!' Back from what? The 21st century?
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited April 26
    Eirenist wrote: »
    'We want our country back!' Back from what? The 21st century?

    No, people who say that want Britain to be 'rescued' from the nightmare view of reality portrayed by the tabloids and loudmouth Brexit leaders.
  • Well, the version I like of "We want our country back" is the Oysterband's My Country Too, which was written in response to Brexit.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    sionisais wrote: »
    ... "no deal" will fuck up medical supplies and they know it.
    Quite so, but didn’t one of those votes back in March rule out the possibility of "no deal"?
    Hugal wrote: »
    What😮 that is ridiculous. Which magic money tree is that coming from?
    That'll be the same one where the fabled £350 million a week for the NHS grew. :grimace:
  • Piglet wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    ... "no deal" will fuck up medical supplies and they know it.
    Quite so, but didn’t one of those votes back in March rule out the possibility of "no deal"?

    No. They can vote against no deal all they want, but in the absence of an alternate arrangement that remains the default, and there's no sanction on the government should the country be facing no deal.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yes they voted to take no deal off the table. That is not the same as no deal existing. We still could go out with no deal but Parliament has said we should do our best not to.
  • There is a poll (by Opinium), showing 55% of people accepting that the referendum was a bad idea. Yet the Brexiters will continue to view it as a sacred deposit of faith. Remember, you are not allowed to change your mind, that would be undemocratic. Laugh or cry? I say both.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Yes they voted to take no deal off the table. That is not the same as no deal existing. We still could go out with no deal but Parliament has said we should do our best not to.

    Parliament said that the government should do its best not to - how that's interpreted is down to the government of the day.
  • Yes, the government could say "we negotiated a deal with the EU, and did our best to sell it to Parliament" and get off the hook of doing anything else to avoid a no-deal Brexit. A case could be made that the government did it's best, even though the implication that government is incompetent would probably need to be accepted.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And now there's a story that a senior Tory backbencher is insisting that the Irish backstop be removed! Can MPs not understand that the deal was an agreement between the EU and the UK, and it's not simply a matter for the UK to say that there are going to be these changes? In the meantime the clock's ticking along, longer to the next midnight than it was at the start of April, but the silliness continues
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Thanks for the no-deal explanations, folks - I didn't quite understand how it worked.
  • Well.
    Not happy with this.

    Hmmmm.

    As always, it's the hope that kills you.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    And now there's a story that a senior Tory backbencher is insisting that the Irish backstop be removed! Can MPs not understand that the deal was an agreement between the EU and the UK, and it's not simply a matter for the UK to say that there are going to be these changes?

    Apparently not. That's the whole conceit of Brexit in a nutshell, isn't it? That the UK could demand a situation where it maintained all (or at least most) of the advantages of EU membership and discard all (or most) of the disadvantages.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The Labour party leadership have said they are behind a referendum under certain circumstances. The general party is not happy with this. They want the executive to stand behind a referendum. And do the Brexit wagon trundles on.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Labour party leadership have said they are behind a referendum under certain circumstances. The general party is not happy with this. They want the executive to stand behind a referendum. And do the Brexit wagon trundles on.

    Yep. Deciding whether to resign my membership or stay in and continue pushing for a change in Brexit policy.

    Disgruntled.

    AFZ
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 1
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Labour party leadership have said they are behind a referendum under certain circumstances. The general party is not happy with this. They want the executive to stand behind a referendum. And do the Brexit wagon trundles on.

    Yep. Deciding whether to resign my membership or stay in and continue pushing for a change in Brexit policy.

    Disgruntled.

    The Labour policy was essentially to confirm the policy that had already been agreed at their conference - that a second referendum is still on the platform, the priority is a GE. So yes, if you are a PV proponent you aren't happy -- but its not like there are new reasons to be unhappy.

    As the indicative voting showed there is no parliamentary majority for a PV (which got within 12 votes in part because PV proponents promised the EFTA proponents that they'd reciprocate and then reneged) short of a fairly significant Tory rebellion or the government whipping for the same.

    I think Remain campaigners would have done a little better to have worked on issues like this -- and floating what might go on a possible PV ballot (they won't because they are held together by a different set of messy compromises).
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Labour party leadership have said they are behind a referendum under certain circumstances. The general party is not happy with this. They want the executive to stand behind a referendum. And do the Brexit wagon trundles on.

    Yep. Deciding whether to resign my membership or stay in and continue pushing for a change in Brexit policy.

    Disgruntled.

    The Labour policy was essentially to confirm the policy that had already been agreed at their conference - that a second referendum is still on the platform, the priority is a GE. So yes, if you are a PV proponent you aren't happy -- but its not like there are new reasons to be unhappy.

    As the indicative voting showed there is no parliamentary majority for a PV (which got within 12 votes in part because PV proponents promised the EFTA proponents that they'd reciprocate and then reneged) short of a fairly significant Tory rebellion or the government whipping for the same.

    I think Remain campaigners would have done a little better to have worked on issues like this -- and floating what might go on a possible PV ballot (they won't because they are held together by a different set of messy compromises).

    It's a good point. The issue is that with the European elections looming, now was a moment. A missed moment, in my view.

    I am seriously torn by the fact that we desperately need most of what is in the Labour manifesto. We desperately need an end to Brexit.

    On Social Media there are a lot of very angry Remainers but the truth is this; Labour is probably the only route to stopping Brexit. I do think that a GE manifesto is a very different thing to the EP one....

    However, I really don't know how I will vote....

    AFZ
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 1
    It's a good point. The issue is that with the European elections looming, now was a moment. A missed moment, in my view.

    A missed moment for what exactly?
    However, I really don't know how I will vote....

    The problem is that there is a conflict between the various goals of; maximising the votes for 'Remain' parties, maximising the numbers of remain MEPs and (to a lesser extent) minimizing the vote for Farage.

    To do the latter will involve voting Labour in most regions, to maximize the numbers of remain MEPs depends on the lists of the various parties in your area (and to be fair with the exception of Brexit/UKIP and a small number of Tory MEPs - most MEPs tend to be fairly pro-EU). Voting for 'Remain' parties to maximise their votes can have strange effects depending on the region - D'Hondt starts to operate like FPTP where a region is small and the gap between the leading and minor parties is large.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    And now there's a story that a senior Tory backbencher is insisting that the Irish backstop be removed! Can MPs not understand that the deal was an agreement between the EU and the UK, and it's not simply a matter for the UK to say that there are going to be these changes?

    Apparently not. That's the whole conceit of Brexit in a nutshell, isn't it? That the UK could demand a situation where it maintained all (or at least most) of the advantages of EU membership and discard all (or most) of the disadvantages.

    It also illustrates the level of understanding your typical UK politician has of Ireland.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Meanwhile continuity Remain have decided to go for a 'heighten the contradictions' approach to the EU elections.
  • Lots of discussion this morning that the local election results, which are voting against both Labour and Conservatives are linked to Brexit. The results won't all be in until later today, but there were a lot of reports that candidates were faced with a lot of protest about Parliament not getting on with Brexit on the doorstep.
  • Which is, IMO, another symptom of the brokenness of British politics. These were local elections, which should focus on local issues - which are the things most people are interested in, the everyday things that impact their lives: bin collections, the state of the roads, the bus services, schools, care services, planning issues, housing etc. Local government is also small enough that it's possible to get involved and be politically active feeling that your efforts have an effect, if (for example) there's a plan to build a new housing estate and you have concerns about how much green space it will remove, that the balance of affordable housing is inadequate, that there's insufficient capacity in the local schools and GPs surgery for the extra people etc then you can actually get to planning meetings and have your issues raised and have people respond to you. Good luck at having that level of political engagement if, say, you have issues with renewing the Trident WMDs.

    But, instead of local elections being the most important point of political engagement we get pitiful voter turnout, and far too often the local campaign is swept away by non-local issues. Even when they're held just before another election where those issues would be better aired - in this case, we have European Parliament elections in a few weeks, Brexit would be fair game n those campaigns; in 2017 there was a general election, yet the national issues overshadowed the local election campaigns.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 3
    Looking at the results, huge gains for the LibDems and Greens (and independents), woeful losses for the Tories and Labour, and it's being spun as Get On with Brexit on the BBC Today programme. Lots of Twitter comment that there is something that links the LibDems and Greens and it's not support of Brexit.

    To be honest, I know most of my local councillors and did vote on local issues and the record of those people
  • Wet KipperWet Kipper Shipmate
    edited May 3
    Alan it was the same problem with the Local Elections in Scotland last time. All the info we had from the Conservative people talked about "no more Second indy referendum" - as if who is on the local council could have an effect on that - with very little about the local issues we were experiencing.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Looking at the results, huge gains for the LibDems and Greens (and independents), woeful losses for the Tories and Labour, and it's being spun as Get On with Brexit on the BBC Today programme. Lots of Twitter comment that there is something that links the LibDems and Greens and it's not support of Brexit.

    The issue with that argument is that if you look at the LDs gains they are largely in areas they were historically strong (i.e the South West) but which also delivered a fairly large vote for Leave. So more likely to be a reversion to mean, with a percentage of Tory voters simply staying at home.
  • That's what some of the commentaries are saying. Certainly in my local Leave voting area, the Lib Dems all polled highest. They only offered two candidates for 6 seats and displaced sitting councillors. Both Labour candidates polled lowest, and the far right guy polled low too. Local so I know many of the candidates, so was pleased to see which local Tory lost their seat. The local District Council has been majority Tory for ever and a day.

    In addition, the county council, again Leave voting, has changed to Lib Dem control which is back to pre-1999 voting patterns. So I don't think that washes either.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    woeful losses for the Tories and Labour,
    While fair. Labour's losses weren't huge, it's more that they had losses at all.

    One comment I saw was a fence-sitting result for a fence-sitting policy. Which sounds about right (I'm not sure what the outcomes of alternatives would be, I suspect it would be complex).
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 4
    Looking at the results, huge gains for the LibDems and Greens (and independents), woeful losses for the Tories and Labour, and it's being spun as Get On with Brexit on the BBC Today programme.

    I think the concept of Get On With Brexit is itself subject to spin - I suspect for many people it means 'stop dithering and kicking the can', whereas the ERG will obviously spin it as 'just leave even if it has to be without a deal'.

    My guess, unsupported by evidence or analysis, is that most people are far less invested in any specific Brexit outcome than the posters on a Brexit thread, but they are capable of recognising that politicians are making a right mess of it, for many values of 'it'.
  • And the collapse of the UKIP vote adds to that picture how?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited May 4
    It really depends whether “others” is leave/alt right in disguise or not.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    And the collapse of the UKIP vote adds to that picture how?

    Prima facie it would tend to confirm that 'just get on with it' =/= 'leave at any cost', which is what I was saying. But I think it mostly reflects the fact that UKIP have decided to occupy the territory vacated by the BNP, and the BNP was never that popular.
  • Here the only other was far right, and he polled just more than Labour, but less than anyone else.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    It really depends whether “others” is leave/alt right in disguise or not.

    According to the BBC, it is Residents' Association +49, Independent Community and Health Concern +6, Liberal +1, and Independent +606. Which suggests an anti-politician vote to me ...
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    In addition, the county council, again Leave voting, has changed to Lib Dem control which is back to pre-1999 voting patterns. So I don't think that washes either.

    Why wouldn't it wash? Even the most Leave voting areas had a number of folk for whom Brexit wasn't a primary issue and small pockets of urban professionals who run social services, schools, health service etc who represented the 25-45% of people who voted Remain in Leave areas.

    On a low turnout a combination of; Tory voters staying at home, a small percentage of Remainers voting on Brexit, and a larger proportion of people voting on the 'kick the bums out' principle leads to the kind of results we've seen. The LDs have history as a national party, and have a large number of activists in proportion to the number of sitting MPs they have.

    Had UKIP run under Farage I suspect we'd have seen different results in the North especially, but that reflects the extent to which they were a vehicle for a single person.
  • Even if all of those 600 Independents were on a "get on with Brexit" ticket (which I very much doubt) that doesn't change the figures that the pro-Brexit parties (even if we include Labour) lost 1562 seats (if I've added the numbers up right) and the pro-EU parties gained 887. If those 600 were also pro-Brexit that's still almost 1000 pro-Brexit seats lost with a shift to pro-EU.

    Rather than a vote to "get on with it", that looks very much more like a vote to "take a breather and check this is really what we want".

    Assuming, of course, that Brexit was a substantial driver behind the votes on Thursday. And, with the obvious proviso that it wasn't a national vote with large numbers of people not going to the polls (including Boris Johnson, resident of London, even if he did tweet that he'd voted). 23rd November will be a much more telling result, as we all get to vote and Brexit will be the pivotal issue.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Rather than a vote to "get on with it", that looks very much more like a vote to "take a breather and check this is really what we want".

    I don't think the two are mutually incompatible - if politicians agreed on a PV, they would at least be coalescing around a possible course of action, instead of just faffing, reiterating the same old arguments, and voting no to things.

    Again, I think it is ERG spin to say 'get on with it' means 'leave without a deal' rather than 'make your sodding minds up'.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Based on a sample of 1 (me), if Labour have done badly so far, they ain't seen nothing yet. I couldn't possibly vote Labour for the European elections, because they don't have any desire to retain the seat I would be giving them. So my choice is made
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited May 4
    It would be helpful if you could avoid letting in the Brexit party under Farage - because this isn't single issue, the parties pushing it hardest tend to be also pushing an authoritarian anti-women anti-lgbt agenda. What the politicians think the EU elections show them will affect what they subsequently do nationally.

    Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is how the US got Trump - voitng green not democrat was deeply unwise.

    Labour is trying to compromise because the country is split and parliamentary numbers for any solution are cack. They can do nothing effective about austerity in opposition, they can't force a GE if the tory rebels don't vote with them, and they can't force a referendum without them either (and they have tabled it twice already and its failed).
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 4
    I'm a stuck record, but I feel the need to point out once again: the European Parliament has no power to call a People's Vote. Voting for MEPs in the Euro-elections based on whether or not they want one is as pointless as voting in the local elections for the same reason.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    But surely Brussels dictates what happens in the UK?
  • Where has anyone said that the European Parliament has the power to make the UK hold a People's Vote?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    But surely Brussels dictates what happens in the UK?
    I know it was said in jest, but that's the sort of lie that got us into this mess in the first place.
  • Where has anyone said that the European Parliament has the power to make the UK hold a People's Vote?
    No one has. What's been said is that a vote for parties supporting a PV (or, revoking A50 entirely) will be read by the UK political system as support for that position, which will then be reflected in how our MPs act (knowing that whenever the next election comes around the security of their seat will, in part, depend on what they do now over Brexit). Given that there's no majority in the Commons for any position, and it's expected that the process of Parliament tabling and debating indicative motions will continue, probably upto the summer recess and then start up again after Parliament s back, and those will have a PV included votes at the end of May for parties in favour of a PV will give a boost to that position in those debates and votes. As of the last round of that process, it's practically certain that any Brexit option (most likely the deal already negotiated) will pass if it's coupled to a proper referendum to get the confirmation of the support of the people with the 'no' option being to maintain the status quo of full EU membership.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    MPs can already gauge the level of support for a PV. It's what opinion polls are for.

    Now, granted, you could say those opinion polls are unclear. But analysed as an opinion poll, the European elections would be even less clear. There would be no way of saying whether, for example, a Green vote indicated support for a second referendum or support for Greta Thunberg.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Based on a sample of 1 (me), if Labour have done badly so far, they ain't seen nothing yet. I couldn't possibly vote Labour for the European elections, because they don't have any desire to retain the seat I would be giving them. So my choice is made

    Which is absolutely fine. Though see my post above and work out who is on your local lists - this equally applies to anyone who is shifting allegiance from a major to minor party.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    But surely Brussels dictates what happens in the UK?
    I know it was said in jest, but that's the sort of lie that got us into this mess in the first place.

    I'd say that what got you into this mess in the first place was the decision in 1973 to join, followed by the vote a couple of years later to remain. That's not being clever, but de Gaulle was right when he said "Non" way back in 1963. The UK was not then ready to join Europe and it was not in 1973 either. Almost all the real Europeans were in the Liberal camp then, precious few outside. The others who voted so strongly in favour in 1975 thought that all they were supporting was a larger, more powerful, version of EFTA.

    That's not to say that the UK should now be leaving. Having joined,it should adapt and stay. It has become far too enmeshed with the rest of Europe to consider that leaving is realistic.
  • @Gee D response to above post is in Hell.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    So much confusion for Labour voters. I hear those such as Tony Robinson, who has resigned over the non-action over the 2nd referendum, then those who say that Labour is sticking to conference policy, then those who say Corbyn is desperate to to get Brexit through. I doubt if a Tory/Labour deal is about to happen. Ah well, in the Euro elections, I will vote Labour, certainly not Tigger, who basically want to stop a Labour government.
This discussion has been closed.