Brexit - the next steps

[Stranger]

I know I'm not a very likely candidate for any kind of literary prize this year or any other but I have said clearly why I'm not arguing with remainers, assuming my English is really is that terrible even so it can't be as bad as you seem to be indicating.

If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could just stop posting about it. As long as you keep posting your views and then refusing to enter into any discussion about them, I will go on pointing out that you have provided zero justification for them and that you seem to think it's OK for people to suffer to satisfy your abstract, pseudo-religious beliefs.

As I said before, just like the religions your views so resemble, and you so criticise in others, you seem to want to just preach and not be questioned or scrutinised.

[Udayana]

Arguing with friends about how to defeat Brexit, it strikes me that the only way is to defeat the Tories and have a Labour govt, which implements a referendum.  I am ignoring Swinson's fantasies about a Lib Dem govt, but I think tactical voting is important, I.e., vote for the 2nd party in a Tory seat.  Is there any other solution?  The idea of a right wing govt, deregulating things, lowering taxes, cutting social services, is horrible.

Yes - but leavers can also do the same wrt. Tories vs Farage's Brexit.

Swinson's plan seems bonkers let alone wrong. The only point in its favour is that it is simple - but even if every remainer voted LibDem she probably still wouldn't get a majority government.

[Udayana]

If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could just stop posting about it. As long as you keep posting your views and then refusing to enter into any discussion about them, I will go on pointing out that you have provided zero justification for them and that you seem to think it's OK for people to suffer to satisfy your abstract, pseudo-religious beliefs.

As I said before, just like the religions your views so resemble, and you so criticise in others, you seem to want to just preach and not be questioned or scrutinised.

To be fair, I can't remember Ippy actually providing a logical argument or explanatory reasoning for his views on any topic - just not his style?

[Harrowby Hall]

IF you think that is an answer there is no wonder you are so easily convinced by runaway Boris. The spirit of Churchill incarnate. 

If Boris were the spirit of Churchill incarnate then he would be supporting a united Europe.

[Nearly Sane]

Arguing with friends about how to defeat Brexit, it strikes me that the only way is to defeat the Tories and have a Labour govt, which implements a referendum.  I am ignoring Swinson's fantasies about a Lib Dem govt, but I think tactical voting is important, I.e., vote for the 2nd party in a Tory seat.  Is there any other solution?  The idea of a right wing govt, deregulating things, lowering taxes, cutting social services, is horrible.

A number of people I know who voted to remain are talking about accepting even a no deal in order for there to be a 'solution'. The problem is I can't see any possibility as a 'solution' now.

[Bramble]

I find it difficult to disagree in almost any way with Douglas Murray's view on most things, he's about as near as I can get to the point of view that makes the most sense to me.

I hadn't come across Murray so looked him up and was interested to read his explanation (in a Spectator blog) of why he found fears about a no-deal Brexit unconvincing. It was mainly because such fears tended to be expressed by Remainers! Well, who'd have guessed? Then I considered this elision of message and messenger in the context of some of your posts, like this one to Trent:

You would be thinking something like that, you're a remainer.

Do you see the circularity of this position? I suppose it's something we're all susceptible to, perhaps without even noticing it, and I wouldn't venture to suggest that Leavers are more inclined to it than Remainers, but it might help to explain why so many folk haven't budged with respect to their vote in the referendum, despite all that's happened since.

Reflex dismissal of any counter arguments to one's own view on the basis that one pre-judges those who make them as inherently unreliable (because they disagree with you) is a very convenient way of never having to challenge the veracity of ones own position, but the problems with this approach should hardly need elaboration.

It makes me think of the frequently quoted words often attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

[jeremyp]

A number of people I know who voted to remain are talking about accepting even a no deal in order for there to be a 'solution'. The problem is I can't see any possibility as a 'solution' now.

I think actually putting the Brexiteers through a no deal scenario is the only way to make them see the stupidity of the whole thing. It's just too depressing.

[Spud]

Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!

[ProfessorDavey]

Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out.

For whom ... the UK or Australia

[Christine]

I'm not rejecting anybody's views based on their stated position.  I'd like to know what "sovereignty" means to ippy and why he thinks the UK's has been compromised by being in the EU.  I'm starting to lose faith in ever getting an answer, though.

Currently the Tories don't seem to have a position on Brexit - some of them want to leave without a deal (presumably to avoid the tax transparency laws coming into force in January), but that's not the Prime Minister's stated position. 

The Lib Dems have a position, but it's based on a fantasy and would anyway, in my opinion, exacerbate the existing divisions in our country.  They also seem to have jettisoned any principles they had left over after supporting Cameron's government in its smash and grab on the non-wealthy (especially the poor) and now welcome any sitting MP into their party regardless of beliefs and objectives.

Labour says, unless I've completely misunderstood, that they will negotiate a new deal then put that to the electorate in a new referendum with an option to remain in the EU.  I think that is the only sensible approach.  If the country votes for the deal and we leave, I will be sad, but won't have a democratic leg to stand on to oppose it. 

If May had worked with the opposition in the first place to find a deal that would be acceptable to the HoC we could have left by now and again, I would have been sad about it, but what reasonable argument could I have made against it?

Leaving on 31st October without a deal would not end this fiasco.  If people want to stop talking about Brexit and get on with normal life again, they should be clamouring for Article 50 to be revoked.  Years, or possibly decades, of trade negotiations with countries we currently have advantageous deals with through the EU is a total waste of time, energy and taxpayers' money. 

The Independent is reporting that Dominic Cummings now has official authority to sack any minister's advisors. Blimey.

[Outrider]

Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!

He wrote an article last year on the topic in the Spectator, in which his opinion was based largely around this: "Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?"

Well, firstly, because being the fifth largest economy in the world has been achieved by being a part of the largest free-trade block in the world, but discounting that, how exactly are WTO rules working for Australia?

Australia currently has trade agreements which supersede WTO rules with: New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Chile, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, Philipines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Peru, and is negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, as well as agreements with the EU, the Gulf Co-operation Council, India and potentially the UK.

So WTO works for Australia, basically, when they make agreements which mean they don't have to operate under WTO rules when it comes to dealing with their closest economic partners/rivals and with the world's largest economies and economic groups...

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

I hadn't come across Murray so looked him up and was interested to read his explanation (in a Spectator blog) of why he found fears about a no-deal Brexit unconvincing. It was mainly because such fears tended to be expressed by Remainers! Well, who'd have guessed? Then I considered this elision of message and messenger in the context of some of your posts, like this one to Trent:

Do you see the circularity of this position? I suppose it's something we're all susceptible to, perhaps without even noticing it, and I wouldn't venture to suggest that Leavers are more inclined to it than Remainers, but it might help to explain why so many folk haven't budged with respect to their vote in the referendum, despite all that's happened since.

Reflex dismissal of any counter arguments to one's own view on the basis that one pre-judges those who make them as inherently unreliable (because they disagree with you) is a very convenient way of never having to challenge the veracity of ones own position, but the problems with this approach should hardly need elaboration.

It makes me think of the frequently quoted words often attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Excellent post.

However, in my case, the more facts that came to light, the more convinced a remainer I became. I'd originally thought that the Britain's (particularly Cornwall's) fisheries might be much better off if we left the EU. Cornwall did indeed predominantly vote 'leave' - now it seems that their fishermen have really shot themselves in the foot, since the very substantial grants they have been receiving from the EU would immediately cease with the implementation of Brexit.
Odd that the Welsh also predominantly voted 'leave', but I get the impression that a lot of them are at last coming to their senses as the full picture begins to emerge.

However, if the leavers keep on uttering their pathetic mantram "Do you think we were too stupid to understand what Brexit meant from the beginning?", I shall crawl into a vinegar bottle and pull down the stopper on myself.

[Dicky Underpants]

The Lib Dems have a position, but it's based on a fantasy and would anyway, in my opinion, exacerbate the existing divisions in our country.  They also seem to have jettisoned any principles they had left over after supporting Cameron's government in its smash and grab on the non-wealthy (especially the poor) and now welcome any sitting MP into their party regardless of beliefs and objectives.

As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.

[Nearly Sane]

Labour says, unless I've completely misunderstood, that they will negotiate a new deal then put that to the electorate in a new referendum with an option to remain in the EU.  I think that is the only sensible approach.  If the country votes for the deal and we leave, I will be sad, but won't have a democratic leg to stand on to oppose it. 

If May had worked with the opposition in the first place to find a deal that would be acceptable to the HoC we could have left by now and again, I would have been sad about it, but what reasonable argument could I have made against it?

The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.

And while May should have reached out, I also think Corbyn should have offered to work with the govt in getting a deal in return for supporting it.


I honestly see no action now that isn't hugely problematic.

[Nearly Sane]

As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.

It's bizarre for a number of reasons, first of all the idea that they might get elected on a much smaller % than the 52 % who voted leave, and then use the very vagaries of an electoral system that they have campaigned against to decide to ignore that vote, secondly touting the idea that even if a Scottish Govt were to be elected on a proportional system with a majority that there would be no mandate for a second  indy ref.

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent post.

However, in my case, the more facts that came to light, the more convinced a remainer I became. I'd originally thought that the Britain's (particularly Cornwall's) fisheries might be much better off if we left the EU. Cornwall did indeed predominantly vote 'leave' - now it seems that their fishermen have really shot themselves in the foot, since the very substantial grants they have been receiving from the EU would immediately cease with the implementation of Brexit.
Odd that the Welsh also predominantly voted 'leave', but I get the impression that a lot of them are at last coming to their senses as the full picture begins to emerge.

However, if the leavers keep on uttering their pathetic mantram "Do you think we were too stupid to understand what Brexit meant from the beginning?", I shall crawl into a vinegar bottle and pull down the stopper on myself.

To be fair, there is a section of Remain supporters who also offer the mantra that Leavers were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. Part of the issue here is seeing this as a simple dichotomy.

[jeremyp]

Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!

He was universally reviled in Australia for being an absolutely useless twat.

[jeremyp]

As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.

I voted for them for the first time in the last election because their policy was to revert article 50.

Whatever happens next, there will be divisions. If we leave, there will be bitter recriminations when people's loved ones start getting deported, NI descends into terrorism and Scotland starts screaming for independence. If we have another referendum and the Remainers win, the Brexiteers won't back down quietly. We can only hope that they keep their protests within the law.

[Spud]

He wrote an article last year on the topic in the Spectator, in which his opinion was based largely around this: "Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?"

Well, firstly, because being the fifth largest economy in the world has been achieved by being a part of the largest free-trade block in the world, but discounting that, how exactly are WTO rules working for Australia?

Australia currently has trade agreements which supersede WTO rules with: New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Chile, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, Philipines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Peru, and is negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, as well as agreements with the EU, the Gulf Co-operation Council, India and potentially the UK.

So WTO works for Australia, basically, when they make agreements which mean they don't have to operate under WTO rules when it comes to dealing with their closest economic partners/rivals and with the world's largest economies and economic groups...

O.

This suggests that although the UK would be seriously affected by WTO rules for some time, it could recover once the various trade deals have been done?

[Nearly Sane]

This suggests that although the UK would be seriously affected by WTO rules for some time, it could recover once the various trade deals have been done?

It suggests that Abbott was lying

[Spud]

The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.

Assuming they can get a deal, I'm not sure why being neutral in a referendum campaign would be a problem?

[Nearly Sane]

Assuming they can get a deal, I'm not sure why being neutral in a referendum campaign would be a problem?

(A) I said it's not clear what their position would be, not that they would be being neutral. (B) if you negotiate a position and then don't support the thing you negotiated why would anyone trust you.

[Aruntraveller]

Australians could get freedom of movement. Tell me again how wanting to stop freedom of movement wasn't racist?

[Gordon]

As NS says there is no way out of this now that isn't going to cause ructions.

Since any form of Brexit, be it soft, hard or no deal, is going to disadvantage all of us, and even if it happens no doubt some Brexit supporters might find that that whatever form of Brexit finally emerges isn't to their personal taste, and of course many don't support Brexit at all in any form, then my preference would be to end up with A50 being revoked: yes it will annoy some, but no matter what the outcome Brexit has proved so divisive it seems that some will be annoyed anyway so maybe we have to see that annoyance play outwhile avoiding the downsides of Brexit (there are no upsides of Brexit) by staying in the EU.

The current situation is made worse by a PM who is an incompetent (like the rest of his government) liar - indeed he is so useless that he can't even lie with competence.   

[Spud]

(A) I said it's not clear what their position would be, not that they would be being neutral. (B) if you negotiate a position and then don't support the thing you negotiated why would anyone trust you.

B) supporting something by voting for it isn't the same as campaigning for it. Corbyn seems to want Brexit but isn't against remaining in if that's what the majority want, so I think he's on the right track.