Brexit.

Started by T Fearon, November 01, 2015, 06:04:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

weareros

Quote from: Franko on January 17, 2019, 02:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2019, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 02:14:34 PM
Ross I have no idea, Corbyn the tw.t won't even meet with the May to sort it out. It really is a farce and English people are disgusted with how their politicians are behaving.
Corbyn will meet May if she drops no deal and she refuses to do so

Why the need for a precondition?  It's only a meeting.  Corbyn has lost it.

Also, if one was a Brit (and thank the Lord I'm not), why would you want Theresa May to show her hand to the EU on a no-deal in what after all is a giant game of Chicken (chlorininated or not).

RedHand88

Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2019, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 02:14:34 PM
Ross I have no idea, Corbyn the tw.t won't even meet with the May to sort it out. It really is a farce and English people are disgusted with how their politicians are behaving.
Corbyn will meet May if she drops no deal and she refuses to do so

Impossible to know what next week will bring, never mind after Brexit. Don't know how he expects this of her. Hard for him to complain about a lack of cross party work on this when she's inviting him to a meeting and he won't show!

north_antrim_hound

Quote from: weareros on January 17, 2019, 02:33:48 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 17, 2019, 02:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2019, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 02:14:34 PM
Ross I have no idea, Corbyn the tw.t won't even meet with the May to sort it out. It really is a farce and English people are disgusted with how their politicians are behaving.
Corbyn will meet May if she drops no deal and she refuses to do so

Why the need for a precondition?  It's only a meeting.  Corbyn has lost it.

Also, if one was a Brit (and thank the Lord I'm not), why would you want Theresa May to show her hand to the EU on a no-deal in what after all is a giant game of Chicken (chlorininated or not).

That's a good description, who's gonna blink first like in a primary playground. Meanwhile international investors are going elsewhere and so are some UK based businesses.
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets

haranguerer

Quote from: Rossfan on January 17, 2019, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 12:36:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:27:17 PM
SF swear an oath at Stormont. A British manufactured political assembly that recognises Northern Ireland and partition. What's the difference swearing an oath to this than at Westminster?

It's government on the island of Ireland for the north of Ireland and no allegiance to a foreign sovereign state. I would have thought this much is obvious.

The north is under British rule. It's part of the uk. It's a British political entity. It may have its own assembly like Scotland and Wales, but it's a British state. As hard as that is for some people to admit, that's the reality.
Rhats what all the parties to the GFA signed up to and the Irish people voted for it.
Anyway back to the subject -where does the British Parliament to from here?
Does some Labour MP put down a Motion to not allow a No Deal Exit, will enough Conservatives back that or abstain?
Or is it just continue the farce?

I don't see how you can put down a motion not to allow a no deal exit, as though it in itself was a deal - its not, its the lack of a deal. Seems blindingly obvious, but given how its discussed you'd wonder if this is understood.

How would any motion to say UK can't leave EU without a deal work? It couldn't, unless in the scenario where there was no time limit.

Its also a ludicrous thing to suggest because if it was possible, then you are just giving the EU the entire power in the negotiations.

magpie seanie

I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.

sid waddell

Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 02:56:37 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 17, 2019, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 12:36:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:27:17 PM
SF swear an oath at Stormont. A British manufactured political assembly that recognises Northern Ireland and partition. What's the difference swearing an oath to this than at Westminster?

It's government on the island of Ireland for the north of Ireland and no allegiance to a foreign sovereign state. I would have thought this much is obvious.

The north is under British rule. It's part of the uk. It's a British political entity. It may have its own assembly like Scotland and Wales, but it's a British state. As hard as that is for some people to admit, that's the reality.
Rhats what all the parties to the GFA signed up to and the Irish people voted for it.
Anyway back to the subject -where does the British Parliament to from here?
Does some Labour MP put down a Motion to not allow a No Deal Exit, will enough Conservatives back that or abstain?
Or is it just continue the farce?

I don't see how you can put down a motion not to allow a no deal exit, as though it in itself was a deal - its not, its the lack of a deal. Seems blindingly obvious, but given how its discussed you'd wonder if this is understood.

How would any motion to say UK can't leave EU without a deal work? It couldn't, unless in the scenario where there was no time limit.

Its also a ludicrous thing to suggest because if it was possible, then you are just giving the EU the entire power in the negotiations.
Why not have a motion that if no Brexit deal can be agreed on in parliament, Article 50 must be unilaterally withdrawn?

The deal has already been negotiated and during all that time, the threat of no deal was there. There is no other deal.

The problem with Brexit is Brexit.

johnnycool

Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 02:56:37 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 17, 2019, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 17, 2019, 12:36:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 17, 2019, 12:27:17 PM
SF swear an oath at Stormont. A British manufactured political assembly that recognises Northern Ireland and partition. What's the difference swearing an oath to this than at Westminster?

It's government on the island of Ireland for the north of Ireland and no allegiance to a foreign sovereign state. I would have thought this much is obvious.

The north is under British rule. It's part of the uk. It's a British political entity. It may have its own assembly like Scotland and Wales, but it's a British state. As hard as that is for some people to admit, that's the reality.
Rhats what all the parties to the GFA signed up to and the Irish people voted for it.
Anyway back to the subject -where does the British Parliament to from here?
Does some Labour MP put down a Motion to not allow a No Deal Exit, will enough Conservatives back that or abstain?
Or is it just continue the farce?

I don't see how you can put down a motion not to allow a no deal exit, as though it in itself was a deal - its not, its the lack of a deal. Seems blindingly obvious, but given how its discussed you'd wonder if this is understood.

How would any motion to say UK can't leave EU without a deal work? It couldn't, unless in the scenario where there was no time limit.

Its also a ludicrous thing to suggest because if it was possible, then you are just giving the EU the entire power in the negotiations.

It may be a ham fisted attempt by Corbyn to finally put to bed the aspirations of a crashout/no deal Brexit that not so secretly Rees Mogg and the ERG are hankering for and hope to get via time running out.

I suspect Corbyn thinks May's across the barricades approach at the 11th hour when she's 2 years to do so is a cynical attempt to spread the blame on this fiasco but in doing so he's now put himself in the limelight for the wrong reasons and may impact on his attempt at a General Election.

Two intransigent bolloxes IMO.

haranguerer

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 17, 2019, 03:03:24 PM
I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.

Of course everyone wants a deal. But if that is guaranteed on one side, the other can just sit back and wait until its terms are granted, or until, as Sid suggests, Article 50 is withdrawn. Its ludicrous.

The biggest issue has been giving parliament a vote on the deal - there are so many different factions that was always going to result in stalemate.

The only way I can see out of it is through a general election. Perhaps at that point labour will run on second referendum ticket. That isn't the golden bullet people seem to think it will be either however.

omaghjoe

May has to cover herself also. I mean what if she rules out a hard brexit and extends article 50. She will lose the support of the erg and Corbyn will be able to dangle another confidence vote over her head which she would have difficulty winning without erg support.

sid waddell

#6039
Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on January 17, 2019, 03:03:24 PM
I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.

Of course everyone wants a deal. But if that is guaranteed on one side, the other can just sit back and wait until its terms are granted, or until, as Sid suggests, Article 50 is withdrawn. Its ludicrous.

The biggest issue has been giving parliament a vote on the deal - there are so many different factions that was always going to result in stalemate.

The only way I can see out of it is through a general election. Perhaps at that point labour will run on second referendum ticket. That isn't the golden bullet people seem to think it will be either however.

The problem in the first place was having the referendum.

The UK does not have a written constitution and has always operated on a system of parliamentary sovereignty, ie. that parliament decides.

The UK's first referendum was 1975, and 2016 was only the third ever.

In 1975, Margaret Thatcher was in fact one of the few people to warn of the dangers that introducing the concept of a referendum posed to British politics - that it introduced a hostile, rival system of lawmaking to the existing parliamentary system.

The constitutional difference between Ireland and the UK as regards referendums is as follows: Ireland has a written constitution - we have had many referendums, but they are always constitutional ones, and the options are always defined. We NEVER hold non-constitutional referendums. The UK held an advisory referendum with no status in law where one option was completely undefined.

My take on what people voted for when they voted for Brexit, is that they were voting to retain all the benefits of European Union membership, and none of the responsibilities.

They voted to stop immigration, yet have full free movement rights themselves.
They voted for the ability to make their own trade deals, yet have full access to the single market, and no budget obligations.

They voted to have full membership of the golf club, with full playing rights on the course, use of the gym, swimming pool and bar etc. for free.

Voting for Brexit was like voting for all taxes to be abolished yet public spending to simultaneously be quadrupled.

The EU says: "We can't offer you that - it is fundamentally undeliverable."

But the Brits say: "But that's what we voted for! Get on with it and give us what we want!"

The EU respond: "We can't. You are living in a la la land."

Brexit was fundamentally undeliverable because it was a fantasy idea based on deep seated ideas of Britain's "glorious" past. It was an attempt to magically transplant the past into the future. The Tory party gave in to these delusions. David Cameron, more than any one person, is responsible for this mess because he agreed to opening the door to it.

There's no silver bullet that will get Britain out of the mess it created for itself, only least worst options.

Vote for the deal that most people hate and which even pro-Brexiteers say is worse than EU membership, and nobody will be happy, and it would be hugely divisive.

Stumble into no deal, and it would be a disaster. Britain would be ripe for destruction by anarcho-capitalists.

A second referendum could still leave open the possibility of no deal and would be again incredibly divisive, with far right rhetoric poisoning public discourse.

Withdrawing Article 50 unilaterally would be incredibly divisive. It could easily lead to a rise of the far right. But so could all the other options, with no deal likely being the worst case in this regard.

So all options, are, frankly, shit.

But withdrawing Article 50 now looks like the least worst option, and it's an option that has become more likely.

The flipside is; no deal has also become more likely.






haranguerer

Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.

sid waddell

#6041
Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 04:09:07 PM
Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.
It can absolutely happen and it would be a far better option than no deal.

You have to separate Brexit the abstract idea from Brexit the reality.

Half of Britain likes the abstract idea of Brexit. An abstract idea is fantasy.

In reality, Brexit has proven to be undeliverable - every single practical idea of what Brexit could be is deeply unpopular.

May's deal is deeply unpopular, no deal is deeply unpopular, Liechtenstein is deeply unpopular.

If somebody is on the edge of a multi-storey car park for six hours shouting loudly that they're going to throw themselves off but is secretly having second thoughts, relenting and retreating is a far better option than throwing themselves off for fear of losing face.

Far better to lose face and survive than not lose face and self-destruct.




mouview

Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2019, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on January 17, 2019, 03:03:24 PM
I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.


Vote for the deal that most people hate and which even pro-Brexiteers say is worse than EU membership, and nobody will be happy, and it would be hugely divisive.

Stumble into no deal, and it would be a disaster. Britain would be ripe for destruction by anarcho-capitalists.

A second referendum could still leave open the possibility of no deal and would be again incredibly divisive, with far right rhetoric poisoning public discourse.

Withdrawing Article 50 unilaterally would be incredibly divisive. It could easily lead to a rise of the far right. But so could all the other options, with no deal likely being the worst case in this regard.

So all options, are, frankly, shit.

But withdrawing Article 50 now looks like the least worst option, and it's an option that has become more likely.

The flipside is; no deal has also become more likely.

How can a second referendum / anything else be any more divisive than what exists already?  Never in the modern era has British society or the body politic been more polarised over one issue than Brexit.

Anyone think May rather cleverly bounced Corbyn into a No Confidence motion in the immediate wake of the Withdrawal defeat Tuesday night? If he was a skilled '25' player he might have let her stew for another few days, until she presents Plan B Monday, and then start gathering (more) support for it.

haranguerer

Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2019, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 04:09:07 PM
Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.
It can absolutely happen and it would be a far better option than no deal.

You have to separate Brexit the abstract idea from Brexit the reality.

Half of Britain likes the abstract idea of Brexit. An abstract idea is fantasy.

In reality, Brexit has proven to be undeliverable - every single practical idea of what Brexit could be is deeply unpopular.

May's deal is deeply unpopular, no deal is deeply unpopular, Liechtenstein is deeply unpopular.

If somebody is on the edge of a multi-storey car park for six hours shouting loudly that they're going to throw themselves off but is secretly having second thoughts, relenting and retreating is a far better option than throwing themselves off for fear of losing face.

Far better to lose face and survive than not lose face and self-destruct.

Were the 'will of the people' denied, Britain would have much bigger problems going forward than Brexit. The entire democratic system would be shaken to the core, and the rise of the far right would be the least of the problems.

There are much safer ways to withdraw from Brexit, most of which are routes to a second referendum.

sid waddell

#6044
Quote from: mouview on January 17, 2019, 04:22:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2019, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on January 17, 2019, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on January 17, 2019, 03:03:24 PM
I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.


Vote for the deal that most people hate and which even pro-Brexiteers say is worse than EU membership, and nobody will be happy, and it would be hugely divisive.

Stumble into no deal, and it would be a disaster. Britain would be ripe for destruction by anarcho-capitalists.

A second referendum could still leave open the possibility of no deal and would be again incredibly divisive, with far right rhetoric poisoning public discourse.

Withdrawing Article 50 unilaterally would be incredibly divisive. It could easily lead to a rise of the far right. But so could all the other options, with no deal likely being the worst case in this regard.

So all options, are, frankly, shit.

But withdrawing Article 50 now looks like the least worst option, and it's an option that has become more likely.

The flipside is; no deal has also become more likely.

How can a second referendum / anything else be any more divisive than what exists already? Never in the modern era has British society or the body politic been more polarised over one issue than Brexit.

Anyone think May rather cleverly bounced Corbyn into a No Confidence motion in the immediate wake of the Withdrawal defeat Tuesday night? If he was a skilled '25' player he might have let her stew for another few days, until she presents Plan B Monday, and then start gathering (more) support for it.


Amplification. The current divisions exist within a sort of framework where most people on one side are still sort of reassured that they have "won", while most people on the other side are sort of accepting that they have lost. A lot of people have simply zoned out of what's going on - there's a feeling among a lot of the public that it's the politicians business now and let them "get on with it" - it's been amazing to hear that line being said so much in vox pops and the like in the last year.

A second referendum would most certainly re-open and amplify that division within the public at large, because the responsibility would once again lie with the public to make the decision. Divisive political campaigns always amplify tensions and division.

Nevertheless, it's a process Britain may have to go through.

The amount of energy and resources in British politics that have been wasted on this ridiculous right wing identity politics issue over the last three or four years, to the detriment of the real issues that affect people, has been an utter disgrace, and David Cameron enabled it.