Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Parklaner81]

I don't disagree. But I also don't think it's a good idea to pass the agreement through without any guarantees of what the future relationship is going to look like, or whether Parliament will have a strong hand in shaping that future. For remain/the left, that's the issue imo (Labour MPs like Lisa Nandy have said as much). No good voting for the WA and then we end up with PM Mogg negotiating the future relationship once they sling May out at the first opportunity.

I guess in that case, at this stage of the game, those MP's face a similar type of decision in principle to those on the leave side who have yet to back the deal - they'll need to weight this concern against any commitment they feel to honouring the referendum result, recognising that a failure to get May's deal through likely equates to a reduced likelihood of that outcome. It's impossible to know of course, but I'd be interested in how many MP's (and they'll almost exclusively be Labour MP's, as the Lib Dems/SNP are unlikely to back the deal under any circumstances) genuinely face this dilemma, as opposed to being primarily motivated by frustrating May and/or Brexit. My instinct tells me it would be a fairly low number, but likely still enough to make the difference.

 

[the dza]

I guess in that case, at this stage of the game, those MP's face a similar type of decision in principle to those on the leave side who have yet to back the deal - they'll need to weight this concern against any commitment they feel to honouring the referendum result, recognising that a failure to get May's deal through likely equates to a reduced likelihood of that outcome. It's impossible to know of course, but I'd be interested in how many MP's (and they'll almost exclusively be Labour MP's, as the Lib Dems/SNP are unlikely to back the deal under any circumstances) genuinely face this dilemma, as opposed to being primarily motivated by frustrating May and/or Brexit. My instinct tells me it would be a fairly low number, but likely still enough to make the difference.

Agree. And most of them would probably (imo) rather go for a soft-brexit than a "blind" brexit (a term that has been used to describe May's deal from those Labour MPs seeking assurances on the future). And I think they will calculate that the direction of travel is soft-brexit, in the event of May's deal being defeated again and an extension to Article 50 being granted. That's my best guess anyway.

So imo, May's deal will only get through if her own party + DUP fall in line.

 

[Parklaner81]

Agree. And most of them would probably (imo) rather go for a soft-brexit than a "blind" brexit (a term that has been used to describe May's deal from those Labour MPs seeking assurances on the future). And I think they will calculate that the direction of travel is soft-brexit, in the event of May's deal being defeated again and an extension to Article 50 being granted. That's my best guess anyway.

So imo, May's deal will only get through if her own party + DUP fall in line.

Agreed, but I don't see her getting 100% of her own party in line so the Labour brexiteer cohort and rebels could still be where it all turns.

 

[Baleforce]

Less than 100 people on farages Brexit march, which is being #'d on twitter as gammonball run.

 

[the dza]

Less than 100 people on farages Brexit march, which is being #'d on twitter as gammonball run.

That's a pretty funny name to give it

 

[P.D.]

Agree. And most of them would probably (imo) rather go for a soft-brexit than a "blind" brexit (a term that has been used to describe May's deal from those Labour MPs seeking assurances on the future). And I think they will calculate that the direction of travel is soft-brexit, in the event of May's deal being defeated again and an extension to Article 50 being granted. That's my best guess anyway.

So imo, May's deal will only get through if her own party + DUP fall in line.

Also if they don't back it then Brexit could be extended for 18 months, if they're in a leave voting constituency with voters hammering them about leaving all the time then it would be very harsh on their voters to not back it.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I don't understand why asking the people about the EU-exit is scorned. Why is that?

Is it because those who want leave are afraid that the people will change their mind? Or politicians fear we might vote for a hard exit? Another thing I've heard is it would create divisions in the country. But this ongoing gonads without solution is creating far more harm.

Why are we shying away from democracy? The in-out vote had no detail. Now we have it, give the people another vote.

----

@ricky2tricky4city what are the benifits of May's deal that the common man should know? If you can't articulate it (as you clearly understand it) then how can others? I do agree with you. Much of what May has put on the table is seemingly what the nation voted for. We don't know for sure as it wasn't on the ballet. But we're told controlling immigration and laws were big pieces, and May's deal may address them (at least EU immigration); but its all to be confirmed over 3 years of negotiation with the EU. May's deal doesn't confirm what Brexit would look like, its just a start.

I am amazed that you and others still can't see that Brexit really delivers f all. Not to put too fine a point on it! I mean what do we get for it? Control of laws we don't care about. No one can name an EU law that affects them negatively, something that they really dislike, bar Scara who doens't like the minium wage. Most of our immigration is from ourside the EU and we control that now.

Then we lose a fuk load of good things. From being able to drive into the EU without insurance, paperwork, free phone roaming, free medical cover, stronger pound, biz investment into the UK as a gateway into Europe, new Saterlite system, controlling global forces like pollution, medical standards etc. having free access to the worlds largest free trade area, 70 other free trade agreements with 3rd countries, less pollution, workers rights, disability rights, all from an organisation using the brightest people from the European continent that is the size of Birgingham council. And Brussels is a 3 hour train ride away from London. We don't need a huge expensive trade department, a regulator for aircraft, medicine etc. or need to spend much on boarder controls. And this all came about out the ashes of the worlds most destructive war, a means to bring togehter a continent and get it trading rather than fighting. It allows our young to exchange and study in other countries, it invests in our deprived areas, and allows us to work with our neighbours.

There are almost no positive to Brexit I can see. If there are, please articulate them.

 

[StephenH]

The biggest problem with Brexit is a huge majority of the population don't fully understand the ramifications of leaving and thus staying.

Education in the UK is dreadful and leaves so many confused and actually frightened. The vast majority I've spoken to who are average Joes are baffled by the general workings parliament let alone, for example, all recent the votes. Brexit gets the reply 'I wish they would just get it done' this nothing to do with leave or remain, they just don't understand any of it and want it over!

 

[the dza]

Interesting change to the thread title.

 

[Parklaner81]

I don't understand why asking the people about the EU-exit is scorned. Why is that?

Is it because those who want leave are afraid that the people will change their mind? Or politicians fear we might vote for a hard exit? Another thing I've heard is it would create divisions in the country. But this ongoing gonad*s without solution is creating far more harm.

Why are we shying away from democracy? The in-out vote had no detail. Now we have it, give the people another vote.

I think the honest answer to this is that for many people, myself included, a second referendum containing the option to remain does not represent the evolution of understanding on the situation that many people are now trying to promote it as, but rather would actually be the culmination of a concerted campaign that began literally on the day of the original result, to overturn it. There were calls for a second referendum immediately as I recall it, from people who simply refused to accept the result. Had nobody mentioned a second referendum until this year for example, it would at least have air of legitimacy about it in terms of being purely about the development of understanding, but that is not the case.

A fresh referendum asking May's deal vs. no deal would be an entirely different matter, but interestingly no one seems too interested in promoting that idea.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think the honest answer to this is that for many people, myself included, a second referendum containing the option to remain does not represent the evolution of understanding on the situation that many people are now trying to promote it as, but rather would actually be the culmination of a concerted campaign that began literally on the day of the original result, to overturn it. There were calls for a second referendum immediately as I recall it, from people who simply refused to accept the result. Had nobody mentioned a second referendum until this year for example, it would at least have air of legitimacy about it in terms of being purely about the development of understanding, but that is not the case.

A fresh referendum asking May's deal vs. no deal would be an entirely different matter, but interestingly no one seems too interested in promoting that idea.

Appreciate your honesty. An "evolution of understanding" presumes there was understanding in the first palce. We were told the vote was about immigration and sovrignity (and that is what some rich people succeeded in making the vote about). The Brexit reality is more about trade and the UK economy, so there is a lack of understanding still. If 99% of the intellectuals and politicians didn't understand that Brexit threatens the UK Union and Irish peace - now the major thorn in the process - how can anyone claim there was understanding at the time of the vote? That there were posters of Turks and Syrians queueing up, a £300m rebate for the NHS (both accepted as false advertising) probably paid for by Russian money, doesn't bother you because you have one agenda. And I respect that. I really do.

However, I would happily hold my hands up and say I called it wrong if Brexit allowed the UK to be agile in trade, became more prosperous, we kept up with pollution targets, and worked closely with our neighbours though some other means. But would Brexiteers do the reverse? Be able to weigh it all up and if its not in the UKs interests, say so? To me it seems to have gone beyond the rational and become a symbol of (for want of a better word) popularism. A way to say listen to us, and fuk you, you didn't look out for us. Now I like sentiments of Anarchism. I like people telling the establishment to do one. But don't let that cloud rational thinking and follow something in blind faith. This is not football, but peoples lives, and the UKs prosperty at stake.

If no one can outline what the positives of Brexit are, doesn't that raise alarm bells!? Doesn't it bother you that there is no manifesto? That the 'promises' that May is trying to deliver don't really exist? (EU immigration controls won't effect the 250,000 non-EU migrants, and to get a good trade deal we'll end up following the EU court). As a nation we will pay economically with less funding for NHS and schools, and with our own uk political disunity - losing Scotland probably and reignighting trouble in Ireland? It doesn't bother you? I'm all for revolution, but Brexit aint it. It is a backward regressive step, that impairs cooperation and trade.

Somehow, a clever politician needs to take the themes and desire behind Brexit, and create a genuine revolution in the UK, that can deliver to people, because Brexit sure as hell can not - becaue there is no substance behind it.

 

[P.D.]

The problem is that people don't think rationally and calmly like you have posted, they were sent a letter in the post saying the decision would be final, cast their votes in good faith and now a load of people in fancy suits are telling them that it doesn't make sense to leave and we should double check. Those same people to most leave voters are also the ones that were told we'd be in recession instantly, would need an emergency budget etc but none of this has happened so again why would they trust those people.

People are always complaining that not enough people are interested in politics and need to be come more engaged, going back on the decision and a referendum is going back on it because the people screaming for it are remainers will alientate millions of people who will never bother voting again.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The problem is that people don't think rationally and calmly like you have posted, they were sent a letter in the post saying the decision would be final, cast their votes in good faith and now a load of people in fancy suits are telling them that it doesn't make sense to leave and we should double check. Those same people to most leave voters are also the ones that were told we'd be in recession instantly, would need an emergency budget etc but none of this has happened so again why would they trust those people.

People are always complaining that not enough people are interested in politics and need to be come more engaged, going back on the decision and a referendum is going back on it because the people screaming for it are remainers will alientate millions of people who will never bother voting again.

You are of course right. People are emotional. Just like supporting Spurs is an emotional attachment. Brexit is complex you can find what you need to back up a position - suits, recession etc. I won't bother going into the fact that we'd have finished with Austerity were it not for Brexit, the reduced economic growth and billions this has cost the UK, the increase in prices in the shops, the millions wasted on consultants, lorry park planning and ferry contracts etc in the name of Brexit, or the lost UK jobs, or the role that the Bank of England played post vote pumping in money to keep the economy up; but prefer to simply ask...how do you think?

 

[milo]

 

[P.D.]

You are of course right. People are emotional. Just like supporting Spurs is an emotional attachment. Brexit is complex you can find what you need to back up a position - suits, recession etc. I won't bother going into the fact that we'd have finished with Austerity were it not for Brexit, the reduced economic growth and billions this has cost the UK, the increase in prices in the shops, the millions wasted on consultants, lorry park planning and ferry contracts etc in the name of Brexit, or the lost UK jobs, or the role that the Bank of England played post vote pumping in money to keep the economy up; but prefer to simply ask...how do you think?

But that implies that the EU is an antidote to all the issues you've listed yet look across the EU - Italy and Germany in recession, France with weaker growth than us. Huge youth unemployment in many countries etc.

You are right in that you can make a convincing argument either way but for me a referendum doesn't add up - what if it's 51-49 for remain or 53-47 for remain but with a lower turnout than the last one. What do you do then? What would be on the ballot paper? Labour are going to back an amendment to have a referendum on May's deal but they also state that only a credible leave option should be on the ballot paper yet they vote against it so clearly don't believe it's credible. If people want a referendum then why not have it between May's deal and no deal?

I've stated before that I'd prefer May's deal to pass then her to step aside for a new Tory leader followed by a general election so voters can decide how they prefer the parties negotiating stances. Don't forget in the 2nd stage negotiation you can still pivot towards a softer Brexit with permanent customs union etc and for me the 2nd part is really the key part of the whole thing - this part is for 18 months ish so I really cant understand the level of sensationalism over this.

 

[SpurMeUp]

But that implies that the EU is an antidote to all the issues you've listed yet look across the EU - Italy and Germany in recession, France with weaker growth than us. Huge youth unemployment in many countries etc.

You are right in that you can make a convincing argument either way but for me a referendum doesn't add up - what if it's 51-49 for remain or 53-47 for remain but with a lower turnout than the last one. What do you do then? What would be on the ballot paper? Labour are going to back an amendment to have a referendum on May's deal but they also state that only a credible leave option should be on the ballot paper yet they vote against it so clearly don't believe it's credible. If people want a referendum then why not have it between May's deal and no deal?

I've stated before that I'd prefer May's deal to pass then her to step aside for a new Tory leader followed by a general election so voters can decide how they prefer the parties negotiating stances. Don't forget in the 2nd stage negotiation you can still pivot towards a softer Brexit with permanent customs union etc and for me the 2nd part is really the key part of the whole thing - this part is for 18 months ish so I really cant understand the level of sensationalism over this.

If we discuss this, are you open to weighing up the issues, and you won't be upset or turned off by evidence that may show your postion is not correct? I am more than open for the reverse. I'd love to be convinced that this national movement, one of patriotism and belief in the UK, could deliver real value to me and my country. So by all means outline why I am wrong and why Brexit offers something positive. And I promise I will keep an open mind and try to see it from your perspective. Convince me.

- What has Germany and Italy got to do with the UK? While our growth stalled post vote, Europe was growing faster than we were. We went form one of the fastest growing developed economies to one of the slowest. That's not opinion. That is just simple fact. The only thing that occured was the Brexit vote, so it is 99% certain that it caused the slow down. Hence the statement that we'd be out of austerity if it was not for Brexit.

- A Bank of England economist, call them a suit or whatever, but they are someone who has training and ability, calculated Brexit was costing 800m a week to the UK. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...f-england-jan-vlieghe-economist-a8779171.html Umemployment in France or anywhere in the EU means nothing. It shows that they are a seperate economy to us, a seperate sovereign nation with its own employment laws, own government, and we recognise it as such. Part of what makes "sovereignity" is recognition by others of your nation state - the EU is a recognition of seperate nations with seperate languages, laws, history, culture. So to refer to Italy etc as a way to say Brexit is good, makes little sense.

-Why have a general election every 5 years? It was only 2 or 3 years between the last two wasn't it?

- Democracy should allow people to correct things, should it not? Especially if what was sold was false. And here is the key thing:

- The reason we need another vote is because parliment can not deal with Brexit. They need the people. Here is the second key thing:

- Brexit offers us nothing. Whenever you hear Brexiteers talking about Brexit, its always about how they have been let down, and sneering at people - the EU, May, Labour etc. It dominates. But try and find something postive about oppountity about vision about the UK post Brexit and what it might look like...well I can't find it.

- The reason for this is, Brexit offers us nothing. Immigration was used to sell it to us. The idea that we can't control our own laws was used to sell it to us. Not my words, something openly discussed by one NIgel Farrage. He acknowledges he used immigration (and laws which is less shameful) to "get over the line". But the reality is, the EU does a lot for the UK, and does not get in the way of anything you or I do day to day. In fact the only day to day things where you'd notice it, is generally positive - clean beaches, funding for deprived areas, the fact you don't have to pay through the nose to use your phone in Marbella etc.

So most of all, the reason we have to have a second vote at some stage, is that the EU is a positive, and that what was outlined by some rich public shool toffs in the first vote was not the truth of the matter. The alternatives to staying in the EU are all sub-optimal. Soft Brexit - why bother? Hard Brexit - massive losses to the economy, roundly understood to be economic pain for the UK, with the UK seen from the outside as an insular nation on the edge of Europe. Madness. Why would anyone want either? For what?

 

[P.D.]

If we discuss this, are you open to weighing up the issues, and you won't be upset or turned off by evidence that may show you're postion is not correct? I am more than open for the reverse. I'd love to be convinced that this national movement, one of patriotism and belief in the UK, could deliver real value to me and my country. So by all means outline why I am wrong and why Brexit offers something positive. And I promise I will keep an open mind and try to see it from your perspective. Convince me.

- What has Germany and Italy got to do with the UK? While our growth stalled post vote, Europe was growing faster than we were. We went form one of the fastest growing developed economies to one of the slowest. That's not opinion. That is just simple fact. The only thing that occured was the Brexit vote, so it is 99% certain that it caused the slow down. Hence the statement that we'd be out of austerity if it was not for Brexit.

- A Bank of England economist, call them a suit or whatever, but they are someone who has training and ability, calculated Brexit was costing 800m a week to the UK. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...f-england-jan-vlieghe-economist-a8779171.html Umemployment in France or anywhere in the EU means nothing. It shows that they are a seperate economy to us, a seperate sovereign nation with its own employment laws, own government, and we recognise it as such. Part of what makes "sovereignity" is recognition by others of your nation state - the EU is a recognition of seperate nations with seperate languages, laws, history, culture. So to refer to Italy etc as a way to say Brexit is good, makes little sense.

-Why have a general election every 5 years? It was only 2 or 3 years between the last two wasn't it?

- Democracy should allow people to correct things, should it not? Especially if what was sold was false. And here is the key thing:

- The reason we need another vote is because parliment can not deal with Brexit. They need the people. Here is the second key thing:

- Brexit offers us nothing. Whenever you hear Brexiteers talking about Brexit, its always about how they have been let down, and sneering at people - the EU, May, Labour etc. It dominates. But try and find something postive about oppountity about vision about the UK post Brexit and what it might look like...well I can't find it.

- The reason for this is, Brexit offers us nothing. Immigration was used to sell it to us. The idea that we can't control our own laws was used to sell it to us. Not my words, something openly discussed by one NIgel Farrage. He acknowledges he used immigration (and laws which is less shameful) to "get over the line". But the reality is, the EU does a lot for the UK, and does not get in the way of anything you or I do day to day. In fact the only day to day things where you'd notice it, is generally positive - clean beaches, funding for deprived areas, the fact you don't have to pay through the nose to use your phone in Marbella etc.

So most of all, the reason we have to have a second vote at some stage, is that the EU is a positive, and that what was outlined by some rich public shool toffs in the first vote was not the truth of the matter. The alternatives to staying in the EU are all sub-optimal. Soft Brexit - why bother? Hard Brexit - massive losses to the economy, roundly understood to be economic pain for the UK, with the UK seen from the outside as an insular nation on the edge of Europe. Madness. Why would anyone want either? For what?

Fair enough but I feel a response to this would be a repeat of the last 900 odd pages of debate which I don't really want to bring up again, you are set on your view but my view is that the referendum should be respected and nothing will change my view on that.

I personally voted leave because I'm not a particular fan of the EU in the way it works and forces changes (e.g. re-running of referendums it doesn't like etc) and in the direction of where it's headed. I don't agree with fiscal and monetary union and ever closer union and feel that in 10-20 years the UK will be better off a result of independence. I could be wrong of course but it feels like everyone looks at the short term view, I know there will be some short term pain but I think once that can be overcome then there's genuine opportunities long term.

Really this debate is just a mirror of parliament where both are entrenched in their position with no resolution in site.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Fair enough but I feel a response to this would be a repeat of the last 900 odd pages of debate which I don't really want to bring up again, you are set on your view but my view is that the referendum should be respected and nothing will change my view on that.

I personally voted leave because I'm not a particular fan of the EU in the way it works and forces changes (e.g. re-running of referendums it doesn't like etc) and in the direction of where it's headed. I don't agree with fiscal and monetary union and ever closer union and feel that in 10-20 years the UK will be better off a result of independence. I could be wrong of course but it feels like everyone looks at the short term view, I know there will be some short term pain but I think once that can be overcome then there's genuine opportunities long term.

Really this debate is just a mirror of parliament where both are entrenched in their position with no resolution in site.

Cool. Appreciate you outlining. The neat thing about doing this online is you can't offend. I wouldn't do this face to face - just wouldn't bother. Freindships, meetings with people are worth more than upsetting them. Here on this forum...we can go to another page...check how Trump's getting on....ignore me if I'm offending you. Its faceless, and hopefully painless, right?

So a couple of things: the EU is not forcing another referendum - where are you getting such drivel from? It aint true. It is made up.

What is fiscal and monetary union? We are not in the Euro - to state the obvious - and it doesn't look like we'd join. So I am sorry this is sadly made up too. What fiscal eu thing is on the horizon that you fear? Becuase I can not see it. If you can not outline it - it quite possibly does not exist. Is that fair to say?

Ever closer union - okay fair play the people who work in the EU are a bit EU-nutty. They want to make it more effective and they have said that. But and its a BIG BUT - the memeber nation states are not going to let their countries become less national as the EU does its work. If you could point to real actual things you did not like about the EU - not just policy jargon or ideas - that effect us day to day, then I'd take it seriously. If you can't outline things that effect you adversly, where the EU impairs our nation, what does that tell us!?

It does not matter if something is short term or long term, you have to be able to explain it or rationalise it, for it to be real. Just because people fear random undescribable things doesn't make the random undescribable thing true. We are not jumping off a sinking ship by leaving the EU - I know that is what leave had hoped - but the reality is since Brexit support for the EU in nations all over europe has sky rocketed by double digit points. Why? Because they are seeing how compromised the UK is. We are a laughing stock. Peoples who used to regard the UK as being rational, cool-headed, with a successful economy, a nation of innovators, purvayors or humor and great culture...other peoples are thinking what the fuk happened to them! What are this clever nation doing?

Let's leave this with one relatively simple question: if the UK is to lose things like completely free trade with 500m people in the EU, and 70 other free trade deals, plus little things like free phone roaming, reseach collaboration, clean beaches, saterlites, a forum to work with our neighbours etc. what will it gain back from Brexit that will make it better off in 10-20 years time?

If you can't outline - its not me being a cun1, although I admit I am being less than perfectly polite - it is because the benifits are not there. They are not there. I am not interested in winning an arguement, I simply want you to weight up the real issues while politicans are pussy footing around not calling it like it is. Brexit does not do what it says on the tin. In fact there is nothing in the flipping tin. It is a hollow waste of time that keep people like NIgel Farrage in a job, and it is harming the UK.

RIght. Done. As you were.

 

[Rorschach]

Fair enough but I feel a response to this would be a repeat of the last 900 odd pages of debate which I don't really want to bring up again, you are set on your view but my view is that the referendum should be respected and nothing will change my view on that.

I personally voted leave because I'm not a particular fan of the EU in the way it works and forces changes (e.g. re-running of referendums it doesn't like etc) and in the direction of where it's headed. I don't agree with fiscal and monetary union and ever closer union and feel that in 10-20 years the UK will be better off a result of independence. I could be wrong of course but it feels like everyone looks at the short term view, I know there will be some short term pain but I think once that can be overcome then there's genuine opportunities long term.

Really this debate is just a mirror of parliament where both are entrenched in their position with no resolution in site.

With the geopolitical landscape in such flux nobody can predict how things will be in 5 years, let alone 10 or 20 years time. If there was only one cog in motion, just brexit, then charting a path to prosperity when the UK leaves the EU might be doable. But that of course is not how it will play out as everything is connected. The next 10 years maybe one hit after another - the rise in authoritarianism and fascism, Russia throwing a shadow over Europe again, the climate giving it back to us in spades, mass immigration and fudge knows what else. Isolationism is the completely wrong move at this juncture as Western liberal democracy is teetering on the precipice. In my opinion, it is Brexit that is the real shortsighted move. Britain should go all in with Europe and decide Europes course.

If you want to know how Mogg thinks this plays out then his father's writings are more than a clue. He is waiting for the brickshow to begin.

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1107395002714464256