Brexit negotiations

[RobinBHM]

Strange, for someone who believes in the sanctity of human life, how can you support a party that led the country into an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands under Blair?

Or is it because they were called New Labour, it doesn’t count in your eyes? Or do foreign lives not count? What about the just under 200 British forces lives lost in that illegal conflict? Do they not count either

I didnt realise the Iraq war was in Labours current manifesto.

I guess anybody that believes in the sanctity of life wouldnt be able to vote Tory:
"The Conservatives have been accused of “economic murder” for austerity policies which a new study suggests have caused 120,000 deaths."

 

[Clodbuster]

I didnt realise the Iraq war was in Labours current manifesto.

I guess anybody that believes in the sanctity of life wouldnt be able to vote Tory:
"The Conservatives have been accused of “economic murder” for austerity policies which a new study suggests have caused 120,000 deaths."

Caused by useless Labour economics - someone had to try and repay the credit card. Perhaps you don't bother and let your debt escalate saying "It is not my problem"
Please supply a death certificate that stipulates that as the cause of death. Absolute rubbish.

 

[gpietersz]

Yes, my earlier post was supposed to say "leave the EU", not "leave the UK"!

I think the point people are making.

Your smug, sanctimonious virtue signalling drivel seems to know no bounds

I could not agree more. The intolerance of the left towards anyone who disagrees with them (David Lammy style or even worse) has convinced me that human rights (freedom of speech in particular) are safe in their hands.

They have always had a tendency towards this (there were always some like the guy in The Young Ones who called everyone a fascist).

Prior to the referendum I had little real knowledge of politics, I just always voted Tory because come from a Telegraph reading middle class family.

But the Brexit debate has made me realise the shortcomings of Tribal politics and the 2 party FPTP system here.

I think one thing that has happened is that because we have had decades of consensus politics where we had a choice between two very similar parties (what difference did it make whether you voted for Blair or Cameron?) people have forgotten how to disagree while respecting their opponents and keeping discussion civil.

 

[Cobby]

Caused by useless Labour economics - someone had to try and repay the credit card. Perhaps you don't bother and let your debt escalate saying "It is not my problem"
Please supply a death certificate that stipulates that as the cause of death. Absolute rubbish.

"Look what you made me do!" - Every domestic abuser ever, blaming others for their actions.

Your smug, sanctimonious virtue signalling drivel seems to know no bounds.

I'm not voting Tory, but the sheer arrogance in how you dismiss all Tory voters, millions and millions of them, is breathtaking!

Ditch the hate. It's okay to have different political opinions, but it's immature to trash all those who don't agree with you as lacking respect for human life (and, presumably, indirectly killing a load of people). Get a grip!

"How dare you hold people accountable for their views and the harmful policies they consciously choose to support with their vote! The arrogance of it!"

 

[Cobby]

I don't think the parties understand the displeasure of the present MP's by the electorate especially the parties offering a second referendum, who make a mockery of all the voters who voted originally

It's pretty standard in democratic machinery where referendums are deployed to vote on the detail of the options offered.

Like this guy said:

 

[Cobby]

So, after three years, frequent attempts to bypass Parliament, the first government in modern history held in contempt, an unlawful attempt to prorogue Parliament and of course lying to the queen, the leader of the current government triumphantly brings back...an idea the EU offered to begin with, and a slightly worse variation of May's Withdrawal Agreement.

After repeatedly saying he would never put the customs border in the Irish sea, he now wants to put the border in the Irish sea.

After repeatedly saying he would never request an extension, he has requested the extension.

And it turns out the supposedly incredible, brilliantly tactical, 4-dimensional-chess master plan by him and Cummings was...not signing the request letter.

Boris Johnson at 11.00pm last night:
"YOU CAN'T MAKE ME SIGN IT!"

I'm trying to make light of it, and if it weren't so embarrassing it'd be funny, but the harm they are doing to the UK's reputation is remarkable.

Back in the real world, it seems that such a childish move doesn't detract from the legal force of the request, and although Johnson and Cummings were expecting another fight in the courts, they're pushing on an open door; it appears that the EU will accept it as a legal request from our government and action it accordingly.

 

[gpietersz]

I'm trying to make light of it, and if it weren't so embarrassing it'd be funny, but the harm they are doing to the UK's reputation is remarkable.

The only negative comment I have heard from anyone I know outside the EU about this was on the lack of impartiality of the speaker.

a slightly worse variation of May's Withdrawal Agreement.

Its a huge improvement, because it does not lock us into anything permanently and we can start negotiating trade deals.

n unlawful attempt to prorogue Parliament

Only unlawful because the courts changed the law retrospectively!

 

[gpietersz]

It's pretty standard in democratic machinery where referendums are deployed to vote on the detail of the options offered.

Fair enough. So as the first referendum settled the question of leaving, the second would be on deal vs no-deal, right? Otherwise all MPs who stood as Labour and Conservative candidates would be breaking their manifesto commitments to respect the result of the referendum.

 

[Cobby]

The only negative comment I have heard from anyone I know outside the EU about this was on the lack of impartiality of the speaker.

Perhaps an understandable consequence when not reading outside the pro-Brexit bubble.
But most of the EU leaders and its citizens see Johnson and his government as dishonest and untrustworthy, obviously a huge boon when looking to forge trade deals from a position of weakness of having none.

You don't have to go far outside the bubble...
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-brexit-show-extended-for-another-season/a-50902799
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-brexit-once-again-with-feeling/a-50877987
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...-on-germany-s-view-of-boris-johnson-1-6213584
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...merkel-boris-johnson-leaked-brexit-phone-call
https://www.thelocal.de/20190723/cocky-troublemaker-what-german-media-think-of-boris-johnson-brexit

Its a huge improvement, because it does not lock us into anything permanently and we can start negotiating trade deals.

It essentially locks NI in, so little-Englanders will obviously see it as a better outcome.
Aside from being a huge and embarrassing climbdown for him, it's almost exactly the same deal as May's, just worse.

Changes include moving stuff from the WA (legally binding) to the Political Declaration of the desired future relationship (not legally binding), and these include:
- Worker's rights protections
- Environmental regulation and protections
- Anti-tax avoidance policies
- Anti-competition policies

So not a surprise the far-right and disaster capitalists prefer this deal.

 

[Cobby]

Fair enough. So as the first referendum settled the question of leaving, the second would be on deal vs no-deal, right? Otherwise all MPs who stood as Labour and Conservative candidates would be breaking their manifesto commitments to respect the result of the referendum.

Nah, it's easy to consider the gargantuan effort we've made, and enormous amount we've spent to investigate a safe way to take this course of action, but it simply isn't possible in the short term. With Johnson's "deal" being the final option presented by the government for this course of action, the people should be asked if they want that, and the consequences of that, or to stick with the status quo. It's a pretty standard way forward.

It's understandable, now that there aren't any positive arguments left for Brexit, that you only want people to look at the 2016 result on its own and out of context, but that doesn't really help the real world situation.

 

[gpietersz]

But most of the EU leaders and its citizens see Johnson and his government as dishonest and untrustworthy

I specifically said "outside the EU" and you quote a bunch of sources from inside the EU as a refutation. The world is not the EU, the EU is just one region and of diminishing importance.

It essentially locks NI in

Not irreversibly, with time limits, and NI needing to agree to extensions.

now that there aren't any positive arguments left for Brexit

Yes there are: independence and avoiding the risks of the European project of "ever close union". Not getting locked into policies set by treaty instead of elected governments.

Europhiles and remainers have been wrong (or lying) time and time again. It was a disaster to fail to join the Euro, just voting to leave was going to cause economic disaster and mass unemployment, the EU was never going to give us a better deal or climb down from their demands. All based on the same delusions.

 

[RobinBHM]

Caused by useless Labour economics - someone had to try and repay the credit card. Perhaps you don't bother and let your debt escalate saying "It is not my problem"

Unfortunately that is not correct, the Labour government did not borrow excessively despite the narrative by the Tory coalition.

 

[gpietersz]

Unfortunately that is not correct, the Labour government did not borrow excessively despite the narrative by the Tory coalition.

What they definitely did do was extensively use off balance sheet borrowing, at higher interest rates, through PFI etc.

 

[RobinBHM]

Only unlawful because the courts changed the law retrospectively!

Thats irrelevant as you know, the fact is what Johnson did was wrong.

 

[RobinBHM]

ts a huge improvement, because it does not lock us into anything permanently and we can start negotiating trade deals

Not really.

Our most important export market =EU
Political declaration states a trade deal depends on a level playing field.

After leaving the EU, the UK will be a medium size country with no trade deals. A very very weak position. Any deal offered will be worse than existing.

If by chance any deals are better, non tariff barriers will outway any cost advantage.

Time will tell no doubt.

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes there are: independence and avoiding the risks of the European project of "ever close union"

Youve only pointed out one half of the argument, it needs a comparison

what independence and freedom will the Brexit journey and destination yield?

 

[RobinBHM]

What they definitely did do was extensively use off balance sheet borrowing, at higher interest rates, through PFI etc

I see PFI as an example of the limitations of our democracy. It is too tempting to sell new capital projects in a manifesto, but make future generations pay.
Major let the PFI genie out, Labour expanded it......now it takes a chunk out the NHS budget.

Students loans, another magic money tree.

 

[RobinBHM]

EU is just one region and of diminishing importance.

Yeah ok.....thats not really true.

 

[RobinBHM]

Time to drain the swamp, cannot come soon enough IMO

Have you bought your 'make UK great again' baseball cap yet


Ps Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove etc is the swamp

 

[RobinBHM]

Not irreversibly, with time limits, and NI needing to agree to extensions.

It does lock NI in.

Think about the options.

Say it wants out of the single market regulatory alignment and CU......the only option is hard land border, which we know is impossible.
And we know the only other option: full EU membership.

This deal is the Johnson surrender deal, otherwise known as 3/4 Brexit

 

[Clodbuster]

 

[RobinBHM]

 

[Clinton]

Labour's position is famously about as clear as mud soup, but many Labour MPs seem to want a second referendum. Lib Dems of course support a second referendum (if they can't get a definite Remain).

I'm struggling to see how anyone can view a second referendum as anything but more trouble.

Leaving the EU is a complicated question involving all kinds of things and Joe Public doesn't know his Single Market from his Customs Union. He's probably never heard of MFN or even WTO. All he cares about is the price of the pound to the euro! And how much his holiday in Spain is going to cost.

The last time he had to decide on the EU question he got lied to and manipulated. And, let's face it, the manipulation was from both sides. Leave told him that it would be easy, a piece of cake. Remain told him that if Leave won there'd be an immediate recession, he'd lose his job, we'd have plagues of locusts.

Time has clearly proven that they both lied to him. So now he's going to make his mind up based on what?

On the shouty, accusatory, name calling sentiments on the streets today (on both sides) and the mindless, ill formed and entrenched opinions already formed?

Or on a careful reading of the WA and a careful analysis of the pros and cons?

Of course it's going to be the former.

And if you ignore the biased end of the media like the Guardian, and read people like Prof Curtiss, it's still an even split.

So the result of any 2nd ref is going to depend largely on the undecideds, the don't knows, the people who fall into three categories

a) those who, even after 3.5 years of this agony, have not even heard the word "Brexit" so have no opinion on it (yes, there are some of them around!);
b) those who've tried to keep up but find that it's a lot more confusing for their brains than they thought ;
c) those who can never decide anything anyway.

And we are going to rely on this lot, these undecideds, to decide "the most important decision for a generation"? And risk further delay, further uncertainty?

And risk social unrest + a rise in far right nationalism if the 2nd ref results in a narrow Remain win?

You second ref people, can you explain to me why you think that this matter should go back to the public (other than, of course, your real desire to get another chance at winning a Remain result and your infallible conclusion that we're better off in the EU)?

The two trolls in the thread need not answer.

 

[Clodbuster]

Cool - a referendum every 5 years.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

If you are lied to once, why would you bother voting a second time to the same people

With both sides entrenched in their view, the only clear vote would be a General Election

 

[Mr D]

If you are lied to once, why would you bother voting a second time to the same people

With both sides entrenched in their view, the only clear vote would be a General Election

Agreed.
Would not surprise me if a 2nd referendum had half the voters of the last one.
Why vote when your side winning is ignored? Why vote when you know for certain it does not change anything? Why vote when it leads to aggro?

 

[RobinBHM]

And if you ignore the biased end of the media like the Guardian

Oxymoron

 

[RobinBHM]

Agreed.
Would not surprise me if a 2nd referendum had half the voters of the last one.
Why vote when your side winning is ignored? Why vote when you know for certain it does not change anything? Why vote when it leads to aggro?

A person that voted leave would be able to vote leave again......

So their vote would not be ignored.

What you are really saying is that leave voters are scared because they think too many leave voters have changed their mind.

Thats the truth

 

[BristolBiz]

So what I want to know is what level of vote is needed to be acceptable as a democratic majority. It appears that 52% isn't quite enough, would 53% be enough... and does it depend on which side has the majority?

 

[Mr D]

So what I want to know is what level of vote is needed to be acceptable as a democratic majority. It appears that 52% isn't quite enough, would 53% be enough... and does it depend on which side has the majority?

Not helped by some talking about the 37%.

Whether 52% or by just one vote, one side won and one side lost.
The rabid extremists on one side cannot accept that result so probably wouldn't accept anything less than 30 million plus voting for leaving. Though will of course accept a win by remain by just one vote!

 

[Chawton]

I think one of the great tragedies of the referendum vote was that it was so close. That always creates tension because people then feel entitled to re-examine the minutiae and develop all sorts of odd narratives; "People didnt vote to be poorer" "Children didn't get to vote" etc etc. To an extent it's human nature.

Of course the reality is people are not entitled to do this in a democracy and they should resist a very base instinct that reflects terribly on them.

The result was close but unambiguous.

 

[RobinBHM]

So what I want to know is what level of vote is needed to be acceptable as a democratic majority. It appears that 52% isn't quite enough, would 53% be enough... and does it depend on which side has the majority?

Its a fair point, I can see the argument against a referendum.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that a confirmatory vote would be democratic after 3 1/2 years of debate, but as Clinton points out -are people any better informed?

A referendum whether fair or not would stoke up more division.

Honesty from politicians would help, but hell hasnt frozen over yet.....

Im veering to no deal, only because it might do enough damage to end our 2 party politics that is failing.

Any Brexit will be a failure but an orderly Brexit will give the leave campaign the opportunity to blame the fact they werent allowed a no deal Brexit.

There are no good ways out of this mess.

 

[Newchodge]

I think one of the greatest tragedies of the referendum vote was that a simple yes/no question was asked about a multi-faceted issue that no one ever made any attempt to explain honestly. The next tragedy was that it was held as a confrontational matter, epitomised by the attitude 'we won, you lost, get over it'.

While the result was unambiguous - leave - it is not a result that is capable of disinterested, honest implementation.

 

[Chawton]

I think one of the greatest tragedies of the referendum vote was that a simple yes/no question was asked about a multi-faceted issue that no one ever made any attempt to explain honestly. The next tragedy was that it was held as a confrontational matter, epitomised by the attitude 'we won, you lost, get over it'.

While the result was unambiguous - leave - it is not a result that is capable of disinterested, honest implementation.

With respect, I think that is simply where democrats and ideologues diverge in their thinking.

 

[Chawton]

Incidentally, on the question of "what majority is sufficient majority to constitute a legitimate majority?"....I know the question was asked tongue in cheek, but the Scots 45/55 split did actually seem to pacify people. Not that the interest groups of either stripe changed their positions afterwards or abandoned their long term goals of course, however its interesting it did seem to satisfy the whole electorate that the matter was legitimately "settled". Until Brexit...

 

[Mr D]

I think one of the greatest tragedies of the referendum vote was that a simple yes/no question was asked about a multi-faceted issue that no one ever made any attempt to explain honestly. The next tragedy was that it was held as a confrontational matter, epitomised by the attitude 'we won, you lost, get over it'.

While the result was unambiguous - leave - it is not a result that is capable of disinterested, honest implementation.

What sort of answer would you have been looking for instead of a yes / no?

The fact it wasn't explained honestly is down to those trying to explain it.
Whether that impacted how people decided to vote is another matter.

If there was any more referendums on the subject there'd be again no way to guarantee that all information presented met your requirements. We have among other things here, freedom of speech and press freedom.

 

[Mr D]

Incidentally, on the question of "what majority is sufficient majority to constitute a legitimate majority?"....I know the question was asked tongue in cheek, but the Scots 45/55 split did actually seem to pacify people. Not that the interest groups of either stripe changed their positions afterwards or abandoned their long term goals of course, however its interesting it did seem to satisfy the whole electorate that the matter was legitimately "settled". Until Brexit...

Pacify those who weren't rabid about it.
Once in a lifetime vote. For a dragonfly's lifetime it appears - was not long after that referendum that Alex was calling for a new referendum.
Circumstances had changed - as they tend to do.

 

[Mr D]

Reading through the BBC reporting of the ongoing debate - it appears the new deal has fair amount of support, potentially more than enough to get it passed.
There are MPs who say they would support the deal / not oppose it if there is also a referendum.

OK so do we have a deal agreed, made law, then next early May have a referendum on deal or remain?

 

[RobinBHM]

Reading through the BBC reporting of the ongoing debate - it appears the new deal has fair amount of support, potentially more than enough to get it passed.
There are MPs who say they would support the deal / not oppose it if there is also a referendum.

OK so do we have a deal agreed, made law, then next early May have a referendum on deal or remain?

My guess is the WAB will get voted through tonight, that will make Johnson a Brexit hero (+ Corbyn is as good as dead in a ditch) and almost certainly give him a majority.

Surely that would allow Conservatives to push on with their Brexit agenda, no ref allowed.

Come the end of the transition period new arguments will start about extending it or no deal.
Government dont stand a cat in hells chance of getting a FTA deal with EU, unless they simply concede on every point.

 

[simon field]

I can see the EU crumbling into dust after the loss of one of its most significant members.

Ooooh that's gonna hurt!