-
@Paekakboyz said in Brexit:
I pity the poor students of the future who have to study this shitshow and come up with coherent analysis, as it feels like it's all over the bloody shop. At least to this layperson!
Yep. And to think I struggled with something simple like The Battle of the Three Kingdoms.....
-
@Paekakboyz said in Brexit:
This is a right mind-fuck.
It is truly staggering to hear MP's dismissing the result of a referendum, arguing for second and/or third referendums or arguing for the referendum result to be ignored.
MPs really seem to have lost their common sense and are running around like headless chickens with no thought of the consequences of their actions.
The vox pop is that voters are getting seriously pissed off with MPs both trying to find ways to frustrate the result of a referendum and purist Brexit MPs not willing to accept any reasonable deal.
-
@Victor-Meldrew I guess that depends who wins doesn’t it. There seems to be an assumption that a second referendum necessarily results in a remain vote.
I think a second referendum would probably give the same result (unless they give two leave options and the vote gets split). People seem to just want to get on with it. And if the referendum is on concrete proposals then the government will have a direct mandate. As it currently stands, they cannot agree on what they have a mandate for which is why the shit show keeps dragging on.
-
At the risk of adding some levity to this thread Straight Outta Compton/Brexit mashup
-
No deal Brexit defeated, albeit narrowly. So no deal and no no deal. What a fuck up.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
Brexiteers (Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, David Davis) were put in charge of the process
It's a complete myth they were put in charge of the process and that's the problem.
The negotiations were handled (in secret) by Theresa May and Ollie Robbins - a senior civil servant. The first time Brexiteers like Michael Gove, Liam Fox & David David heard about May's Chequers plan for withdrawal was when she presented to Cabinet - and Davis was Brexit Secretary, FFS. That's why the likes of David Davis & Dominic Rabb resigned - May shut them out of the process.
The current Brexit mess is mainly down to May. She has made a complete pig's ear of this and has alienating everyone by changing her mind continuously and with breath-taking incompetence. Just look at the current fiasco where she hailed Tuesday's agreement as sorting out the backstop issue without having it checked legally first.
The other view on that is that they deliberately stayed clear of the process to avoid being tainted. I think it was reported that David Davis only attended half a day of negotiations for his whole stint as Brexit secretary. (Raab, to be fair, came in when it was pretty much all sewn up.)
-
I am very surprised that it was that close. They were a gnats hair away from a no deal exit. I think (just guessing) that if the EU refuses to extend, and it becomes a choice of cancelling Brexit or no deal... then at least 4 MP's will change their vote.
And as for the claim made earier that Honda left becuase of Brexit.. that is just typoical of the dishonest narratives that ahve plagued this whole discussion. Remainers complain about the Leave side not being honest, yet are guilty of exactly the same thing. Honda leaving was not because of Brexit, only a few outlets like the Guardian have been pushing that. Direct from the company.
A few posters on this thread like @MajorRage and @Catogrande I disagree with quite strongly on Brexi, but I think their criticism of the process is spot on.
-
@Victor-Meldrew I guess that depends who wins doesn’t it. There seems to be an assumption that a second referendum necessarily results in a remain vote.
I think a second referendum would probably give the same result (unless they give two leave options and the vote gets split). People seem to just want to get on with it. And if the referendum is on concrete proposals then the government will have a direct mandate. As it currently stands, they cannot agree on what they have a mandate for which is why the shit show keeps dragging on.
I don't think you get it. No-one on the Remain side stated they wanted a second referendum on the final deal with an option to remain in the EU - until they lost.
Just look at how Leave voters were attacked as feckless single mothers, benefit claimants, xenophobes , racists & bigots by Remainers
The public isn't stupid. They know the Remain campaign & Remain MPs will never respect the views of the electorate unless they vote the way they want them to.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew I guess that depends who wins doesn’t it. There seems to be an assumption that a second referendum necessarily results in a remain vote.
I think a second referendum would probably give the same result (unless they give two leave options and the vote gets split). People seem to just want to get on with it. And if the referendum is on concrete proposals then the government will have a direct mandate. As it currently stands, they cannot agree on what they have a mandate for which is why the shit show keeps dragging on.
I don't think you get it. No-one on the Remain side stated they wanted a second referendum on the final deal with an option to remain in the EU - until they lost.
Just look at how Leave voters were attacked as feckless single mothers, benefit claimants, xenophobes , racists & bigots by Remainers
The public isn't stupid. They know the Remain campaign & Remain MPs will never respect the views of the electorate unless they vote the way they want them to.
Even worse is the Labor proposal. The only 2 options on a second referendum, Mays deal or Remain... FFS. It is almost like UK MP's are fighting to be the most retarded.
If you have any kind of integrity towards respecting the first referendum, any second referendum would be between Mays deal and no deal. -
The other view on that is that they deliberately stayed clear of the process to avoid being tainted.
I'm sorry, but that is laughable. Davis was sidelined from the start by May. He was working on a Trade deal with the EU which May simply tossed into the rubbish bin just before she presented the Chequers deal.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Brexit:
The way I see it, the remainers should have handed over the keys to the leavers and told them to put up or shut up. How can you have a PM in charge of this process who would reverse the result of the vote in an instance if she had the chance?
Brexiteers (Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, David Davis) were put in charge of the process. They all quit when they discovered that the EU wouldn't give them what they had promised that they could get. Turns out negotiation is about compromise ... who knew?
Given the response below, how much of that is actually true? Seems there is a shit load of misinformation going on in this thread.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew I guess that depends who wins doesn’t it. There seems to be an assumption that a second referendum necessarily results in a remain vote.
I think a second referendum would probably give the same result (unless they give two leave options and the vote gets split). People seem to just want to get on with it. And if the referendum is on concrete proposals then the government will have a direct mandate. As it currently stands, they cannot agree on what they have a mandate for which is why the shit show keeps dragging on.
I don't think you get it. No-one on the Remain side stated they wanted a second referendum on the final deal with an option to remain in the EU - until they lost.
Just look at how Leave voters were attacked as feckless single mothers, benefit claimants, xenophobes , racists & bigots by Remainers
The public isn't stupid. They know the Remain campaign & Remain MPs will never respect the views of the electorate unless they vote the way they want them to.
Even worse is the Labor proposal. The only 2 options on a second referendum, Mays deal or Remain... FFS. It is almost like UK MP's are fighting to be the most retarded.
If you have any kind of integrity towards respecting the first referendum, any second referendum would be between Mays deal and no deal.Pretty much. There is serious anger at the antics of people on both sides of the debate. Very, very few coming out with any credit.
Labour's Customs Union proposal is staggeringly ill-thought out. Labour seems to think they can influence EU trade policy when the likes of Germany and France can't (It's the result of an ECJ ruling that only the EU Commision can negotiate trade deals).
E.g, the EU-US TTP Free Trade deal foundered (amongst other things) on the UK objecting to US Health companies having access to the NHS. With Trump threatening big tariffs on EU car exports as a lever to prise open the protectionist EU market, only a complete loon would think the EU would sacrifice it's car exports to keep US health companies from taking over parts of the NHS....
But there's plenty of loons in the Labour party.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Brexit:
I am very surprised that it was that close. They were a gnats hair away from a no deal exit. I think (just guessing) that if the EU refuses to extend, and it becomes a choice of cancelling Brexit or no deal... then at least 4 MP's will change their vote.
And as for the claim made earier that Honda left becuase of Brexit.. that is just typoical of the dishonest narratives that ahve plagued this whole discussion. Remainers complain about the Leave side not being honest, yet are guilty of exactly the same thing. Honda leaving was not because of Brexit, only a few outlets like the Guardian have been pushing that. Direct from the company.
A few posters on this thread like @MajorRage and @Catogrande I disagree with quite strongly on Brexi, but I think their criticism of the process is spot on.
My bad. I meant Nissan (Sunderland) not Honda (Swindon).
Those jap cars all look alike.
And no, Brexit wasn’t the main or only reason for pulling X-trail manufacturing but was cited as a contributing factor both from the uncertainty aspect and because the new EU/Japan trade deal means it makes more sense to pull production back to Japan as the UK is no longer needed or desirable.
The point of the original comment was an example of entrenched yet unfounded views. Only days before the announcement and locals closely associated with the plant were claiming that they knew things would be good because their work was valued over complications of trade. Got it wrong.
I’m sure there will be views of remainders proved wrong after leaving as well. -
His resignation letter (2nd para) refers to being sidelined by May.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/david-davis-why-i-quit/
and he refers to the alternative proposals his department was working on in his letter to MPs (bottom final page)
-
EU/Japan trade deal means it makes more sense to pull production back to Japan as the UK is no longer needed or desirable.
And that's the real elephant in the room.
The EU is becoming increasingly uncompetitive as the economic centre of gravity moves to Asia Pacific and it's "Fortress Europe" protectionist trade policy is coming under attack from both Trump and growing economies.
Does the UK strike out on it's own (it's traditionally been more Free trade than other EU countries) or does it stick with the EU with it's shrinking share of world trade and try to reform it from within?
-
@Victor-Meldrew EU has signed or negotiated some pretty decent non protectionist treaties in recent years such as Japan, Singapore and Canada along with plenty under negotiations such as NZ and Australia.
TPP has obviously stalled due to the US but it is coming down to the UK finding itself siding with the yanks or Europe.
Europe just makes way more sense both geographically and for access to Asia at present. Sure the Eurocrats are dicks but they will always have to be playing by someone’s rules, if not Europe’s then the US.
The two are so far apart on many standards that trying to play on both teams will be a nightmare especially for manufacturers and farmers. -
I think the EU has been forced to do FTA with other countries as it's economic power wanes quite rapidly - it isn't doing deals from a position of strength. The EU rebuffed India for years and has now probably missed the chance of a FTA with one of the fasted growing countries - despite cosying up to Modi recently.
The ideal for the UK, post-Brexit, is a FTA with the EU but better than the somewhat limited EU - Canada/Japan/Singapore deals - and also deals with the likes of India and the US.
There's a huge opportunity/prize post-Brexit for the UK, but the tossers on both sides of the divide seem to either want to stick to the EU with it's shrinking share of world trade or think there's a magic trade unicorn beyond the Mediterranean
-
The two are so far apart on many standards that trying to play on both teams will be a nightmare especially for manufacturers and farmers.
Fair comment, but you still have varying standards, James Dyson made a comment on the EU "Single Market" - he makes as many versions of his vacuum cleaners for sale in Europe as he does for the rest of the world put together.
The EU Single Market is a bit of a myth in many ways. It doesn't cover services, for example, and from professional experience, it's easier for a UK company to sell insurance in India or Canada than France or Spain
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Paekakboyz said in Brexit:
This is a right mind-fuck.
It is truly staggering to hear MP's dismissing the result of a referendum, arguing for second and/or third referendums or arguing for the referendum result to be ignored.
MPs really seem to have lost their common sense and are running around like headless chickens with no thought of the consequences of their actions.
The vox pop is that voters are getting seriously pissed off with MPs both trying to find ways to frustrate the result of a referendum and purist Brexit MPs not willing to accept any reasonable deal.
I'm hearing this a lot and I'll have to think about whether it holds water. The first complication is that there is no requirement in British law to recognise the outcome of referenda at all. They are at best a way to gauge the temperature of the electorate. The Brexit referendum wasn't required to be had at all and a second or subsequent referendum will have just as much legal status as the first, i.e. none. The referendum was actioned at the pleasure of the Government and if they ignore it, repeat it, run another one or try to execute its outcome is once again at the pleasure of the Government. From what I can tell there is nothing at all stopping the Government from running another for any reason or none. And they can ignore that one too if they don't like it until they get a result that suits them then say that is the most significant vote.
The second thing is that votes supersede previous votes all the time. That is how elections work. A party has a manifesto pledge, gets elected (thereby making the manifesto pledge "the will of the people"), and tries and fails to enact it into law but that doesn't stop anybody, including themselves, from campaigning on a completely contrary platform 3 years later (I know, 5 in the UK). Every vote is a fresh start and there is nothing stopping a Government from calling a new one whenever it likes. In fact the main advantage to holding the Treasury benches is that you get to decide when and how the next vote happens even if you fuck it up like May did.
The recourse for the electorate is not to vote for them the next time. The evil genius in this case is that there was never a clear party line delineation between Leave and Remain, so none of the voters knows which party to turf out on their arse for being obstructive or supportive. The shit literally gets spread in an even layer across every party, and everybody smells the same. It really is a lesson in how to antagonise the greatest number of people until they lose patience with the entire process.
-
There are some good points there JC, but to argue from that perspective you would have to accept that if a party held power and unilaterally wanted to exit the EU one sunny Wendsday there is no compelling reason to go right about it, and if the electorate doesn't like it - wait for the next election. Some things have long lasting repercussions, where genies can't be put back in the bottle... for that reason things (rightly) go to referendums to gauge the will of the people.
It's referred to as the Westminster tradition, not the Westminster Well-Technically...
They took something to the people, the people voted, now the parliament has to act in good faith to execute on that.
Brexit