Brexit

The talks and negotiations.

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Brexit

#9261  Postby Ironclad » Sep 18, 2019 9:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Peaceful protestors at a press conference? Run away!


No, no, they weren't peaceful protesters. It was apparently all a set-up press trap via rent-a-crowd. :crazy:
For me, it did look staged. If you've spent much time in Luxembourg you could understand why.
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 22928
Age: 50
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9262  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 18, 2019 9:21 pm

Ironclad wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Peaceful protestors at a press conference? Run away!


No, no, they weren't peaceful protesters. It was apparently all a set-up press trap via rent-a-crowd. :crazy:
For me, it did look staged. If you've spent much time in Luxembourg you could understand why.

How, exactly, did it look staged?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30129
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9263  Postby ronmcd » Sep 18, 2019 9:24 pm

Beatsong wrote:Ron, I'm curious why Labour "taking a position" as a party for Remain is so important to you. If I understand correctly you support the idea of a second referendum. Corbyn is intent on making sure that's between Remain and a form of Leave that would fuck the country as little as possible. That being so, you basically get what you want. Surely whether "Labour" as an institution express one view or other within that is only of symbolic importance? It's the people who will vote.

As I've been saying for a while, I think not having an easy to explain position on brexit in a GE simply about brexit won't encourage voters to vote Labour. Worse, when there are strong remain and strong leave options, I'm not sure who is going to vote for Labour with any enthusiasm. For a policy that looks like trying to win votes from both leave and remain by appearing to support both/neither.

What is the principle people would be voting for?

Beatsong wrote:And it's not like Labour defining themselves as pro-Remain is going to make anyone believe that Kate Hoey or Dennis Skinnner are anyway.

But nobody votes for a party based on the nutters/outliers in that party.

Beatsong wrote:Isn't Labour reserving the right to whatever position, or non-position, they consider politically best for them a reasonable price to pay for them giving you, practically speaking, pretty much the exact outcome you want?

Is that the selling point, the pitch, the USP to the voters? Labour reserving the right to whatever position or non-position they consider politically best for them? What does Labour believe? Propose that as a simple straightforward policy.

Me, I'd like a new referendum. I'd also like to cancel brexit tomorrow without a referendum. But I'm not in favour of it, as it's undemocratic. I'm not sure either option that I would *like* are reasonable.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9264  Postby ronmcd » Sep 18, 2019 9:34 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
mrjonno wrote:Corbyn new policy on Brexit, to stay neutral but will negotiate a deal and it put it against remain in a 2nd referendum.
Will implement whatever is decided.

That is actually a very clever political policy, it will get remainers on board.....

2 weeks ago it was very unlikely to get a large % of remainers when there were explicit remain options elsewhere, ie libdems greens snp plaid.

Now, what Swinson has done is made Labour *seem* moderate to many remain voters, rather than confused as before.

Amazing.


I'm a bit confused ron. Don't you want labour to take strongly remain position?

I would think you would at least like them to move into the ground the lib dems have vacated : bollocks to brexit via a peoples' vote.

Corbyn has been consistently moderate throughout. What do you want them to do? Follow the lib dems to the extreme?

I haven't suggested Labour do anything in that post above, I was just commenting on the Libdems becoming an extremist party, suggesting a referendum result should be abandoned on the basis of a simple FPTP majority they know they can never achieve. Cynical, undemocratic, and with their Scottish referendum position, utterly utterly hypocritical.

As to Labours response, yes they could take that reasonable moderate position vacated by the Libdems and propose a people's vote rather than the Labour deal/vote fence-sitting. Sounds like a good idea. It would probably look cynical too, but it might be extremely popular.

Ironically, the idea of holding that position rather than a complex (and in truth pro brexit) position has been attacked when suggested. :dunno:
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9265  Postby ronmcd » Sep 18, 2019 9:37 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Corbyn has been consistently moderate throughout. What do you want them to do? Follow the lib dems to the extreme?

That's where I disagree, for sure. Corbyn's position right from the referendum through until today has been to *not* have a position, and try and win votes by fooling both sides that Labour supported them, remain and leave. Moderate? Possibly, but not a winning strategy I suspect, and not one I agree with.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9266  Postby ronmcd » Sep 18, 2019 9:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:Labour may be about to chase the lib dems to that extreme.

Pro-remain members have tabled some 61 motions calling for the party to revoke Article 50, and senior figures on the front bench, including Diane Abbott, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, have said that they would campaign for remain in the event of a second referendum.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... Q3dJUJvz34

There's a difference between the libs revoke based on a FPTP election win (which they can never win), and campaigning for remain in a 2nd referendum. The first is extreme, the second is not.

Labour had the chance btw to vote for one of the amendments 6 months ago that would have triggered revoking, ONLY if no deal was the only option. They didn't vote for it.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9267  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 6:08 am

ronmcd wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Labour may be about to chase the lib dems to that extreme.

Pro-remain members have tabled some 61 motions calling for the party to revoke Article 50, and senior figures on the front bench, including Diane Abbott, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, have said that they would campaign for remain in the event of a second referendum.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... Q3dJUJvz34

There's a difference between the libs revoke based on a FPTP election win (which they can never win), and campaigning for remain in a 2nd referendum. The first is extreme, the second is not.

Labour had the chance btw to vote for one of the amendments 6 months ago that would have triggered revoking, ONLY if no deal was the only option. They didn't vote for it.


I dont see a great difference between either democratic process. If the issue is central to the manifesto, as they have made it, a GE win gives a strong mandate to revoke. Why is a remain referendum any more legitimate as a route revoke?

Mps voting to revoke if no deal is undemocratic at the 2016 result. It must be the electorate that decides to change direction.

If they can "never win" anyway that rather emphasises the democratic power to withhold or grant a mandate.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9268  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 8:16 am

GrahamH wrote:
I dont see a great difference between either democratic process. If the issue is central to the manifesto, as they have made it, a GE win gives a strong mandate to revoke. Why is a remain referendum any more legitimate as a route revoke?

Article 50 was triggered due to a referendum result.

Libdems are saying they will reverse that result if they win a FPTP majority ,perhaps 30+ % of the vote, concentrated in a limited number of constitiencies where the winning party CAN win but hasn't a hope in hell in others. (leave aside it's a fake policy as they wont win and they know this).

You don't think there's a legitimacy problem there?

In Holyrood, SNP + Greens have a PR majority for a new referendum, but it is being refused by UK government. What you're suggesting is akin to SNP losing the 2014 referendum, then standing in 2020 on a mandate to declare independence if they win the vote, no referendum, just ignore the last referendum result.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9269  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 8:18 am

More accurately, it would be like SNP saying they will declare UDI immediately after the next GE if they get a majority of Scottish seats in the FPTP election. Sod the actual referendum result, let's use FPTP instead ...

Extreme. The libdems have lost the plot.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9270  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 9:13 am

ronmcd wrote:More accurately, it would be like SNP saying they will declare UDI immediately after the next GE if they get a majority of Scottish seats in the FPTP election. Sod the actual referendum result, let's use FPTP instead ...

Extreme. The libdems have lost the plot.


More accurately, it would be like a UK party winning a majority of Westminster seats on a manifesto with the central pledge of Scottish independence.

Are you really saying you would be outraged if the UK as a whole voted for Scottish independence?

There's a geographical bias to that issue that applies much less to Brexit.

Referendums aren't proportional in the sense that they encompass a range of views. In a PR GE you would expect to get a mix of representatives across a variety of positions. On Brexit you would expect to have representation from remain to close integration to minimal to no deal to perhapse an even harder separatist position. But referendums are usually just black or white. They necessarily exclude a moderate majority. A GE allows moderates/centrists on the issue a voice. Personally I'd rather have extreme and moderate positions in a GE than all or nothing in a referendum. It seems more democratic.

There is ample opportunity to discuss, campaign and consider "what we now know" in either case.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9271  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 9:29 am

It's not having a mandate in a FPTP election that's the problem Graham, although FPTP is a problematic system that's a different issue. The problem here is reversing a decision made in a referendum by a simple FPTP majority.

Of course it's not a problem in any practical sense, as the libdems have chosen the policy cynically knowing they can never implement it, as they won't win a GE. In Scotland it's the Scottish Labour Gambit - promise everything just before an election knowing no fucker is going to vote for you anyway, just to get the headlines.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9272  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 9:34 am

The legitimate method to reverse/confirm the result of the 2016 referendum would be to have another referendum.

The side issue about the Parliamentary indicative vote which was intended to revoke article 50 without a referendum, that's a different situation where the idea was as an emergency measure to prevent the UK falling out with no deal, revocation would have been triggered on the final day where no deal was about to happen. It wasn't a policy, but a - for want of a better word - backstop.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9273  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 9:47 am

ronmcd wrote:It's not having a mandate in a FPTP election that's the problem Graham, although FPTP is a problematic system that's a different issue. The problem here is reversing a decision made in a referendum by a simple FPTP majority.


If it was Labour or Conservative in more normal times I'd might agree with you, but the Libdems took 62 seats with 22% of the popular vote in 2005 on a moderate manifesto. To get to 330+ seats on a single this issue would surely require over 52% of the popular vote with every seat hard won. They have very few safe seats. It's clear to me that if they could win such an extraordinary result it would be a strong democratic mandate.

That doesn't mean I support the policy and I certainly don't think they will be forming a government.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9274  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 9:57 am

ronmcd wrote:The legitimate method to reverse/confirm the result of the 2016 referendum would be to have another referendum.


You don't think there's a legitimacy problem there?

"Keep having referendums until you get the result you want" is a legitimate criticism. Reframing the question is another real concern. May's deal vs. remain would be regarded as a betrayal by most leavers I suspect. "clean break" vs remain might have more legitimacy with the voters but could not be proposed by government with any shred of responsibility.

What people voted for in 2016 cannot be delivered or even really defined outside government so another referendum cannot legitimately reverse/confirm that result, can it?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9275  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 10:39 am

GrahamH wrote:
ronmcd wrote:The legitimate method to reverse/confirm the result of the 2016 referendum would be to have another referendum.


You don't think there's a legitimacy problem there?

Yes.

As I said a few comments ago I think in response to Beatsong, I'd *like* brexit to be cancelled tomorrow, and I'd *like* a new referendum. I don't think either of those things would be right.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9276  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 10:41 am

But there's a world of difference between the slight ickiness of a confirmatory referendum, and the full on hypocrisy and lack of democracy in reversing a referendum based on FPTP.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9277  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 10:44 am

ronmcd wrote:But there's a world of difference between the slight ickiness of a confirmatory referendum, and the full on hypocrisy and lack of democracy in reversing a referendum based on FPTP.


OK, that's your opinion.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9278  Postby ronmcd » Sep 19, 2019 3:21 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ronmcd wrote:But there's a world of difference between the slight ickiness of a confirmatory referendum, and the full on hypocrisy and lack of democracy in reversing a referendum based on FPTP.


OK, that's your opinion.

:nod2:
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12355

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9279  Postby GrahamH » Sep 19, 2019 4:03 pm

Are they all complete imbeciles? Stephen Barclay seems clueless about what a "backstop" is:

The EU has set Britain a test it "cannot meet" with its demands to see a replacement for the Irish backstop, the Brexit Secretary has said.
Stephen Barclay said the UK should be given another year to find a new policy for the Northern Ireland border.

"We are told the UK must provide legally operative text by the 31st October," the cabinet minister said in a speech in Madrid on Thursday.
"Yet the alternative to the backstop is not necessary until the end of the Implementation Period in December 2020.
"And this will be shaped by the future relationship – which is still to be determined.
"In short why risk crystallising an undesirable result this November, when both sides can work together – until December 2020.
"In summary, the EU risks continuing to insist on a test that the UK cannot meet and that the UK Parliament has rejected three times."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/u ... spartanntp


Nothing is "crystallised" this November. The backstop is insurance that gives everyone until December 2020 to solve the border problem. :nono:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19917

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9280  Postby tuco » Sep 19, 2019 6:29 pm

From the article:

Mr Barclay's latest statement is essentially a request for the EU to drop any demand for a backstop in the withdrawal agreement, and let the UK have a transition period without a backstop in place.


Well, the EU cannot do that.

The UK either passes a test it cannot meet or asks for an extension. It's not the EU who is adamant about 31st Oct.
tuco
 
Posts: 15250

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests