Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:
If both sides are breaking rules, that's not an appropriate response. Because the status quo is what one side wants.

It is reasonable to cancel an election result if it is deemed to have been improperly conducted - it's not that rare. However, that does not negate the public desire or constitutional need for an election, which is why they are almost inevitably re-run (in liberal societies anyway - authoritarian ones rig elections all the time). That said, a result deemed unsafe doesn't even need to be ruled invalid for a new one to be called.

The time to deal with this would have been in the run-up to the referendum, because any attempt to call a rerun over foul play afterwards smacks of poor losership, whichever way the result went.

The nature of wrongdoing is that it usually has to be uncovered and investigated after it has occurred. That's why, for instance, the police tend to catch criminals after a crime has been committed rather than during or before, and the sentencing always occurs later.

So still less than the portion that wanted remain in the first place. That's pretty much the figure I have been seeing throughout,

It clearly isn't, because the poll reports show the figure has increased (from ~20-25%).

If there is clear evidence of heavy support for wanting a re-referendum, I would suggest we should have a referendum on whether we want a referendum on the final deal. It's the only democratic way...

Tres drole.

Bobular:
Personally I think we as a country need to work towards getting the best possible deal we can rather than fighting amongst ourselves trying to get a second referendum now. I think when we've got as good a exit deal we can get, then we take it back to the British public and say to them, this is what we'll be like after Brexit, we'll have this relationship with the EU, we've got these trade deals lined up with these other countries, do you want to go ahead with this and let the people decide if they've made a good enough deal.

Unfortunately I think I'm being too optimistic there and we wont get anything like that, we'll get whatever the government can scrounge and like it.

I'm finding it increasingly bizarre that suggesting the British Public get a final say in whether whatever deal the Government works out should go ahead is being considered anti-democratic. I mean, I'd get it if people were just asking for a second referendum just cause but that seems a reasonable idea to me.

TrulyBritish:

Bobular:
Personally I think we as a country need to work towards getting the best possible deal we can rather than fighting amongst ourselves trying to get a second referendum now. I think when we've got as good a exit deal we can get, then we take it back to the British public and say to them, this is what we'll be like after Brexit, we'll have this relationship with the EU, we've got these trade deals lined up with these other countries, do you want to go ahead with this and let the people decide if they've made a good enough deal.

Unfortunately I think I'm being too optimistic there and we wont get anything like that, we'll get whatever the government can scrounge and like it.

I'm finding it increasingly bizarre that suggesting the British Public get a final say in whether whatever deal the Government works out should go ahead is being considered anti-democratic. I mean, I'd get it if people were just asking for a second referendum just cause but that seems a reasonable idea to me.

To me, we shouldn't have had the referendum until things were ready in the first place, until we had plans. Unfortunately Cameron saw that the Scots mostly shut up after getting their referendum and voting to remain in the UK, so he thought the same would happen with an EU referendum, we'd all vote to remain and then the anti-EU crowd giving UKIP some measure of power would disappear. Unfortunately his gamble didn't workout for him, but he was so confident in it happening that he didn't even plan for what would happen if he lost.

I voted remain, but I'm not one of these people who thinks we should have a second referendum straight away, that's not democratic. Even though my side lost I accept that and think we should work together to make the best out of Brexit, but that doesn't mean we let the government have free reign to do what they want with Brexit, if they screw it up we should be able to turn down their offer if the public want to.

Bobular:

TrulyBritish:

Bobular:
Personally I think we as a country need to work towards getting the best possible deal we can rather than fighting amongst ourselves trying to get a second referendum now. I think when we've got as good a exit deal we can get, then we take it back to the British public and say to them, this is what we'll be like after Brexit, we'll have this relationship with the EU, we've got these trade deals lined up with these other countries, do you want to go ahead with this and let the people decide if they've made a good enough deal.

Unfortunately I think I'm being too optimistic there and we wont get anything like that, we'll get whatever the government can scrounge and like it.

I'm finding it increasingly bizarre that suggesting the British Public get a final say in whether whatever deal the Government works out should go ahead is being considered anti-democratic. I mean, I'd get it if people were just asking for a second referendum just cause but that seems a reasonable idea to me.

To me, we shouldn't have had the referendum until things were ready in the first place, until we had plans. Unfortunately Cameron saw that the Scots mostly shut up after getting their referendum and voting to remain in the UK, so he thought the same would happen with an EU referendum, we'd all vote to remain and then the anti-EU crowd giving UKIP some measure of power would disappear. Unfortunately his gamble didn't workout for him, but he was so confident in it happening that he didn't even plan for what would happen if he lost.

I voted remain, but I'm not one of these people who thinks we should have a second referendum straight away, that's not democratic. Even though my side lost I accept that and think we should work together to make the best out of Brexit, but that doesn't mean we let the government have free reign to do what they want with Brexit, if they screw it up we should be able to turn down their offer if the public want to.

Yup, basically how I feel, I complained at the time at the lack of some kind of manifesto from the Leave team. I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the EU, I just didn't think the Leave team had any real idea of how to do it. Unfortunately it seems people were happy voting for the idea of Brexit rather than the reality of Brexit.

TrulyBritish:

Bobular:

TrulyBritish:

I'm finding it increasingly bizarre that suggesting the British Public get a final say in whether whatever deal the Government works out should go ahead is being considered anti-democratic. I mean, I'd get it if people were just asking for a second referendum just cause but that seems a reasonable idea to me.

To me, we shouldn't have had the referendum until things were ready in the first place, until we had plans. Unfortunately Cameron saw that the Scots mostly shut up after getting their referendum and voting to remain in the UK, so he thought the same would happen with an EU referendum, we'd all vote to remain and then the anti-EU crowd giving UKIP some measure of power would disappear. Unfortunately his gamble didn't workout for him, but he was so confident in it happening that he didn't even plan for what would happen if he lost.

I voted remain, but I'm not one of these people who thinks we should have a second referendum straight away, that's not democratic. Even though my side lost I accept that and think we should work together to make the best out of Brexit, but that doesn't mean we let the government have free reign to do what they want with Brexit, if they screw it up we should be able to turn down their offer if the public want to.

Yup, basically how I feel, I complained at the time at the lack of some kind of manifesto from the Leave team. I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the EU, I just didn't think the Leave team had any real idea of how to do it. Unfortunately it seems people were happy voting for the idea of Brexit rather than the reality of Brexit.

The odd thing is that the same people who mocked the Scottish for wanting to leave with no plan, thinking they'd keep the British pound, thinking they'd stay in the EU, thinking they'd keep the army, thinking they'd leave the debt behind, are the same people who are making the same wild claims with no plan during Brexit.

Both Scotland leaving the UK and the UK leaving the EU are massive things that need a substantial plan behind them before even starting to attempt to pry them apart and unfortunately we don't have that plan and now have to make it up as we go along.

We need cross party support to make a plan of action that everyone can get behind and pull together for the good of the country. That needed to be done during the time between the referendum and the actual calling of article 50. Unfortunately all the parties are just out for themselves and don't care enough to put their petty squabbles aside whilst we undertake this monumental endeavour.

Agema:
The nature of wrongdoing is that it usually has to be uncovered and investigated after it has occurred. That's why, for instance, the police tend to catch criminals after a crime has been committed rather than during or before, and the sentencing always occurs later.

Except in this case the "wrongdoing" is both spending and in the claims made by both sides. Both of which should have been picked up at the time.

Catnip1024:
Except in this case the "wrongdoing" is both spending and in the claims made by both sides. Both of which should have been picked up at the time.

Yes, we should have a body with the power to oversee misuse of information in campaigning. But we don't.

Why would this change the desire to address the issue now that it's widely recognised?

Bobular:

The odd thing is that the same people who mocked the Scottish for wanting to leave with no plan, thinking they'd keep the British pound, thinking they'd stay in the EU, thinking they'd keep the army, thinking they'd leave the debt behind, are the same people who are making the same wild claims with no plan during Brexit.

Both Scotland leaving the UK and the UK leaving the EU are massive things that need a substantial plan behind them before even starting to attempt to pry them apart and unfortunately we don't have that plan and now have to make it up as we go along.

We need cross party support to make a plan of action that everyone can get behind and pull together for the good of the country. That needed to be done during the time between the referendum and the actual calling of article 50. Unfortunately all the parties are just out for themselves and don't care enough to put their petty squabbles aside whilst we undertake this monumental endeavour.

Considering the amount of infighting that seems to go on inside the parties themselves asking the parties to get along is a bit of a tall order.
It's what they should be doing at a time like this, but they won't.

TrulyBritish:

Bobular:

The odd thing is that the same people who mocked the Scottish for wanting to leave with no plan, thinking they'd keep the British pound, thinking they'd stay in the EU, thinking they'd keep the army, thinking they'd leave the debt behind, are the same people who are making the same wild claims with no plan during Brexit.

Both Scotland leaving the UK and the UK leaving the EU are massive things that need a substantial plan behind them before even starting to attempt to pry them apart and unfortunately we don't have that plan and now have to make it up as we go along.

We need cross party support to make a plan of action that everyone can get behind and pull together for the good of the country. That needed to be done during the time between the referendum and the actual calling of article 50. Unfortunately all the parties are just out for themselves and don't care enough to put their petty squabbles aside whilst we undertake this monumental endeavour.

Considering the amount of infighting that seems to go on inside the parties themselves asking the parties to get along is a bit of a tall order.
It's what they should be doing at a time like this, but they won't.

Thats the problem with our almost two party system. I feel if government was made up of a bunch of smaller parties rather than just 2.5 big ones then we may get some cooperation between the parties and we may actually be able to move forwards with projects that would help the country. I may be being a little naive there, but thats what I'd like to see in some sort of Bobularn Utopia.

TrulyBritish:

Yup, basically how I feel, I complained at the time at the lack of some kind of manifesto from the Leave team. I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the EU, I just didn't think the Leave team had any real idea of how to do it. Unfortunately it seems people were happy voting for the idea of Brexit rather than the reality of Brexit.

Exactly - it was a vote for an idea, not a plan. But the Leave team had no ability to set a mandate: they didn't have a cohesive position, and even if they did, they did not hold the relevant political offices to deliver it.

It doesn't take long to realise that whereas Remainers were fairly uniform, Brexiters were (are) a very mixed bag. There are the ones who want a completely clean break, and those that wanted a closely-related EFTA-like position. Leavers whose objection to the EU was that it was too neoliberal or capitalist, and ones that thought it was too socialist. Ones just fed up with the status quo and wanted to break something, ones that want to block immigration but somehow change little else.

Leaving the EU is not just about leaving the EU, it's about a vision of a post-EU Britain should be. And that's where I think the referendum was inherently flawed, because without a coherent vision of what post-EU Britain we would get, we could not make a well informed choice about whether it would be right to leave the EU.

Agema:
Leaving the EU is not just about leaving the EU, it's about a vision of a post-EU Britain should be. And that's where I think the referendum was inherently flawed, because without a coherent vision of what post-EU Britain we would get, we could not make a well informed choice about whether it would be right to leave the EU.

Funnily enough Peter Hitchens - that arch-remainer - makes the same point as you in quite a few of his columns and TV appearances. There should have been no referendum, but a general election drawn along the battle-lines of staying or leaving the European Union; that would have forced those who campaigned for leaving the European Union to be held responsible for the outcome, rather than left in the vacuum that we presently are in. This could have taken the form of a single-issue general election, somewhat like the still unique election of 1923. Whether the two main political parties (which are predominantly filled with remainers on the benches) would have allowed such a thing to happen is another question, but it seems to have been the only possible clean 'vote' on leaving the EU that would also retain accountability.

I'm an extremely hard leaver and I would optimally see the most complete and utter severance of all our arrangements with the EU and Customs Union at the shortest possible notice (if we wished, it could all be done within a week). Then post-hoc we make agreements and deals. But the problem is that the electorate never voted for that; leaving does encompass such a broad variety of options that there's no way to democratically sanction whatever outcome the nation chooses without another referendum. Which wouldn't be pragmatic. Thankfully I'm happy to sacrifice democratic procedure to expediency when necessary, so there may be a chance of delivering a leave from the EU along my lines after all if May and the milquetoast wets in the Tory party are ousted.

So the talk in parliament seems to be towards no deal now.

Is this a negotiation tactic or do you think that the current British Government will go ahead with its "no deal is better than a bad deal" stance?

For my part I'm glad that the government is actually planning ahead for if things go wrong this time, they had no plan for if they failed with the Brexit vote so hopefully they've learned their lesson and if we do go with no deal we'll actually have some idea of what to do next.

May needs extreme hard Leavers to think they could get what they want whilst breaking the 'news' that trade deals will be subject to ECJ jurisdiction and EU legislature.

Mind you, I'm no longer entirely confident any deal will take place. The EU insist on divorce settlement first but any such settlement will be unpopular with the Leavers, especially one necessary to maintain the Good Friday Agreement, so Davis may delay it and hope something changes. When no seismic shift occurs and with the hard deadline of March 2019 leaving no room for trade talks, a last minute divorce settlement will be too late. Then Dover becomes one huge lorry traffic jam but Davis doesn't attract blame only on himself.

CosmicCommander:

I'm an extremely hard leaver and I would optimally see the most complete and utter severance of all our arrangements with the EU and Customs Union at the shortest possible notice (if we wished, it could all be done within a week). Then post-hoc we make agreements and deals. But the problem is that the electorate never voted for that; leaving does encompass such a broad variety of options that there's no way to democratically sanction whatever outcome the nation chooses without another referendum. Which wouldn't be pragmatic. Thankfully I'm happy to sacrifice democratic procedure to expediency when necessary, so there may be a chance of delivering a leave from the EU along my lines after all if May and the milquetoast wets in the Tory party are ousted.

It could be done in a week... if the UK was happy to refuse to honour existing obligations (which is illegal), to default to World Trade Organisation rules, and to simultaneously ruin all faith overseas in the UK's commitment to diplomacy and law. Why on earth would anyone treat with a country which openly refuses to honour commitments it has made?

So, yes, it's technically possible within a week, but colossally ruinous and self-defeating.

Silvanus:

So, yes, it's technically possible within a week, but colossally ruinous and self-defeating.

So ... start as you mean to go on then?

Baffle2:

Silvanus:

So, yes, it's technically possible within a week, but colossally ruinous and self-defeating.

So ... start as you mean to go on then?

Well, the other thing about Brexit is that many Brexiters are delusional about what sovereignty and control really are.

The reality is that the EU (or USA or China) tell countries like the UK what the score is. They control global trade and global politics, they dictate the rules. The UK can reclaim all the technical sovereignty from the EU it likes, it just means gets told what to do by countries and companies further away instead. At worst, it's even a net loss of sovereignty, because it's always bargaining from a weaker position.

As I watch the catastrophe unfold like a slow-motion train crash viewed while leaning out of the window of the back of one of the trains involved, all I find myself able to think is "how does anyone still think this is going well and is a good idea?"

Because while I voted Remain and still oppose Brexit, I can at least comprehend and understand why the idea of Brexit was so appealing to so many people. I don't agree with them but I at least understand.

But, surely, at some point in this process, even they must admit to themselves if not openly to anyone else, that what they voted for was a vague concept. An idea. No solid plan in place by anyone, leaving the government to muddle through a massive decision with no guiding direction at all except "we want out at some point" and not helped by the whole thing being handled by what must be among the most pathetic and ineffectual UK governments in recent history and the most pitiful and ill-prepared PM in recent history.

They voted for a vague idea and now that the vague idea needs to turn into solid practical application everything's falling to shit because it turns out no two people involved in negotiating this for us seem to want the same thing.

This is why it baffles me that anyone is still all gung-ho about it. Even if you supported leaving the EU you must be able to recognise the absolute fucking shambles that the process has turned into. You can't be happy with how this is going, it's an absolute goddamn car crash.

It's why when Brexit was voted for and I knew it was going to happen my attitude shifted a bit. I think the process needs more democratic accountability from the actual public. It's why I hate when people shout down the idea of a referendum vote on the terms of the deal we might eventually manage to cobble together. Because the alternative to a final vote on the deal is to leave the entire process up to the demented whims of Theresa May and her disorganised gaggle of self-interested psychopaths.

And call me crazy, call me a fanatical leftist scumbag, whatever, but I don't want anything, especially something this important, to be left entirely up to whatever Theresa May feels like doing because the woman is a heartless bitch who couldn't debate or negotiate her way out of a fucking paper bag!

ReservoirAngel:

It's why when Brexit was voted for and I knew it was going to happen my attitude shifted a bit. I think the process needs more democratic accountability from the actual public. It's why I hate when people shout down the idea of a referendum vote on the terms of the deal we might eventually manage to cobble together. Because the alternative to a final vote on the deal is to leave the entire process up to the demented whims of Theresa May and her disorganised gaggle of self-interested psychopaths.

Yes.

I think after the referendum, we should have had a general election in one of two flavours. Either an election where the parties went away and decided on a Brexit strategy to present to the public, alternatively an election where the traditional parties temporarily dissolved themselves and stood as parties representing different Brexit deals.

Instead, we've got an incoherent gaggle of right-wingers trying every trick in the book to control the entire process and let no-one else - whether the public or other politicians - have a look at what they are doing or any say in what they decide.

Agema:
Instead, we've got an incoherent gaggle of right-wingers trying every trick in the book to control the entire process and let no-one else - whether the public or other politicians - have a look at what they are doing or any say in what they decide.

Is this a new thing in Britain? It's been the US GOP's default game plan since at least 2012.

The more I try to learn about Brexit, the more it just comes out as a giant cluster-fuck of political posturing, even before the referendum was put on the ballot. I don't see any possible solution to this that'll make everyone happy. Regardless on if the UK fully leaves the EU or not, someone is going to be pissed.

-The CP wants Brexit to go through but can't because they don't have an actual plan and their integrity as a valid political option is hanging on if they can pull it off or not. It's becoming more and more likely that they didn't actually expect Brexit to win.

-Scotland, London, and Northern Ireland decidedly wanted to stay, which can have massive repercussions if the UK leaves completely on a number of levels, and that's not even talking about their own referendums.

-If the UK weren't to leave, it would question the public's trust in the government since it be going against what's supposed to be a fully democratic choice of the people. However, if they do leave, that can put not only millions of EU citizens in limbo, but also any UK citizens in the Eurozone as well. Housing, jobs, and education plans between the two blocs would have to be wrinkled out and it won't be easy.

-Lastly, since the UK, specifically London and the City of London, are major trade and financial centers in Europe, any possible resolution could upset a number of businesses and companies hoping for either resolution.

Obviously, anyone more on the vein of this can call out if any of this is inaccurate or straight up BS, but it sounds like the UK might just take a middle path by just saying they'll leave to save face, but not actually leave to also save face. Weirder things have happened before.

Yep, people are going to get pissed no matter what happens. So you have to ask who has the leverage over the Conservative government to get what they want.

Dacre - wants hard Brexit - controls the Daily Mail.
Businesses - want customs unions, single market access and open immigration - can threaten to stop party donations and has the money bad mouth the government.
Democratic Unionist Party - want some kind of Brexit but no NI border or special trade status - can drop the government in a vote of no confidence.
Edlerly voters - mostly wants Brexit - can threaten to withdraw their votes.
Farmers - wants open immigration and single market access - can threaten votes but not much.
Middle aged voters - wants Brexit to not be disastrous - can threaten to shift to Labour.
Murdoch - want hard Brexit - controls the Sun and the Times.
Party membership - mostly wants hard Brexit - can threaten to quit, losing foot soldiers in the next election.
The City - wants single market access and special movement privileges - can threaten to relocate and take their large tax revenue with them.
Young voters - wants Brexit cancelled - can threaten to never vote Conservative ever.

Looks like we'll get Brexit in name only then May gets destroyed by the newspapers.

Agema:

ReservoirAngel:

It's why when Brexit was voted for and I knew it was going to happen my attitude shifted a bit. I think the process needs more democratic accountability from the actual public. It's why I hate when people shout down the idea of a referendum vote on the terms of the deal we might eventually manage to cobble together. Because the alternative to a final vote on the deal is to leave the entire process up to the demented whims of Theresa May and her disorganised gaggle of self-interested psychopaths.

Yes.

I think after the referendum, we should have had a general election in one of two flavours. Either an election where the parties went away and decided on a Brexit strategy to present to the public, alternatively an election where the traditional parties temporarily dissolved themselves and stood as parties representing different Brexit deals.

Instead, we've got an incoherent gaggle of right-wingers trying every trick in the book to control the entire process and let no-one else - whether the public or other politicians - have a look at what they are doing or any say in what they decide.

Now to be fair, there was an election, and for whatever reason Brexit was just not much of a talking point as far as I'm aware of. Most parties agreed that you guys should brexit, at least the two big ones, and I don't recall any of them having elaborate plans. Did labour or any other party have any kind of coherent plans for brexit? I'm all for bashing the right and I don't find it hard to believe that they are more careless about it than the British left but there has to be at least some blame on the left here as well if the discussion during an election race is not about brexit.

To me it just seems like most of the Brits, not just the right, don't take brexit nearly as seriously as you do.

warmachine:
Yep, people are going to get pissed no matter what happens. So you have to ask who has the leverage over the Conservative government to get what they want.

Dacre - wants hard Brexit - controls the Daily Mail.
Businesses - want customs unions, single market access and open immigration - can threaten to stop party donations and has the money bad mouth the government.
Democratic Unionist Party - want some kind of Brexit but no NI border or special trade status - can drop the government in a vote of no confidence.
Edlerly voters - mostly wants Brexit - can threaten to withdraw their votes.
Farmers - wants open immigration and single market access - can threaten votes but not much.
Middle aged voters - wants Brexit to not be disastrous - can threaten to shift to Labour.
Murdoch - want hard Brexit - controls the Sun and the Times.
Party membership - mostly wants hard Brexit - can threaten to quit, losing foot soldiers in the next election.
The City - wants single market access and special movement privileges - can threaten to relocate and take their large tax revenue with them.
Young voters - wants Brexit cancelled - can threaten to never vote Conservative ever.

Looks like we'll get Brexit in name only then May gets destroyed by the newspapers.

This seems a bit of a neatly pigeon holed summary.

I'm unsure, for example, that every single farmer wants open immigration, many may feel they would be better off with single market access.

There is also the complication of Labour voters, who have no idea what the party's position is given its doubtful Comrade Corbyn can be in the EU and deliver his ?150bn+ worth of borrow and spend under State aid rules.

I guess it's doubtful as to whether he actually would or could anyway but there you go.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

warmachine:
Yep, people are going to get pissed no matter what happens. So you have to ask who has the leverage over the Conservative government to get what they want.

Dacre - wants hard Brexit - controls the Daily Mail.
Businesses - want customs unions, single market access and open immigration - can threaten to stop party donations and has the money bad mouth the government.
Democratic Unionist Party - want some kind of Brexit but no NI border or special trade status - can drop the government in a vote of no confidence.
Edlerly voters - mostly wants Brexit - can threaten to withdraw their votes.
Farmers - wants open immigration and single market access - can threaten votes but not much.
Middle aged voters - wants Brexit to not be disastrous - can threaten to shift to Labour.
Murdoch - want hard Brexit - controls the Sun and the Times.
Party membership - mostly wants hard Brexit - can threaten to quit, losing foot soldiers in the next election.
The City - wants single market access and special movement privileges - can threaten to relocate and take their large tax revenue with them.
Young voters - wants Brexit cancelled - can threaten to never vote Conservative ever.

Looks like we'll get Brexit in name only then May gets destroyed by the newspapers.

This seems a bit of a neatly pigeon holed summary.

I'm unsure, for example, that every single farmer wants open immigration, many may feel they would be better off with single market access.

There is also the complication of Labour voters, who have no idea what the party's position is given its doubtful Comrade Corbyn can be in the EU and deliver his ?150bn+ worth of borrow and spend under State aid rules.

I guess it's doubtful as to whether he actually would or could anyway but there you go.

It's great, anytime anyone says something like "comrade Crobyn" it's great shorthand for "don't take anything I say seriously." Funny, bet you're the type of person who complains about the left throwing out the word "Nazi" too much too. You lot are a predictable bunch.

Pseudonym:

Now to be fair, there was an election, and for whatever reason Brexit was just not much of a talking point as far as I'm aware of.

Both parties reasonably turned to looking at a vision of what the UK would be - assuming Brexit a done deal. But what staggers me is the impact of what sort Brexit we end up colours enormously how the UK will develop and be able to change in the future. Our politicians decided to skip over that... for party political purposes rather than the public good. It benefited both not to really discuss it much.

The Tories (as is obvious) are hopelessly split on Brexit. Over 2/3rds of their MPs at the point of the referendum didn't even want it at all. They clearly feel it has to be done, and the reason May is running the show is she's the most credible politician to defend a soft Brexit. Lining up behind her should she fall, and with the implicit backing of the hard Brexit-leaning party membership, are a lightweight buffoon (Johnson) and a handful of other crazy hard Brexit ideologues.

Labour, likewise, is in a tizzy. On the one hand, they have a much more obvious popular mandate for soft Brexit (both in terms of politicians and voters) than the Tories. On the other, Labour is undoubtedly looking very concerned about vote collapse in deprived (and Brexit-voting) areas, potentially the risk that the nationalistic working class will turn to the Tories.

In both cases, I think they perceived everyone was tired of Brexit debate and didn't want a sort of "referendum re-run" debate... even though that was totally what the country needed.

* * *

In particular, the UK has a problem that the hard Brexiters, despite being a very modest proportion of the population, via the Conservative Party membership - and thus senior Tory MPs - have a hugely disproportionate amount of power. May and other Tory soft Brexiters are compelled to bend to them, at threat of removal from power. Brexit was to a large extent sold as a soft Brexit. We might not get that.

In fact, I think this is a lot of what the "No Deal is better than a bad deal" talk is really about. Most people have rightfully clicked that No Deal IS the bad deal. But virtually no-one wants a No Deal, or is seriously angling for it. What it does do, however, is manufacture a fake extreme position next to which Hard Brexit seems reasonable and palatable. The debate should be between over 2/3rds of the country who want soft Brexit and a fifth or so who want hard, leaving us with a mostly soft Brexit. But the fake extreme turns the debate into soft Brexit versus no deal (supported by approximately nobody), at which point the happy mid-point is... er... hard Brexit. And thus does a small minority of the country trick us into giving them what they want at the expense of the majority.

Barnier recently released a slide showing existing EU trade deals and the UK 'red lines' that blocked them. It missed an important red line: no Northern Ireland customs border. A correct version is shown below.

image

warmachine:
Barnier recently released a slide showing existing EU trade deals and the UK 'red lines' that blocked them. It missed an important red line: no Northern Ireland customs border. A correct version is shown below.

image

Thanks for posting this. I feel like it perfectly encapsulates why Brexit is entirely a case of idiots trying to have their cake and eat it too.

edit: I only just realized this double posted

image

WE GOT OUR PASSPORT BACK!

I mean, I've never had one of the blue ones, my parents never had a blue one and I think no one I know has ever had a blue one, but apparently the blue ones are really ours rather than the red ones I grew up with. Truly this makes every struggle in Brexit worth while, who cares about anything else when we've got blue passports.

Personally I think red is more of a UK colour anyway, blue just seems kinda French. But meh, its just a passport, what kind of idiot really cares about the colour of a passport?

image

Bobular:

image

WE GOT OUR PASSPORT BACK!

I mean, I've never had one of the blue ones, my parents never had a blue one and I think no one I know has ever had a blue one, but apparently the blue ones are really ours rather than the red ones I grew up with. Truly this makes every struggle in Brexit worth while, who cares about anything else when we've got blue passports.

Personally I think red is more of a UK colour anyway, blue just seems kinda French. But meh, its just a passport, what kind of idiot really cares about the colour of a passport?

image

What's worse is apparently you guys could have just had blue passports all along anyway. But now you guys get to have a blue passport AND go through the non-EU citizens customs line. What kind of retard celebrates the colour of a passport when the passport itself will make travel more difficult. I mean, it's only a minor inconvenience to be sure bit still? The blue passport has no benefits to it other than being a symbol of single minded nationalism.

Bobular:
snip

Funnily enough, the colour of passports is actually not mandated by the EU. If France wants green passports, they can do so without leaving the EU.

Then again, I say we let the brexiteers have this little victory. Nodody is harmed by blue passports and if they really want them, more power to them.

CheetoDust:
What's worse is apparently you guys could have just had blue passports all along anyway. But now you guys get to have a blue passport AND go through the non-EU citizens customs line. What kind of retard celebrates the colour of a passport when the passport itself will make travel more difficult. I mean, it's only a minor inconvenience to be sure bit still? The blue passport has no benefits to it other than being a symbol of single minded nationalism.

Blue and yellow is the colour of economic liberalism and easier freedoms between borders.

Red is typically the colour of conservatism and government centralisation.

There's a reason the Australian ppassport is navy blue bordering on black. It's supposed to be a sign of economic liberalism and receptiveness to foreign trade. Red passports comes off a bit .... xenophobic. Especially for the home state of the last of the true empires.

In that sense, yeah, red probably does suit the UK a lot more over the extent of its history ... but given the Brexit fallout I don't think they have the option of pushing that imagery again as Britain v. The World. That being said if it will spare us Australians from Uncle Boris spending 20 minutes talking about the fucking Queen at the Lowy Institute rather than, oh I don't know, economic and social projections of a new free trade agreement and explaining just what the UK wishes to pursue in negotiations.

You know ... trade ... ala his fucking job description.

Satinavian:
Another hilarious development

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-david-davis-no-deal-british-business-scaring-disadvantaging-legal-advice-a8149086.html

"No deal is better than a bad deal."
"Well then we should prepare in case there is no deal."
"Whoa! Why are you threatening us with no deal?!"

This is why yuppy, silver spoon gargling dipshits with their pockets filled with daddy's money shouldn't be in charge of a country. They genuinely don't understand that you don't get handed everything you want.

Satinavian:
Another hilarious development

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-david-davis-no-deal-british-business-scaring-disadvantaging-legal-advice-a8149086.html

This is for the better. It makes it clear that the UK, in their own clumsy way, are serious about negotiating a good deal.

That said, I am laughing at the UK here. If your bluff is this easy to call, don't go around bluffing. Just negotiate in good faith. As you can see, when the EU just calmly starts preparing for a scenario you mentioned as acceptable, they are far more effective than when the UK makes empty threads.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here