-
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
So May wins the confidence vote 200 - 117.
Would you say that makes her position stronger than before the no confidence vote was forced? I'm thinking yes. Whilst it's not good to have 33% odd of your own party having no confidence it is still a pretty large margin of support.
I am not sure. But I think she only survived by promising to resign before the next election.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
So May wins the confidence vote 200 - 117.
Would you say that makes her position stronger than before the no confidence vote was forced? I'm thinking yes. Whilst it's not good to have 33% odd of your own party having no confidence it is still a pretty large margin of support.
Here it would be an overwhelming display of support for the PM.
-
@catogrande There can't be another No Confidence vote for 12 months so it gives her time to push through whatever she wants / can unencumbered by the threat of being rolled. She still has to win in parliament but I think her position has been strengthened somewhat - particularly as she's fucking off.
I'm with MiketheSnow - not a fan of May per se but having been foolish enough to grasp the poisoned chalice have a grudging regard (respect / admiration go too far) for her sticktoitiveness.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
So May wins the confidence vote 200 - 117.
Would you say that makes her position stronger than before the no confidence vote was forced? I'm thinking yes. Whilst it's not good to have 33% odd of your own party having no confidence it is still a pretty large margin of support.
I don't know if it changes anything. The Tories who made it clear they wouldn't vote for her agreement are no more likely to soften their position in light of this vote are they? I'm sure a decent number of the MPs - even ones who gave her their confidence vote - aren't over the moon with her management of the process. Then there are others who simply don't like the deal. Finally there are the opportunists who just want to stab whoever is leader as a way to get themselves into the top job. Between them its unlikely her job is going to get any easier. And that's without mentioning the Euro warriors who seem intent on humiliating her as a way of punishing the uppity Brits.
-
Fascinates me that MPs are prepared to vote for change when no credible candidate and/or direction has been offered.
So it could well have been a case of don't like May, vote her out, and now what the fuck do we do?
Baffling.
-
Also brings to light is it a case of
- May, a Conservative, using her party and position to enact her wishes
or
- May enacting the wishes of her party and its members?
-
@jc Thanks for detailed response on the Irish border issue. My knowledge in this area isn't great but for my own clarity then the most pressing issue is a likely return to terrorist violence if any form of border is put in place?
I know it's only been 20 years since the last attack but could tensions have reduced at all since? Have organisations made threats to a return to violence, do the younger generation still have that level of hostility? My few Irish friends are anti-EU/pro-Brexit, but they are in their 20's so maybe not as impacted by the past.
As for the issue with a soft border potentially a weakspot for illegal immigration, UK Brexiteers I know don't really care, it's not ideal but the whole situation isn't ideal and they just want to be out and this would still be a huge improvement. Surely additional resources could be put into NI to help mitigate against this issue without having to be on the border itself. I know there are existing visa 'spot checks' etc at UK airports, is it physical structures people are more opposed to than potential checks at airports? I kind of feel we are getting to the point where domestic flights are already getting increasingly strict.
Happy to bow to a better understanding of the political issues there.
-
@rembrandt said in Brexit:
@jc Thanks for detailed response on the Irish border issue. My knowledge in this area isn't great but for my own clarity then the most pressing issue is a likely return to terrorist violence if any form of border is put in place?
I know it's only been 20 years since the last attack but could tensions have reduced at all since? Have organisations made threats to a return to violence, do the younger generation still have that level of hostility? My few Irish friends are anti-EU/pro-Brexit, but they are in their 20's so maybe not as impacted by the past.
As for the issue with a soft border potentially a weakspot for illegal immigration, UK Brexiteers I know don't really care, it's not ideal but the whole situation isn't ideal and they just want to be out and this would still be a huge improvement. Surely additional resources could be put into NI to help mitigate against this issue without having to be on the border itself. I know there are existing visa 'spot checks' etc at UK airports, is it physical structures people are more opposed to than potential checks at airports? I kind of feel we are getting to the point where domestic flights are already getting increasingly strict.
Happy to bow to a better understanding of the political issues there.
I'll admit to a bit of oversensitivity on this one. My Mum's cousin's son was killed in Omagh for the crime of being 8. The problem as I see it isn't that the issues are particularly complex to resolve, rather that none of the parties are prepared to concede anything. From what I could see the joint membership of an entity at a layer above the state level made it possible for the two sides to coexist without any loss of face. You're right that if everybody wanted to make it work then it could. But many don't want either the peace process or the Brexit to work.
Even the UK MPs are perfectly happy to see everything burn if it gets them an advantage. Add in the religion, nationalism and history of the Irish and the whole thing just seems insurmountable. I can't believe the architects of the exit campaign didn't ask of themselves "what about Northern Ireland?" right at the beginning, taking it as read that both sides would fight them all the way.
-
@jc Very understandable, its easy to forget with the current Islamic terrorism problems that their were similar very significant issues in Britain not too many years. I read a great book recently by a Dr Fred Luskin who detailed an experiment he ran in Northern Ireland where he put mothers whose sons had been killed in this violence through a forgiveness course he designed. The results were very positive and gives some real hope for these world problems which seem to be doomed to escalate forever, but yes when it comes to politicians this isn't often the priority.
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Too late to talk about the way it should have been handled.
Obviously you can't change the past - but the current situation shouldn't be divorced from how we got here. Once the ballot was taken and results known there have been obstructionists, people acting in bad faith and parties completely willing to intentionally sabotage the negotiations in order to get a revote.
To sit back and say "look at the mess we are currently in, let's take the easy way out" actively rewards the forces that actively sandbagged and worked against the will of the nation.
Can you name these obstructionists etc? Who has intentionally sabotaged negotiations?
It is probably an unsatisfactory answer but anyone in the parliament or public life who has worked against the will of the people for Brexit since the vote was taken.
-
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Too late to talk about the way it should have been handled.
Obviously you can't change the past - but the current situation shouldn't be divorced from how we got here. Once the ballot was taken and results known there have been obstructionists, people acting in bad faith and parties completely willing to intentionally sabotage the negotiations in order to get a revote.
To sit back and say "look at the mess we are currently in, let's take the easy way out" actively rewards the forces that actively sandbagged and worked against the will of the nation.
Can you name these obstructionists etc? Who has intentionally sabotaged negotiations?
It is probably an unsatisfactory answer but anyone in the parliament or public life who has worked against the will of the people for Brexit since the vote was taken.
Or anyone in the EU negotiating team. They’ve hardly gone out of their way to make this a no fault divorce have they?
-
Often with such complicated issues it is good to break them down into a more understandable format. So here we have Brexit - the omelette problem.
LEAVER: I want an omelette.
REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.
LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]
REMAINER: They’re in the cake.
LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.
REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.
LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.
REMAINER: Icing is good.
LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.
DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.
DAVID CAMERON: OK.
DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.
LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?
REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.
LEAVER: Well, get them out.
EU: It’s our cake.
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.
REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?
LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.
REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?
LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.
THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.
REMAINER: How?
THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.
REMAINER: Yeah, but…
LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.
EU: It’s our cake.
REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.
LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.
REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.
LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.
REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?
LEAVER: You lost, get over it.
THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.
REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?
THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.
REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.
EU: It’s our cake.
LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.
REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.
LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.
REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.
LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.
-
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
Often with such complicated issues it is good to break them down into a more understandable format. So here we have Brexit - the omelette problem.
LEAVER: I want an omelette.
REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.
SnIp
Is that supposed to funny, informing, accurate or even mildy amusing? Because it fails on all fronts.
-
Quite an interesting summary of some of the different options for a “people’s vote” in today’s Times:
A “People’s Vote” has been presented as an outcome in itself but there are at least nine potential referendums.
- SIMPLE REMAIN/LEAVE VOTE
Fails to address the main argument for another vote, to explain what “leave” really means, and is open to the accusation that people are being asked again in the hope of getting a different result.
Estimated result (based on average of past five polls by Kantar, ComRes and YouGov): Remain 52 per cent, Leave 48.
- BINARY REFERENDUM: REMAIN V NO-DEAL BREXIT
The argument for it is that if May’s compromise option is defeated it ceases to be an option, so the people should be offered the two visions.
Estimated result (YouGov): Remain 52, Leave 48.
- BINARY REFERENDUM: REMAIN V MAY’S DEAL
The argument for this format is that this deal is the only realistic Brexit on offer.
Estimated result (YouGov) Remain 50, Leave 50.
- BINARY REFERENDUM: DEAL V NO DEAL
Little chance of this — it would not get past MPs without a Remain option being included.
Estimated result (YouGov): Deal 65, no deal 35.
- TWO-STAGE REFERENDUM
Remain v Leave, followed by a “deal or no deal” follow-up question if Leave wins.
This suffers from a major flaw: if Leave wins the first question, it would be undemocratic to restrict the choice of what type of Brexit we have to Leave voters.
Estimated result: Remain.
- THREE-OPTION REFERENDUM REMAIN V DEAL V NO DEAL (FIRST PAST THE POST)
This would not happen as the Leave vote would be split in two, so the format is unfair.
Estimated result: Remain 46.2 per cent, deal 27.1, no deal 26.6.
- THREE-OPTION REFERENDUM REMAIN V DEAL V NO DEAL (AV)
Voters rank their preferences, the losing option is removed and its votes are reassigned until one option passes 50 per cent.
Estimated result (YouGov): Inconclusive.
- THREE-OPTION REFERENDUM REMAIN V DEAL V NO DEAL (CONDORCET METHOD)
Voters are asked to rank their preferences and then the results are reduced to three theoretical head-to-heads.
Estimated result (YouGov): Inconclusive.
- THREE-OPTION REFERENDUM REMAIN V DEAL V NO DEAL (BUCKLIN VOTING)
Voters rank their preferences and if one gains 50 per cent on the first round they win. If they don’t, all the second preferences count.
Estimated result (YouGov) May’s deal wins, with 87.4 per cent acceding to it as first or second choice, compared with 55.9 per cent for Remain and 47.8 per cent for no deal.
Freddie Sayers is the founder of PoliticsHome and a former editor-in-chief of YouGov.
- SIMPLE REMAIN/LEAVE VOTE
-
EU have now signed a major trade and services deal with Japan. A nice buffer for the loss of the UK and a poke in the eye to those that say the best way for the UK to get trade deals around the world is to get out of the EU.
I think, although I may be wrong here as it gets complicated, that this also makes a UK trading situation with Japan under WTO (no deal option) in a worse position. Certainly the car industry will be sweating on having their plants moved to Europe.If the Japan deal is ratified before the UK leaves then it will apply to the UK after leaving (with a re-write) but, and it's the big but, cars assembled in the UK then have to enter Europe under tariffs.All gets very messy.
-
@rembrandt said in Brexit:
Seriously, for those advocating no deal, what’s your plan for Northern Ireland?
Soft Border with the extra protections described in the link. Make it public that is Britains intention, if the EU kick up a stink then it is totally on them. They are the ones in real trouble here, do they really want to piss off another member?
I’m sorry but that is one of the most facile things I have read on the issue. Reducing the Irish problem to “trade arrangements” is either disingenuous or deluded. The problem isn’t moving goods and services, it is, and always has been, the expectations of the populations of two separate nations occupying one island.
Some (the republicans) demand free movement throughout the island. They have proven over the course of decades that they will resort to murder and terrorism to bring that about and they only stopped because of the Good Friday Agreement. And that was only possible because mutual membership of the EU made the border effectively redundant.
But you have others (the loyalists) who are rabidly pro unionist. They will not stand for a border of any description between Ulster and the mainland and their parliamentary representatives, the DUP have already expressed that. There’s no border between Wales and England, so why do Northern Irish get second class citizenship status, being made to feel like non-UK citizens? And loyalists have been just as violent as the republicans in the past.
Note how, though, the UKIP mouthpieces you linked to avoid mentioning that altogether, yet without it how the fuck will the UK ever be able to stem migration - which let’s face it a majority of Brexit voters wanted ahead of everything else -when anybody who sets foot in Ireland can walk across the soft border to NI then make their way to the mainland at their leisure without further checks?
This though: “Although there is no explicit obstacle to a hard border in the Good Friday Agreement, it could be seen, and is certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit, as being contrary to the ‘Spirit of Concord’ and the undertaking to remove security installations, though the latter refers specifically to military installations and not civil ones.
A hard border, then, is not prohibited by the peace agreement, though it is undesirable and, more to the point, completely unnecessary.“ ... This takes the cake. No it’s not prohibited. The UK can impose it whenever it wants. But it comes with bombs, carnage and murder, same as it did for 80 years. But hey, someone has to be prepared to take one for Team UK, it’s for the greater good and fuck ‘me, they’re only Irish eh?“certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit”. No, it’s being presented as a barrier by angry madmen with guns who will murder or maim your children in a heartbeat. UKIP can reduce it to ideology if they want. But the suggestion that this can be overcome through goodwill is laughable. These people have never shown goodwill in their lives.
Utter, utter bollocks.
Isn't the problem with this the same concept as pandering to radical Islamists as discussed at length in the other thread? i.e. law-abiding people having to modify their behaviour / restrict freedoms because other people want to break the law / threaten violence?
Playing devil's advocate here a bit, but Eire and NI are two different countries, and the generic default for this situation globally is a border. Obviously due to history etc its been desirable to give people free movement of the entire island of Ireland, but that isn't feasible now with Brexit. At what point do you just have to back law enforcement / counterterrorism, and hope that societies evolve over generations away from violence?
I know its a very emotive issue for some people, not trying to wind anyone up, my wife is Irish and British so I'm cognisant of the historic issues.
-
@rembrandt said in Brexit:
Seriously, for those advocating no deal, what’s your plan for Northern Ireland?
Soft Border with the extra protections described in the link. Make it public that is Britains intention, if the EU kick up a stink then it is totally on them. They are the ones in real trouble here, do they really want to piss off another member?
I’m sorry but that is one of the most facile things I have read on the issue. Reducing the Irish problem to “trade arrangements” is either disingenuous or deluded. The problem isn’t moving goods and services, it is, and always has been, the expectations of the populations of two separate nations occupying one island.
Some (the republicans) demand free movement throughout the island. They have proven over the course of decades that they will resort to murder and terrorism to bring that about and they only stopped because of the Good Friday Agreement. And that was only possible because mutual membership of the EU made the border effectively redundant.
But you have others (the loyalists) who are rabidly pro unionist. They will not stand for a border of any description between Ulster and the mainland and their parliamentary representatives, the DUP have already expressed that. There’s no border between Wales and England, so why do Northern Irish get second class citizenship status, being made to feel like non-UK citizens? And loyalists have been just as violent as the republicans in the past.
Note how, though, the UKIP mouthpieces you linked to avoid mentioning that altogether, yet without it how the fuck will the UK ever be able to stem migration - which let’s face it a majority of Brexit voters wanted ahead of everything else -when anybody who sets foot in Ireland can walk across the soft border to NI then make their way to the mainland at their leisure without further checks?
This though: “Although there is no explicit obstacle to a hard border in the Good Friday Agreement, it could be seen, and is certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit, as being contrary to the ‘Spirit of Concord’ and the undertaking to remove security installations, though the latter refers specifically to military installations and not civil ones.
A hard border, then, is not prohibited by the peace agreement, though it is undesirable and, more to the point, completely unnecessary.“ ... This takes the cake. No it’s not prohibited. The UK can impose it whenever it wants. But it comes with bombs, carnage and murder, same as it did for 80 years. But hey, someone has to be prepared to take one for Team UK, it’s for the greater good and fuck ‘me, they’re only Irish eh?“certainly being presented as a barrier by those ideologically opposed to Brexit”. No, it’s being presented as a barrier by angry madmen with guns who will murder or maim your children in a heartbeat. UKIP can reduce it to ideology if they want. But the suggestion that this can be overcome through goodwill is laughable. These people have never shown goodwill in their lives.
Utter, utter bollocks.
Isn't the problem with this the same concept as pandering to radical Islamists as discussed at length in the other thread? i.e. law-abiding people having to modify their behaviour / restrict freedoms because other people want to break the law / threaten violence?
Playing devil's advocate here a bit, but Eire and NI are two different countries, and the generic default for this situation globally is a border. Obviously due to history etc its been desirable to give people free movement of the entire island of Ireland, but that isn't feasible now with Brexit. At what point do you just have to back law enforcement / counterterrorism, and hope that societies evolve over generations away from violence?
I know its a very emotive issue for some people, not trying to wind anyone up, my wife is Irish and British so I'm cognisant of the historic issues.
I'm no expert on the troubles but one of the biggest problems is that 'solution' you come up with. The border area itself is 'blended' and putting up a wall and/or relocating people almost always leads to further problems down the track.
I get that it is a shit situation created by history and religion but it is well established and the proof in the pudding is that having no border has worked better than having one.
Brexit