Brexit or Bust !!

SamClaus posted:

Conversely, within the EU, there are no borders, and you're free to go wherever you wish... isn't that wonderful, Kevin?

It sounds lovely in theory, but it just doesn't work. Especially given the fact that the EU's outer borders are so porous, and so ineffectively policed, Schengen has been a bit of a disaster. If, as predicted, climate change gets worse and sends millions of people from the developing world heading for Europe over the next few decades, it will have to be anandoned altogether.

Also, Schengen would be fine if the EU countries within the Schengen Area (22, with Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania obliged to join at some point) were all at roughly equal levels of economic development. But they're not. That means that the much-vaunted "freedom of movement" is almost entirely one-way.

winkyincanada posted:

naim_nymph posted

 

When May's daft withdrawal agreement is properly and finally rejected by parliament next week, and the No Deal blackmail threat option far too ridiculously undesirable, the only decent democratic alternative is to immediately cancel Article 50, and proceed with a People's Vote to regain the sanity of fresh political direction over the fundamentally flopped issue of Brexit, and to restore true decent democracy to the peoples of the UK.

Let's hope you're right. A (brilliant, informed and thoughtful) friend of mine expressed an identical prognosis to me last week. What a relief it would be.

A second referendum indeed looks more likely than it did, say, two months ago. But Remainers should be careful what they wish for. Whichever way the vote went, it would solve little, especially of the turnout or margin of victory were lower than last time; the divisions would remain and perhaps deepen.

In addition, what happens if the vote is for Brexit again? Would Remainers accept that and move on, and help the UK leave in an orderly and mutually beneficial manner? Or do we have to rerun the referendum until the likes of Gina Miller, Lord Adonis, Clegg, Cable, Blair, Goldman Sachs et al get the result they want?

Also, what will the questions be this time? TM's deal, leave as per the last ref (deal or no deal), revoke A50 and renegotiate, revoke A50 and remain? Or just a straight in or out, as per June 2016?

If it is not to excerbate an already febrile situation, a second referendum needs to be much more carefully thought out  than the last one.

Kevin - on your final point, I agree any second referendum would need very careful thought. The 2016 one seemed to have very little thought behind it, hence some of the mess we are seeing today. It would also likely provoke a toxic campaign.  That said, despite its inherent difficulties, I think it might be the only way out of this impasse. I certainly don't think a general election will solve much if anything of Brexit.  Interestingly I've seen some reports that suggest some hard Brexiteers are becoming increasingly attracted to a second referendum as they are frustrated by HMG advocating a very soft Brexit, which they don't think they voted for, and their belief that many MPs are trying to frustrate leaving at all.  For those people any referendum would have to include an option which said something like 'leave even without a deal'.  If that won the day, I for one would accept the result as the people would be choosing to leave the EU knowing that in the short to medium term there will be economic damage. For example, and putting it bluntly, if the people in the area of Sunderland again vote strongly to leave the EU, they can hardly complain when Nissan moves it car assembly plant.             

Kevin-W posted:

winkyincanada posted:

naim_nymph posted

 

When May's daft withdrawal agreement is properly and finally rejected by parliament next week, and the No Deal blackmail threat option far too ridiculously undesirable, the only decent democratic alternative is to immediately cancel Article 50, and proceed with a People's Vote to regain the sanity of fresh political direction over the fundamentally flopped issue of Brexit, and to restore true decent democracy to the peoples of the UK.

Let's hope you're right. A (brilliant, informed and thoughtful) friend of mine expressed an identical prognosis to me last week. What a relief it would be.

A second referendum indeed looks more likely than it did, say, two months ago. But Remainers should be careful what they wish for. Whichever way the vote went, it would solve little, especially of the turnout or margin of victory were lower than last time; the divisions would remain and perhaps deepen.

In addition, what happens if the vote is for Brexit again? Would Remainers accept that and move on, and help the UK leave in an orderly and mutually beneficial manner? Or do we have to rerun the referendum until the likes of Gina Miller, Lord Adonis, Clegg, Cable, Blair, Goldman Sachs et al get the result they want?

Also, what will the questions be this time? TM's deal, leave as per the last ref (deal or no deal), revoke A50 and renegotiate, revoke A50 and remain? Or just a straight in or out, as per June 2016?

If it is not to excerbate an already febrile situation, a second referendum needs to be much more carefully thought out  than the last one.

Yes, there's a risk that the referendum would lead to (at least temporarily) more division. But ultimately, I strongly believe everyone would be better off with the remain option (excepting those, who for reasons not allowed to be discussed here, want a different Britain).

You're 100% correct. A second referendum would have to be carefully thought out. Perhaps preemptively put in place a mechanism for the censure (or at least entitlement to rebuttal) of outrageous and untrue claims from either "side". For example, want to say something on the side of a bus? Then the opposite side gets automatically get half the bus as well, to display their rebuttal.

Kevin-W posted:

A second referendum indeed looks more likely than it did, say, two months ago. But Remainers should be careful what they wish for. Whichever way the vote went, it would solve little, especially of the turnout or margin of victory were lower than last time; the divisions would remain and perhaps deepen.

In addition, what happens if the vote is for Brexit again? Would Remainers accept that and move on, and help the UK leave in an orderly and mutually beneficial manner? Or do we have to rerun the referendum until the likes of Gina Miller, Lord Adonis, Clegg, Cable, Blair, Goldman Sachs et al get the result they want?

I don't believe the rifts could deepen - and a referendum would be the only true democratic answer, especially given the flaws of the last one (putting it mildly), and the real information now available.

As for accepting the result, I for one have said many times on the previous Brexit threads that if Brexit is confirmed you will not hear a peep of objection to the result from me: as I said, it would demonstrably be a democratic decision. But I wonder how many Brexiteers would shout "unfair, we decided the other way", (without mentioning that that was over 2½ years ago and when few if any people had any understanding of the practical meaning of Brexit).

Popeye posted:

Yes like the amount we give to India and yet they have their own space program! Something is certainly adrift and yet it’s blatantly obvious to everyone!

This is the "Avocado Toast" argument. The idea that anyone (more often a non-scientific proxy for a population or demographic group) displaying any sort of non-essential consumption is automatically undeserving of assistance (as is the rest of the demographic group). It's absolutely ridiculous. It's like saying that someone in a council house should be evicted if they are spotted drinking a beer at the pub.

IB - I think the area where divisions could deepen in another referendum is if the Brexit campaign focussed on the argument: 'you told the elite once you wanted to leave. You've now seen over two years how they have sought to frustrate your democratic wish. Now tell them again but in even stronger terms!'

That argument simply didn't exist in 2016 but it could now be deployed and become very toxic, especially for some hot-heads. To avoid it both sides would need to agree to avoid inflammatory language and actions, but I fear that might be a forlorn hope.   

winkyincanada posted:

 Perhaps preemptively put in place a mechanism for the censure (or at least entitlement to rebuttal) of outrageous and untrue claims from either "side". For example, want to say something on the side of a bus? Then the opposite side gets automatically get half the bus as well, to display their rebuttal.

Indeed. And if the Government spends £9 million on putting a leaflet through every householder's door (as it did in 2016) it might be a good idea for the opposing side to be given £9m for its rebuttal?

Kevin-W posted:

 

what happens if the vote is for Brexit again?

Then the whole wide world would have * confirmation *  that a larger margin of UK voters really are bonkers for Brexit, and as such a Brexit that is achievable and deliverable would need to be sought. [ Dr Frankenstein would need to bring the brexit beast back to life with his electrodes ] but It would jolly up the Brexiteers to receive a confirmation re-ref win, because; unlike the June 2016 referendum, it would be an indisputable confirmation of a definite Leave win, and would lead to a collapse of the persistent Remain opposition, which in return would result in less polarisation, end civil-argument on the subject, and the overwhelming majority of remainers would begin the depressing process of examining the hardship of Brexit-doom with the intension of detached  'acceptance'  regardless how disagreeable the acquiescence. It would also send a clear signal to the EU that the UK [ or perhaps just England ] really is resolute on Brexit, which would assumably give Brexiteers the feeling of a stronger future negotiating position : )

I don't think their should be ANY campaigning for a confirmatory referendum. People have had the past 2 1/2  years to glean something, of course focussed a lot towards the end of 2018, and a lot more no doubt in the coming fortnight.

That would take out any influence of money, persuasive skill etc, and minimise chance of lies and deception.

Kevin-W posted:

winkyincanada posted:

naim_nymph posted

 

When May's daft withdrawal agreement is properly and finally rejected by parliament next week, and the No Deal blackmail threat option far too ridiculously undesirable, the only decent democratic alternative is to immediately cancel Article 50, and proceed with a People's Vote to regain the sanity of fresh political direction over the fundamentally flopped issue of Brexit, and to restore true decent democracy to the peoples of the UK.

Let's hope you're right. A (brilliant, informed and thoughtful) friend of mine expressed an identical prognosis to me last week. What a relief it would be.

A second referendum indeed looks more likely than it did, say, two months ago. But Remainers should be careful what they wish for. Whichever way the vote went, it would solve little, especially of the turnout or margin of victory were lower than last time; the divisions would remain and perhaps deepen.

In addition, what happens if the vote is for Brexit again? Would Remainers accept that and move on, and help the UK leave in an orderly and mutually beneficial manner? Or do we have to rerun the referendum until the likes of Gina Miller, Lord Adonis, Clegg, Cable, Blair, Goldman Sachs et al get the result they want?

Also, what will the questions be this time? TM's deal, leave as per the last ref (deal or no deal), revoke A50 and renegotiate, revoke A50 and remain? Or just a straight in or out, as per June 2016?

If it is not to excerbate an already febrile situation, a second referendum needs to be much more carefully thought out  than the last one.

I completely agree that a second referendum needs to be much more carefully thought out than the last one. Any referendum of the magnitude of Brexit should have required at least 50% of the population to support 'Exit' and not just a small majority of those who actually bothered to vote. David Cameron's approach to the first referendum was scandalously inept. Putting aside any claims of campaign lies and deceit, with any vote of this nature those in favour of change tend to be much more incentivised to vote rather than those who support the  status quo. I feel exactly the same way about any future referendum on Scottish Independence - it should take support from at least 50% of the Scottish electorate and not just a simple majority of the voters to force such a dramatic constitutional change.

In answer your question about what happens if a second referendum vote is for Brexit? - I would be surprised and extremely disappointed if this were to happen, but I and in my opinion everyone else who supports 'remain' would have to accept the result. However, I would still be very opposed to a 'no deal' Brexit which I believe would be very damaging to the British and Scottish economies. Following Brexit, I would then be left in a quandary as to how to vote in any near future second Scottish Independence referendum. It would not be an easy decision.   

Kevin-W posted:

winkyincanada posted:

 Perhaps preemptively put in place a mechanism for the censure (or at least entitlement to rebuttal) of outrageous and untrue claims from either "side". For example, want to say something on the side of a bus? Then the opposite side gets automatically get half the bus as well, to display their rebuttal.

Indeed. And if the Government spends £9 million on putting a leaflet through every householder's door (as it did in 2016) it might be a good idea for the opposing side to be given £9m for its rebuttal?

Yep. The leaflets should contain arguments from both sides of the discussion.

MDS posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Only a couple of weeks to go! : )

In fourteen days from now, Britain will [ demographically ] switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country. To be more precise: if not a single voter in the referendum two and a half years ago changes their mind, enough mainly Leave voters will have died, and enough mainly Remain voters will have reached voting age, to wipe out the fluke Leave majority that was underhandedly achieved in the in June 2016.

This is the clear conclusion from a new YouGov survey for the People's Vote Campaign. They show that demographic factors alone are causing the Leave majority to shrink by at least 1,350 per day, or around half a million a year. Crossover Day, when Remain moves into the lead, will be January 19th

By March 29, the day the UK is due to leave the European Union, the Remain majority will by around 100,000 – again, assuming that nobody who voted two years ago has changed their mind.

When May's daft withdrawal agreement is properly and finally rejected by parliament next week, and the No Deal blackmail threat option far too ridiculously undesirable, the only decent democratic alternative is to immediately cancel Article 50, and proceed with a People's Vote to regain the sanity of fresh political direction over the fundamentally flopped issue of Brexit, and to restore true decent democracy to the peoples of the UK.

An interesting piece of analysis, Debs. It will be interesting to see if any MPs drawn on it during the debate.  This morning on Andrew Marr's show, TM was again stating her outright rejection of another referendum, even in the face of Marr's subsequent assertion to her that in the event of her deal being rejected, and her ruling out another referendum, this logically meant she would support leaving without a deal that everyone agrees would be economically very damaging. She's clearly treating the 2016 referendum result as something unmovable and based on the premise that, apart from the demographics, no-one ever changes their mind, even though she has been shown to regularly change hers!    

Actually, there is a great deal of support for leaving without a “deal” and it seems (from various media sources) to be increasing daily. This should have been the Government’s position from day 1 as (post-departure) it clearly optimises our negotiating position - rather than coming to that position via 2 years+ of prevarication.

Hopefully May will continue to stand firm against the political, corporate and Brussels elites who oppose the stated will of the British electorate. I expect to be playing Lou Reed’s “Perfect Day” on March 30th

ynwa250505 posted:

   

Actually, there is a great deal of support for leaving without a “deal” and it seems (from various media sources) to be increasing daily. This should have been the Government’s position from day 1 as (post-departure) it clearly optimises our negotiating position - rather than coming to that position via 2 years+ of prevarication.

Hopefully May will continue to stand firm against the political, corporate and Brussels elites who oppose the stated will of the British electorate. I expect to be playing Lou Reed’s “Perfect Day” on March 30th

There’s no such thing as no deal, it doesn’t exist.

Parliament will be voting on whether to accept the deal the government have negotiated and leave the EU. When the deal is rejected by the MPs, they will effectively be voting not to leave the EU.

As both tory and labour MPs will have blocked the brexit deal, neither can be blamed solely for blocking brexit. In those circumstances it will be a lot easier for TM and corbyn to grudgingly agree to a postponement of brexit and hold another referendum.

I expect you’ll be playing ‘thelfth of never’ on March 30^th.

fatcat posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

   

Actually, there is a great deal of support for leaving without a “deal” and it seems (from various media sources) to be increasing daily. This should have been the Government’s position from day 1 as (post-departure) it clearly optimises our negotiating position - rather than coming to that position via 2 years+ of prevarication.

Hopefully May will continue to stand firm against the political, corporate and Brussels elites who oppose the stated will of the British electorate. I expect to be playing Lou Reed’s “Perfect Day” on March 30th

There’s no such thing as no deal, it doesn’t exist. 

Parliament will be voting on whether to accept the deal the government have negotiated and leave the EU. When the deal is rejected by the MPs, they will effectively be voting not to leave the EU.

As both tory and labour MPs will have blocked the brexit deal, neither can be blamed solely for blocking brexit. In those circumstances it will be a lot easier for TM and corbyn to grudgingly agree to a postponement of brexit and hold another referendum.

I expect you’ll be playing ‘thelfth of never’ on March 30^th.

 

1. Then you can’t be following this matter very closely - every political conversation / media article includes references to “no deal”.

2. I don’t follow your logic. If May’s “deal” is rejected by Parliament, then, at that point, we are simply heading towards an exit on a “no deal” basis. Parliament has already, by a large majority, voted to respect the outcome of the referendum and a rejection of May’s “deal” doesn’t overturn that legal commitment. 

3. We will just have to wait and see on that. Another referendum would require Parliament to a) ignore the democratically stated will of the people and also b) rescind their vote of Dec 2016. I think this is a big ask and one that would (imho) create a long-lasting rupture of trust between the electorate and Parliament. Corbyn is already pledged (Labour party manifesto) to respecting the referendum outcome too.

If May’s “deal” is rejected, the simplest and most straight-forward direction for the government to take would be to simply leave the EU (ie implement the will of the electorate). Leaving without a “deal” is certainly not the catastrophe / disaster that the various vested interests are portraying it as. After all, we have been trading around the globe for 500 years - so it won’t be our first rodeo and history shows that we know how to stand up to bullies.

4. I don’t know that tune, but if we are not out of the EU on March 30th, the only tune to be played by the UK will be “Chain Gang” - because that’s where we will be in perpetuity. You may not mind enslavement, but the majority of us don’t ...

fatcat posted:

There’s no such thing as no deal, it doesn’t exist.

Parliament will be voting on whether to accept the deal the government have negotiated and leave the EU. 

 

I think you'll find they'll be voting on the deal, not on leaving the EU unless there's an extra category to vote on the public isn't privy to.

fatcat posted:

There’s no such thing as no deal, it doesn’t exist.

Brexit and existentialism.

ynwa250505 posted:

fatcat posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

   

Actually, there is a great deal of support for leaving without a “deal” and it seems (from various media sources) to be increasing daily. This should have been the Government’s position from day 1 as (post-departure) it clearly optimises our negotiating position - rather than coming to that position via 2 years+ of prevarication.

Hopefully May will continue to stand firm against the political, corporate and Brussels elites who oppose the stated will of the British electorate. I expect to be playing Lou Reed’s “Perfect Day” on March 30th

There’s no such thing as no deal, it doesn’t exist. 

Parliament will be voting on whether to accept the deal the government have negotiated and leave the EU. When the deal is rejected by the MPs, they will effectively be voting not to leave the EU.

As both tory and labour MPs will have blocked the brexit deal, neither can be blamed solely for blocking brexit. In those circumstances it will be a lot easier for TM and corbyn to grudgingly agree to a postponement of brexit and hold another referendum.

I expect you’ll be playing ‘thelfth of never’ on March 30^th.

 

1. Then you can’t be following this matter very closely - every political conversation / media article includes references to “no deal”.

2. I don’t follow your logic. If May’s “deal” is rejected by Parliament, then, at that point, we are simply heading towards an exit on a “no deal” basis. Parliament has already, by a large majority, voted to respect the outcome of the referendum and a rejection of May’s “deal” doesn’t overturn that legal commitment. 

3. We will just have to wait and see on that. Another referendum would require Parliament to a) ignore the democratically stated will of the people and also b) rescind their vote of Dec 2016. I think this is a big ask and one that would (imho) create a long-lasting rupture of trust between the electorate and Parliament. Corbyn is already pledged (Labour party manifesto) to respecting the referendum outcome too.

If May’s “deal” is rejected, the simplest and most straight-forward direction for the government to take would be to simply leave the EU (ie implement the will of the electorate). Leaving without a “deal” is certainly not the catastrophe / disaster that the various vested interests are portraying it as. After all, we have been trading around the globe for 500 years - so it won’t be our first rodeo and history shows that we know how to stand up to bullies.

4. I don’t know that tune, but if we are not out of the EU on March 30th, the only tune to be played by the UK will be “Chain Gang” - because that’s where we will be in perpetuity. You may not mind enslavement, but the majority of us don’t ...

The above scenarios will only come to pass, if, after the brexit deal is rejected in parliament, the MPs shrug their shoulders and say, ‘well, no brexit it is then’. This of coarse won’t happen, the situation will become very fluid, but of the 5 options listed in Naim Nymps post, the only one that will be agreeable to a majority of MPs is a referendum. The people will decide.

With regards to 500 years of trading and standing up to bullies. We actually used to produced things people wanted to buy, (but not anymore) and you’ll find Great Britain was usually the bully, not the other way around.

fatcat

I think it is far from clear that all the steps will happen to take us from 'vote rejected' to 'new referendum'. Maybe there is a majority in the House against No Deal but is there a majority to bring about a new General Election? I cannot see that a delay or suspension of Article 50 with or without a new referendum later can happen without a GE first. Tory and Labour incumbents are equally nervous of going back to the country especially in seats that voted Brexit if they are seen to be manipulating a way out of it. They tend to vote to save their skins.

Labour says its preferred plan is a new election followed by a further negotiating period should they win.

Bruce

If the PM's deal is voted down we will be in uncharted territory. The default position would be the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29th March so something would have to happen to prevent that.  There is not a majority in the HoC for a no-deal exit and the PM knows this so she will have a choice between taking some action herself or waiting until Parliament forces her hand.  There will probably be a continuance of brinkmanship. From the Conservative point of view the worst option would be a vote of no-confidence which forces a general election, so I think TM will come under considerable pressure from within her own party to avoid that. My guess is that to buy time and prevent a no-confidence vote or no-deal exit, the PM will reluctantly seek an Art 50 extension. 

ynwa250505 posted:

4. I don’t know that tune, but if we are not out of the EU on March 30th, the only tune to be played by the UK will be “Chain Gang” - because that’s where we will be in perpetuity. You may not mind enslavement, but the majority of us don’t ...

A bit over the top, eh?

SamClaus posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

4. I don’t know that tune, but if we are not out of the EU on March 30th, the only tune to be played by the UK will be “Chain Gang” - because that’s where we will be in perpetuity. You may not mind enslavement, but the majority of us don’t ...

A bit over the top, eh?

You might think that, but consider the following ...

Over the past 2 years, it has become clear that the EU wants (for political reasons only) to avoid Brexit and keep the UK in the EU, when all the UK has ever wished to do is just trade. Both May’s “deal” and “remain” achieve the EU’s objective and if they do achieve it, then (in the future) only the EU can release us.

It’s a club that nobody is allowed to leave. That (imho) is enslavement ...

ynwa250505 posted:

SamClaus posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

.

 

Over the past 2 years, it has become clear that the EU wants (for political reasons only) to avoid Brexit 

 

Er, while there are political reasons, I think the EU also values the UK's net (and considerable) financial contribution plus a whole host of other areas where the UK play a strong part in the EU eg security.  

ynwa250505 posted:

SamClaus posted:

 

It’s a club that nobody is allowed to leave. That (imho) is enslavement ...

You mean like this? Always read the contract!