[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

Tuesday 29th then.

[tweet]1085853186768826368[/tweet]

 

[fanseagull]

A second vote isn't a "way out". If people vote to remain then we no longer have a "Brexit" problem. But we have a new one, perhaps a greater one. A crisis of confidence in democracy itself and the dividing political crack in this country becomes a fissure. If people vote to leave again then it's full circle and we are back where we started two years ago.

People don't want a "way out", they want the vote respected. Respecting the vote is more important than anything. The consequences of leaving the EU without a deal in place may be somewhat problematic, but the consequences of not respecting the vote are worse.

The real problem here is that the HoC find themselves, by a majority, in disagreement with the people. Only one side will have their will respected. The political class or the people. & I cannot overstate how severe a problem we would face if it turns out that we have a government for, of, and by, the politial class, rather than the people.

We can get through a Brexit without a deal on WTO terms. I'm not sure how we can get through a crisis of confidence in democracy itself.

....and how do we 'respect that vote' while simultaneously respecting the concerns and values of 48%? Then there's the simple fact that new voters are going to be more affected than me (and presumably you) in the longer term. Perhaps they have more right to speak than us. Full circle again!

No one, not even you, can say what privations (or otherwise) we may experience in 'getting through' a Brexit without a deal and whether people who are content with it now will feel that way in a few years.... Both alternatives are really dreadful but you put more emphasis on the awfulness of one over the other. Others would emphasise the reverse. No great step forward there I'm afraid.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Arlene Foster caught out telling lies.

[tweet]1085855319211810816[/tweet]

 

[neilbard]

Diane Abbott on Question Time this evening should be interesting.

 

[dingodan]

I keep seeing this but how can it be the case? If the people change their minds in a democratic referendum then surely that should be the antithesis of a crisis in democracy? Democracy allows people to change their minds.

What I think this is being lumped in with is people being unhappy that they didn't get their way. Unfortunately that's the case with any sort of public vote, but if Leave are unable to find the arguments to win another public vote then clearly it isn't something which should be pursued.

Ok so what is to be said about having another vote in 2 years? What will be said is, "No, we voted. Decision made. Respect the decision". That's the problem. In the end it will have nothing to do with respecting the democratic process, and everything to do with voting until you win, then stopping.

Democracy does allow people to change their minds, but not only once. So it's a referendum once, to be accepted. Or if a referendum periodically. The way this will go, if we have a second vote and remain win, will be percieved as - First vote, wrong answer. Second vote, correct answer. Voting has now closed.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Ok so what is to be said about having another vote in 2 years? What will be said is, "No, we voted. Decision made. Respect the decision". That's the problem. In the end it will have nothing to do with respecting the democratic process, and everything to do with voting until you win, then stopping.

Democracy does allow people to change their minds, but not only once. So it's a referendum once, to be accepted. Or if a referendum periodically. The way this will go, if we have a second vote and remain win, will be percieved as - First vote, wrong answer. Second vote, correct answer. Voting has now closed.

First decide on a deal. Then put it to the people of this deal or remain.

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

This month the EU are passing a law on outlawing tax havens so I wonder why our millionaire political classes were so keen to get out of the EU, they invoked article 50 as soon as they were possibly able. Gina Miller had to go to the High Court to get Parliament to vote on it, as is democratically permissable, instead of Theresa May using Henry VIII powers to go it alone.

 

[The Clamp]

Right, so you are saying that these positive decisions were taken despite Brexit.

& The negative decision of Hitachi was taken because of it.

Typical.

Did I say that? No. I did not. They would have considered Brexit no overwhelming threat to their business. If you are suggesting they are investing BECAUSE of Brexit you are madder than a bag of blue cabbage.

 

[A1X]

Ok so what is to be said about having another vote in 2 years? What will be said is, "No, we voted. Decision made. Respect the decision". That's the problem. In the end it will have nothing to do with respecting the democratic process, and everything to do with voting until you win, then stopping.

Democracy does allow people to change their minds, but not only once. So it's a referendum once, to be accepted. Or if a referendum periodically. The way this will go, if we have a second vote and remain win, will be percieved as - First vote, wrong answer. Second vote, correct answer. Voting has now closed.

If the situation and circumstances change then another vote would be called for, and if a majority of the elected representatives can agree to it then it would happen. As it is we clearly will have had a change in circumstances between June 2016 and, say, March 2019 for there to be a realistic proposition for people to be given the chance to think again. If they change again in the future and there is a majority in Parliament for another referendum then there is nothing stopping one. That's how representative democracy works.

 

[dingodan]

It IS though.



It is already a fissure.



A second Leave vote would be hugely better informed, and thus far more respected.

.

Who are you to talk for 'people'? Some 'people' DO want a way out. Only one way to find out how many...



No it isn't. Not at ANY cost.

,

Somewhat problematic? Idiot.



Threats of violence? Really, really strong letters to the Daily Mail? A few idiots refusing to cast their vote for UKIP in later elections? None of that is 'worse' than an economic catastrophe.

.

You don't know that. And there is only one way to find out.



Again - utter tripe. There are many in the 'political class' pro-brexit, and many of 'the people' all for staying. Those people have the right to have their 'will' and future prosperity and freedoms respected too.



You definitely can - and just have.



Yes we can, albeit massively poorer. For no benefit.



there goes the overstating again.

Your politics is getting in the way of your senses.

(I'm sure you'd say just the same about me - I guess time will tell).

 

[ManOfSussex]

Arlene Foster caught out telling lies.

They obviously forgot things like when 4 HMRC officials were killed at customs office when there was never a hard border on Ireland too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newry_Customs_Office_Bomb

 

[Thunder Bolt]

First decide on a deal. Then put it to the people of this deal or remain.

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

This month the EU are passing a law on outlawing tax havens so I wonder why our millionaire political classes were so keen to get out of the EU, they invoked article 50 as soon as they were possibly able. Gina Miller had to go to the High Court to get Parliament to vote on it, as is democratically permissable, instead of Theresa May using Henry VIII powers to go it alone.

Funnily enough, Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested this a while ago.

[tweet]1085653129331335169[/tweet]

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Very impressive speech from Jeremy Corbyn in Hastings just finished. Genuinely impressive from a socialist standpoint. Setting out his stall for the next General Election - including the overturn of Amber Rudd's flimsy majority in Hastings. Impressive on Brexit? Not so much.

 

[Hotchilidog]

....and how do we 'respect that vote' while simultaneously respecting the concerns and values of 48%? Then there's the simple fact that new voters are going to be more affected than me (and presumably you) in the longer term. Perhaps they have more right to speak than us. Full circle again! .

By dropping the red lines that May has set out as a basis for her negotiation strategy. The 48% and industry have many concerns. Namely frictionless trade, the rights of EU and UK citizens living elsewhere in the UK, the protection of rights of workers, the maintainence of environmental standards etc.

Trade concerns can be met with a customs union. The Labour Party have argued for this and the EU would accept this. Access to the single market is possible, now technically this would involve FoM, but as we currently do not apply the rules to the fullest we could comply and tighten our immigration policy at the sametime. Citizens and workers rights are easily protected if you have a government committed to maintaining the existing rights and promising to keep pace with future rights. Again all on offer from the Labour Party.

My personal view is that the easiest way to achieve all this is stay in the EU. That said to say there is no other deal available is false, there are options, they just have not been pursued by this government. As I currently see it, the Remain lobby has not sufficiently won over a large enough number of either the public or MPs. A soft Brexit is something that I feel some sort of majority could live with.

What would be a disaster is leaving with no-deal, something for which there is absolutely no mandate.

 

[neilbard]

Corbyn Still Diametrically Opposed with May after Hastings speech, me thinks its time for Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[fanseagull]

By dropping the red lines that May has set out as a basis for her negotiation strategy. The 48% and industry have many concerns. Namely frictionless trade, the rights of EU and UK citizens living elsewhere in the UK, the protection of rights of workers, the maintainence of environmental standards etc.

Trade concerns can be met with a customs union. The Labour Party have argued for this and the EU would accept this. Access to the single market is possible, now technically this would involve FoM, but as we currently do not apply the rules to the fullest we could comply and tighten our immigration policy at the sametime. Citizens and workers rights are easily protected if you have a government committed to maintaining the existing rights and promising to keep pace with future rights. Again all on offer from the Labour Party.

My personal view is that the easiest way to achieve all this is stay in the EU. That said to say there is no other deal available is false, there are options, they just have not been pursued by this government. As I currently see it, the Remain lobby has not sufficiently won over a large enough number of either the public or MPs. A soft Brexit is something that I feel some sort of majority could live with.

What would be a disaster is leaving with no-deal, something for which there is absolutely no mandate.

A mature, considered argument. Generally agree with this.... thanks

 

[Butch Willykins]

Diane Abbott on Question Time this evening should be interesting.

Brilliant. That's the comedian booked. Which MP's have they got on?

 

[WATFORD zero]

By dropping the red lines that May has set out as a basis for her negotiation strategy. The 48% and industry have many concerns. Namely frictionless trade, the rights of EU and UK citizens living elsewhere in the UK, the protection of rights of workers, the maintainence of environmental standards etc.

Trade concerns can be met with a customs union. The Labour Party have argued for this and the EU would accept this. Access to the single market is possible, now technically this would involve FoM, but as we currently do not apply the rules to the fullest we could comply and tighten our immigration policy at the sametime. Citizens and workers rights are easily protected if you have a government committed to maintaining the existing rights and promising to keep pace with future rights. Again all on offer from the Labour Party.

My personal view is that the easiest way to achieve all this is stay in the EU. That said to say there is no other deal available is false, there are options, they just have not been pursued by this government. As I currently see it, the Remain lobby has not sufficiently won over a large enough number of either the public or MPs. A soft Brexit is something that I feel some sort of majority could live with.

What would be a disaster is leaving with no-deal, something for which there is absolutely no mandate.

A very sensible post which has obviously had some thought put into it. Never darken the doorstep of the Brexit thread again

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Your politics is getting in the way of your senses.

I don't believe so.

And honestly, you have no idea what 'my politics' are. Other than that I strongly favour the UK remaining in the EU.

 

[Triggaaar]

He has actually asked for less than the other party leaders, that a no deal brexit is confirmed as being off the table. A completely reasonable position to demand on behalf of his party and members, democratically setting their policy through conference.

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

 

[WATFORD zero]

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

Well that plan has worked wonderfully up to now

And, if I know the following, I think the EU might also have an idea

We currently trade under the EU negotiated tariffs and quotas within the WTO. We have submitted some of our own, but there are over 20 members of the WTO who have objected (including Russia and the USA) and these will have to go to arbitration, a process which traditionally takes years under the WTO.

As of 29th March we will, therefor, trade under the following 'modest' WTO defaults (Cereals & Meat - 45-50%, Processed foods - 25%-35%, Clothes - 12%, Footwear - 10%, Vehicles - 9%) with all members of the EU, where trade is tariff free currently and all members of the WTO that we currently use EU schedules for. The EU part alone will be 44% of UK exports and 53% of imports.

You are right in that we have methods of processing imports under WTO rules but these will have to be changed to the default rates and have all quotas (a method of managing volumes) removed. We will then have to put all EU imports through the same processes checks and systems as the rest of the world. (and this includes anything from the rest of the world that comes via the EU in any shape or form - planes, ferries, roads).

74 days to go - It won't happen. That's the point

It's not a poker game, it's International negotiation. Everyone knows all the facts and has done since the very beginning, there is nothing to hide