Brexit - the next steps

[Gordon]

It seems even more chaotic now, if that were possible, with the notion of a GE the day after Brexit by default, and that a successful No Confidence vote can be ignored so as to let the clock tick towards 'no deal' - one wonders if this is all dastardly smoke and mirrors to distract, and if so for what purpose.

I'd have thought there is now a case to recall Parliament.

[Nearly Sane]

If it wasn't for climate change, Kashmir, Palestine, Hong Kong, Syria, Yemen, I would be worried we were the world's next big problem.

[Stranger]

This

[jjohnjil]

A Brexit parable

Seven guys go on a binge trip to Brighton and halfway back to London, one of them, an exercise freak named Nigel, says “I think we should get the driver to stop and let us walk  … and anyway I’ve always hated this coach company”

The others ask why and he says “Think of the lovely fresh air and the exercise we’ll get and we’ll have control of what we can do along the way! And we wont have to pay the exorbitant fares they charge for every mile!”

It is pointed out to him by his mates and the others on the coach that it’s dangerous and they could get run over.

“No, there’s bound to be a little footpath well away from any danger. Take no notice of these cowards they’re all laughable!”

…………………………………..

Three of them say, “It sounds okay, we’ll have some of that!”

The other three say “It sounds too dodgy”
 
And so they have a vote and the leavers win by 4 to 3 … they get off.

…………………………………

They find a footpath and walk along quite happily for 100 yards.  “You see, what did those fools on the bus know!

But then the path runs out!  “Oh no! “, four of them cry!

 “There’s always the hard shoulder!” laughs Nigel.

“But that’s far too dangerous” cry four of the others.
 
“That’s what those cowards said about the path and what did they know!”

………………………………………….

They go on and then they come to a bridge … no hard shoulder!

“This is madness!  We’ve got no safe way of going on!  We’ll have to stop the next coach and ask if we can get back to the safe route” the others shout.

“Oh no, we had a democratic vote so we can’t go back on that!”

“But this is nothing like the picture you painted to us before that vote!”

“That doesn’t matter!  It’s democracy!!!! 

[ippy]

Please answer my question. Can you name one aspect of the EU that has disadvantaged you personally?

Actually, I'll widen it slightly. Can you name one aspect of being outside the EU that will advantage you personally?

It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle so as I have said before this big disagreement is a no give way on either side argument tossing a coin wasn't a realistic direction to take so we had a referendum leave won and that should be the end of it.

I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about, this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.

As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.

I do have some sympathy for the remaining side but I have to admit it's wearing very thin at the moment and again if the rolls were reversed I wouldn't be very happy either but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.

  ippy 

[Stranger]

It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle...

You seem to want to do anything but actually answer the questions.

I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about...

OK, why not, in what way has it disadvantaged you personally, and why is it so important to you that you are prepared to risk breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods?

...this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.

Breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods has no relevance to you, that's nice for you, but in what way is being in a "federal Europe" (to the extent that's even true) relevant to you?

As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.

It's the assessment of pretty much every expert in the relevant fields that the UK will be adversely affected by any Brexit and that a no-deal will be seriously damaging.

This seems to be blind faith on your part - much like the faith you criticise theists for...

...but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side...

Total nonsense - take a look at the printed press.

...and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.

By breaking electoral laws and lying. Even ignoring that, no-deal wasn't on voted on, neither, for that matter, was the leaving the single market.

Just in case you've forgotten: Leave campaigners: let's stay in the Single Market

[ippy]

You seem to want to do anything but actually answer the questions.

OK, why not, in what way has it disadvantaged you personally, and why is it so important to you that you are prepared to risk breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods?

Breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods has no relevance to you, that's nice for you, but in what way is being in a "federal Europe" (to the extent that's even true) relevant to you?

It's the assessment of pretty much every expert in the relevant fields that the UK will be adversely affected by any Brexit and that a no-deal will be seriously damaging.

This seems to be blind faith on your part - much like the faith you criticise theists for...

Total nonsense - take a look at the printed press.

By breaking electoral laws and lying. Even ignoring that, no-deal wasn't on voted on, neither, for that matter, was the leaving the single market.

Just in case you've forgotten: Leave campaigners: let's stay in the Single Market

Like I said find another whipping boy.

ippy

[Aruntraveller]

Just won't engage will you?

Tell me what happened to the easiest trade deal in history?

[Stranger]

Like I said find another whipping boy.

You didn't have to say anything about it at all. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it (where have I heard that before?).

You posted (what appear to be) your articles of faith: the EU court and this "federal Europe" are "bad" and now you won't even try to defend that position or even offer the slightest hint as to why you think they are so bad that you'd risk so much to get rid of them. You also seem to want to repeat that the referendum should have settled the matter but you won't engage with the counterarguments.

You can shut up about it if you want but if you post opinions on the matter you can expect to have them challenged, and running away from that isn't a great look. It's not like you don't challenge people's ideas on this forum, is it?

[Spud]

Something from LBC just now: in politics, people are entitled to change their mind and vote differently in the future, but the result of a democratic vote has to be implemented or it is not democracy. So regarding the referendum, any further EU referenda must take place after we have implemented the result of the 2016 one.

[ippy]

Just won't engage will you?

Tell me what happened to the easiest trade deal in history?

Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.

Brexit is so contentious tossing a coin wouldn't be appropriate therefore perhaps on something as divisive the best solution could have been a referendum.

I would be as it seems to me that those that wish to remain are devastated by the result, I get it I do, just enjoy your Guardian or the radio TV version, the BBC of the same.

It wouldn't matter whatever I was to say about my reasons for wishing to leave an organisation that was foisted on us here in the UK without even having a say about ever closer union, nothing, it'd be one long wrangle that we'd be extremely unlikely have any areas of agreement.

I suppose like the general Guardian like bitterness will filter through trying to strike out at those that they seem to think have hurt them, it would be much the same visa versa.

I don't belong to any political party I don't like any of them enough to vote for any of them, in normal times, whatever normal is, I very seldom know where to put my X however I do buy a newspaper once a week on a Saturday I can't buy the Guardian or any other liberal paper they make me feel bad tempered with their generally unrealistic outlook, I don't buy the times because I don't knowingly buy anything that has Murdoch's hand on it I buy the Telegraph even though I don't particularly share any of it's political views but I do find its flog em and hang em approach to a lot of subjects really amusing + the Mat cartoon.

Anyway having shared that lot with you for no particular reason I'll add again I've no intention of being anyone's whipping boy no matter how bad your feelings are hurt by the referendum result.     

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

Something from LBC just now: in politics, people are entitled to change their mind and vote differently in the future, but the result of a democratic vote has to be implemented or it is not democracy. So regarding the referendum, any further EU referenda must take place after we have implemented the result of the 2016 one.

The problem in this case is that what was promised by the leave campaign turned out to be (was always, actually) impossible to deliver. To borrow from John Oliver, if you promise the electorate a unicorn and all you can come up with is a horse with an ice-cream cone glued to its forehead, you have a problem.

The closest thing that could have been delivered would have been a much closer relationship with the EU, like (as was talked about in the campaign) staying in the single market. If May had decided to compromise across parties, rather than appease the extremists in her own party, we would probably have left the EU by now and the result would have been implemented.

Crashing out of the EU with no deal has never been voted on and has no democratic mandate at all - and neither does Boris the Liar.

[Gordon]

Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.

It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.

In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.

Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.

[Stranger]

Anyway having shared that lot with you for no particular reason I'll add again I've no intention of being anyone's whipping boy no matter how bad your feelings are hurt by the referendum result.     

Frankly, you seem to be hiding behind this "oh your feelings have been hurt" line in order to avoid debate.

If only a small part of what most experts think will happen if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, actually happens, we will still be in deep trouble as a nation and yet you want to pretend it's all about emotions and people's feelings getting hurt.

There are real people whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened by this.

Emotionally, I'm almost tempted to hope that we do crash out, because actually seeing the consequences may be the only way many people will realise how they've been lied to, and, as a fantastic silver lining, it may sink the Tory party for a generation or more. Oh, and I get to say "we told you so".

Unfortunately, it's all too serious for that.

[jeremyp]

It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU

I didn't ask you about your reasons for wanting the leave the EU. I asked you for an example of a way in which you have been disadvantaged by being in the EU or alternatively, a way in which you personally will be advantaged by not being in the EU.

would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle so as I have said before this big disagreement is a no give way on either side argument tossing a coin wasn't a realistic direction to take so we had a referendum leave won and that should be the end of it.

I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about, this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.

All meaningles waffle because you can't answer my question.

As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.

The UK as a nation isn't clueless, it's just the Brexiteers that are clueless.

I do have some sympathy for the remaining side but I have to admit it's wearing very thin at the moment and again if the rolls were reversed I wouldn't be very happy either but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.

  ippy

Please stop trying to transfer the blame onto our shoulders.

[Spud]

The problem in this case is that what was promised by the leave campaign turned out to be (was always, actually) impossible to deliver. To borrow from John Oliver, if you promise the electorate a unicorn and all you can come up with is a horse with an ice-cream cone glued to its forehead, you have a problem.

The closest thing that could have been delivered would have been a much closer relationship with the EU, like (as was talked about in the campaign) staying in the single market. If May had decided to compromise across parties, rather than appease the extremists in her own party, we would probably have left the EU by now and the result would have been implemented.

Crashing out of the EU with no deal has never been voted on and has no democratic mandate at all - and neither does Boris the Liar.

Well, it was a leave or remain option, so no deal is technically delivering on the result. Much as I as a leave voter would now like to see article 50 revoked,  I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.

No deal can still be averted, however, if article 50 is extended, and parliament decides we stay in the single market as you suggest.

[Gordon]

I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.

So, Spud, voters in Scotland are being punished because voters elsewhere in the UK voted for the Tories: why should we in Scotland be made to face the consequences of that, and on what basis should we Scots repent since we didn't vote for the shower of fuckwits that have inflicted Brexit on us in the first place?

Yes I know Scotland is part of the UK - but this perhaps illustrates that the UK doesn't work any more.

[Spud]

Yes Gordon, thinking out loud: I wonder if the UK is necessary now that there is the EU?

Regarding your first paragraph, isn't this the disadvantage of democracy?

[Gordon]

Yes Gordon, thinking out loud: I wonder if the UK is necessary now that there is the EU?

Regarding your first paragraph, isn't this the disadvantage of democracy?

That rather depends on how democracy is arranged - it seems to me that the FPP approach is one problematic aspect, and another is that the four nations that comprise the UK aren't equitable in either political outlook or political party representation. In addition, in the case of Scotland, and aside from devolution, there are other important differences (the legal system being but one example).

[Outrider]

Well, it was a leave or remain option, so no deal is technically delivering on the result. Much as I as a leave voter would now like to see article 50 revoked,  I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.

As you've pointed out, though, in a 'bad' election you get to vote again three, four, five years later.  There is no going back on the EU departure, once we're out we're out and if we try to return we'll be held to a far, far less favourable deal than we currently have.  No rebate, chances are no Sterling, membership of the ERM...

No deal can still be averted, however, if article 50 is extended, and parliament decides we stay in the single market as you suggest.

Unfortunately, there's a hard-core of do-or-die Eurosceptics who are playing their hand very well with a range of disaffected voters who have had 'Leave' pitched at them as everything from patriotic freedom to sticking it up the London elite, and it's a tactic that's working.  Their lies are not being called out often enough because the same vested interests that benefit from Leave are the same interests that are funding the lying politicians and the deceitful media outlets that are failing to call them to account.

O.

[jeremyp]

chances are no Sterling, membership of the ERM...

ERM membership is not compulsory. This is somewhat bizarre because EU membership is compulsory and it is mandatory to be in the ERM before you join the Euro, but you don't have to join the ERM. Sweden is using this to avoid joining the Euro.

Unfortunately, there's a hard-core of do-or-die Eurosceptics who are playing their hand very well with a range of disaffected voters who have had 'Leave' pitched at them as everything from patriotic freedom to sticking it up the London elite, and it's a tactic that's working.  Their lies are not being called out often enough because the same vested interests that benefit from Leave are the same interests that are funding the lying politicians and the deceitful media outlets that are failing to call them to account.

Sigh

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.

Forget for a minute whether leaving is a good idea or a bad one and think about the referendum itself. We're told to treat it as a great exercise in democracy, and so it should be honoured come what may. To the contrary though, the exercise was such a corrupt one that, if it was an election for a parish council, it would be revoked and run again. Why?

1. Because few if any of the promises and statements made by the leave campaign were true. There never was £350m per week for the NHS, the German car industry never was going to tell Merkel what to do, the first negotiation never would have been in Berlin, there was no possibility of cherry picking from the four freedoms, there never was a technical solution to the Irish border problem, we could never have stayed in the customs market or in the singe market with the terms Farage et al demanded. You may have forgotten that pointing these things out was described at the time a "project fear", and now - incredibly - leave ministers are arguing instead that we knew all along we were voting to be worse off.

2. The leave campaign broke electoral funding law on at least two occasions, and there are serious questions still about some £7m of funding in respect of which all the records seem mysteriously to have disappeared. We have election funding rules for a reason, and yet somehow we're supposed it seems just to ignore that they were broken.

3. The question was so vaguely worded that no matter which of the various versions of it there could be - inside the single market/outside the single market, with a deal/ without a deal etc - each ignoramus, liar or vested interest merchant who argues for one of them will also claim "and that's what 17m people voted for". Necessarily, that cannot be true.

So no, I for one cannot be part of "bringing the country together" when my and, more importantly, my children's futures in Europe have been stolen from us by a corrupt process we're told we must respect for some reason.   
 

 

[Nearly Sane]

Other than it was always going to get attention, this is just a bizarre idea. It seems guaranteed just to annoy anyone who voted leave and many who didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49321430

[Gordon]

Interesting 'Long Read' in the Guardian today looking at 'Remainists'. One aspect that caught my attention was the feeling that the BBC were biased in favour of Brexit, whereas our ippy thinks the BBC has an anti-Brexit bias.

“Unfortunately, the BBC is no longer a source of truth for what’s going on in the country.” This has become a signature lament for remainists, who accuse the broadcaster of pro-Brexit bias. Andrew Adonis, a Labour peer and anti-Brexit campaigner, has been particularly critical of what he calls the “public disservice broadcaster”. He tweeted in May that “BBC News is so debased and biased, it should be replaced by a new independent news service”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote

[Aruntraveller]

I have long felt that the BBC were not neutral on Brexit and that they gave more time to extreme leave views than was representative.

They fall into the trap of presenting every statement of against/for as having equal validity.

Clearly not the case with issues like "the easiest trade deal in history".

Not that some people with highly effective blinkers are able to see this.