Page 138 of 142 FirstFirst ... 3888113128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142 LastLast
Results 2,741 to 2,760 of 2840

Thread: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

  1. #2741

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    No indeed, i didn't imply recession (that's a nuclear interpretation indeed), but more political instability as i've described and economic instability in terms of as we've seen now, markets losing confidence due to uncertainty thus investment decisions postponed or moved, sterling dipping in and out and lets not forget the domestic economy actually isn't doing too great- wage growth while growing is still only in 2008 levels, cost of living has run away (simply because the Government are so consumed with brexit at this point essentially) and the still increasing working poverty puts lie to high employment (and somewhat explains the UK's poor productivity). Also we've essentially just managed to avoid a recession being called by the skin of our teeth by that articles own reading .

    So i'm by no means talking about a decade of Apocalypse, but one of political instability (due to votes) essentially continuing the current economic uncertainty
    The economic situation is becoming a self-fulfilled prophecy: by purposefully keeping the United Kingdom in a state of constitutional and legal paralysis, the Europhiles are perpetuating and aggravating the market uncertainty which they claimed that leaving the European Union would cause.

  2. #2742
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,969

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The economic situation is becoming a self-fulfilled prophecy: by purposefully keeping the United Kingdom in a state of constitutional and legal paralysis, the Europhiles are perpetuating and aggravating the market uncertainty which they claimed that leaving the European Union would cause.
    As always agreed here, though i'd advocate a less partisan and fuller interpretation by highlighting both sides role. You have the ERG and so-called 'hard line' brexiteers who voted down May's Brexit deal (as terrible as it was) three times, Boris included, the DUP who scuppered the brexit deal, and now you have a Government who literally has done all this to itself, overreached, shed its own majority, gambled on an early GE but has also just outright refused any electoral pact with the Brexit party and who has lost its lead in most polls, even YouGov this morning which has been the poll most favouarble to the Tories (Not bias towards the Tories, just the poll that gave the Tories the highest lead over Labour compared to any other poll) has come in on 'Britian elects' as being down -3%. to 32% and Labour up +2% to 23 this when taken with the other polls that put Labour now nearly neck and neck, and all showing the government is losing its lead highlight just how self-destructive the Government's actions have been, kicking out the 21 arguably the most of all. Any GE is most likely to be a hung parliament again.

    Then of course there was May's Government- who made Brexit a party political issue, by tying it in with the vision of 'post brexit Britian'- hence the political battles over keeping worker rights full (With Tory groups and the ERG actively seeking to undermine them as part of their particular neoliberal interpretation of 'Global Britain'), environmental protections- indeed if you remember the entire reason that when May did seek support from Labour, the talks broke down was because her own Tory backbenchers like the ERG would not support a commitment to the working rights and protections that Labour demanded (i.e. not taking brexit as an opportunity to undermine them). But it was May's insistence that Brexit would be party-political and not a parliamentary compromise from the get-go that allowed the drawing up of battle lines, if she'd have stepped early on her own ERG and reached out to Labour (Corbyn who until later being forced to the current position is a Eurosceptic) then the ERG and lib-dems could have been sidelined and a brexit agreement reached that also saw the UK keep its current standards of rights and protections (which incidentally such a commitment would have made negotiations with the EU far easier, a crunch point having been that Davis and co and now Raab keep changing their tune on if the UK will attempt to become a lower standards tax haven).

    The political realities were known by both sides, both have shunned compromise as the pendulum has been perceived to swing back and forth to 'their side' as we talked about the political realities of this mean that the electorate cannot or will not 'punish' one side or the other in any meaningful way (Though the biggest risk it seems is the Brexit party to Conservative vote share- though its unlike the BP will get any seats currently unless they can poll at the numbers they had with May in charge- and even then it was touch and go for more than a couple). Both sides need to compromise if they want to move on- though politically i suspect its impossible- no-deal, deal or remain all will see Brexit churned up over and over, unless a Government can win a GE outright and stay in consistently to make sure it's brexit policy is not overturned (no mean feat given current political trends and that their is political capital to be made in pandering to all elements of the brexit position among the electorate that may get a party voters they could otherwise not access) until it diminishes a few elections down the line. This of course is easier with a deal by being the less polarizing of the three options- May's deal looms again , so who knows maybe we'll get that, however the Government have thrown away its own position (The kicking out of the 21 and subsequent bleed of MP's was pointless considering all of them voted for 'A' brexit deal- which is exactly what the Government needed and argues it seeks currently), so we'll see on that account.

    Until though there is a clear way forward and that both sides get off their high horses and compromise, then indeed the economic situation will continue to at best stagnate, and at worst deteriorate as uncertainty plagues business decisions- the worst point currently is that 41% of all British businesses haven't bothered to do basic no-deal prep because of this back and forth. The issue being i doubt we'll pragmatically see a compromise- Boris has messed up in placing the Tories on a line that relies them on shoving out the Brexit party (not happening currently, and again Farage's offer has been outright rejected by Boris, but also that rare partnership of Cummings and the Cabinet being riled by the prospect) after he shored off it seems a fair percentage of support by kicking out the 21 (plus the other messes), while Labour are now GE then second ref, and Lib-dems are reportedly going to change their position to simply revoke article 50. The one hope for a resolution now in the manner i described above which is the only forward (and its a long hard road) is for potentially Kinnock's accidentally passed amendment of May's deal to now officially pass when it comes back- i can't see this happening now that Boris has lost control.

    Likewise the other solution- Boris comes back with a deal. However, he simply aims now (reiterated on his public interview yesterday) to replace the Backstop with something more acceptable, this is a stance the ERG and Brexit 'hard-liners' will not stand for- and again through his undermining of his own position its now not likely the opposition will back it either. Again all sides are responsible for keeping us in Brexit purgatory.

    EDIT: Amber Rudd gives a speech today, unusual contents for a back-bencher. I smell the setting of grounds for a leadership pitch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-speech-brexit

    She will add: “A House of Commons divided and a House of Lords that is bloated have been unable to solve this logjam. Is now finally the time to put proper cross-party efforts into electoral reform?
    “Would a system of more proportional representation have seen our institutions better able to respect the results of elections?”
    AND

    On Brexit, Rudd is to say, the UK risked facing the choice of a no-deal departure or the process being entirely abandoned.“Choosing either of those paths would wholly alienate those on the other side of the argument,” she will say. “It would risk fuelling the anger, resentment and divisions we are already facing.”
    An alternative compromise could be based around Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, which was rejected three times. “A middle path risks disappointing everyone. I continue to believe that compromise is the right approach,” Rudd is to say.

    She wants Parliament to consider moving to PR from FPTP (This is something interestingly that was part of Blair's original intention for his Parliamentary reforms, to move after the Devolution of the UK's constituent parts to AV and then on in the next parliament to PR, at least according to Alistair Campbell in his diary 'The Blair Years'). On top of this she also wants to see May's deal as the way forward. She's clearly attempting to set herself up as a radical 'democratic' (hence PR) reformer and compromise candidate (incidentally this is Blair's literal platform for the 1997 election) particularly as Boris has got a heck of a month ahead of him that may well see him ousted by his own party given the rumblings.
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; September 12, 2019 at 04:24 AM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  3. #2743

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    As always agreed here, though i'd advocate a less partisan and fuller interpretation by highlighting both sides role. You have the ERG and so-called 'hard line' brexiteers who voted down May's Brexit deal (as terrible as it was) three times, Boris included, the DUP who scuppered the brexit deal, and now you have a Government who literally has done all this to itself, overreached, shed its own majority, gambled on an early GE but has also just outright refused any electoral pact with the Brexit party and who has lost its lead in most polls, even YouGov this morning which has been the poll most favouarble to the Tories (Not bias towards the Tories, just the poll that gave the Tories the highest lead over Labour) has come in on 'Britian elects' as being down -3%. to 32% and Labour up +2%- this when taken with the other polls that put Labour now nearly neck and neck, and all showing the government is losing its lead highlight just how self-destructive the Government's actions have been, kicking out the 21 arguably the most of all. Any GE is most likely to be a hung parliament again.
    I. May (the remain voter) flagrantly lied about her negotiating objectives; the ERG were right to vote down the withdrawal agreement.
    II. The Labour Party had no reason to vote down the withdrawal agreement other than to sabotage the referendum and the government.
    III. Polling has proven itself to be irrelevant over the past five years. Predictions for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 elections were all wrong. Were it not for this fact, there wouldn't even have been a referendum in the first place.

    The political realities were known by both sides, both have shunned compromise as the pendulum has been perceived to swing back and forth to 'their side' as we talked about the political realities of this mean that the electorate cannot or will not 'punish' one side or the other in any meaningful way (Though the biggest risk it seems is the Brexit party to Conservative vote share- though its unlike the BP will get any seats currently unless they can poll at the numbers they had with May in charge- and even then it was touch and go for more than a couple). Both sides need to compromise if they want to move on- though politically i suspect its impossible- no-deal, deal or remain all will see Brexit churned up over and over, unless a Government can win a GE outright and stay in consistently to make sure it's brexit policy is not overturned (no mean feat given current political trends and that their is political capital to be made in pandering to all elements of the brexit position among the electorate that may get a party voters they could otherwise not access) until it diminishes a few elections down the line. This of course is easier with a deal by being the less polarizing of the three options- May's deal looms again , so who knows maybe we'll get that, however the Government have thrown away its own position (The kicking out of the 21 and subsequent bleed of MP's was pointless considering all of them voted for 'A' brexit deal- which is exactly what the Government needed and argues it seeks currently), so we'll see on that account.
    The only way this ends is with a government which will follow through with leaving; the lid is off and won't be going back on. Whether it takes 3 months or 3 decades, one way or another the piper will be paid.

    Until though there is a clear way forward and that both sides get off their high horses and compromise, then indeed the economic situation will continue to at best stagnate, and at worst deteriorate as uncertainty plagues business decisions- the worst point currently is that 41% of all British businesses haven't bothered to do basic no-deal prep because of this back and forth. The issue being i doubt we'll pragmatically see a compromise- Boris has messed up in placing the Tories on a line that relies them on shoving out the Brexit party (not happening currently, and again Farage's offer has been outright rejected by Boris, but also that rare partnership of Cummings and the Cabinet being riled by the prospect) after he shored off it seems a fair percentage of support by kicking out the 21 (plus the other messes), while Labour are now GE then second ref, and Lib-dems are reportedly going to change their position to simply revoke article 50. The one hope for a resolution now in the manner i described above which is the only forward (and its a long hard road) is for potentially Kinnock's accidentally passed amendment of May's deal to now officially pass when it comes back- i can't see this happening now that Boris has lost control.

    Likewise the other solution- Boris comes back with a deal. However, he simply aims now (reiterated on his public interview yesterday) to replace the Backstop with something more acceptable, this is a stance the ERG and Brexit 'hard-liners' will not stand for- and again through his undermining of his own position its now not likely the opposition will back it either. Again all sides are responsible for keeping us in Brexit purgatory.
    No they are not. Advocates of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union have dominated British politics since the end of Thatcher. Parliament's histrionic response to Johnson's government is evidence enough that the legislature hasn't been led by an open Eurosceptic for decades. So while you're busy trying to apportion culpability to both sides, you might want to remember the following facts: It was Europhiles who committed the United Kingdom to the Maastricht Treaty and Libson Treaties without a proper public consultation; It was Europhiles, who, at the same time as they were entrenching Britain within Europe, devolved power to the nations so as to create Brussels as a competing sources of authority to Westminster; It was Europhiles who waived the United Kingdom's right to delay opening up its markets to eastern bloc migrants in 2004; It was Europhiles who engineered and then signed into law the Referendum Bill and who then arrogantly failed to consider that they might not win the popular vote; It was Europhiles who controlled the government during the referendum's campaigning period; It was a Europhile (May) who took over the government following the result, destroyed her own majority and then presented parliament with a remain-centric agreement which was thwarted primarily by - you guessed it - Europhiles, and; It is Europhiles who are currently in the process of sabotaging their own pledges and laws whilst denying voters the chance to have their say in a general election.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 12, 2019 at 05:02 AM.

  4. #2744
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,969

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I. May (the remain voter) flagrantly lied about her negotiating objectives; the ERG were right to vote down the withdrawal agreement.
    II. The Labour Party had no reason to vote down the withdrawal agreement other than to sabotage the referendum and the government.
    III. Polling has proven itself to be irrelevant over the past five years. Predictions for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 elections were all wrong. Were it not for this fact, there wouldn't even have been a referendum in the first place.
    May's red lines were indeed an issue, they were unrealistic particularly in negotiation with a larger power like the EU. You support a particular interpretation of leave (at odds i'd say with the other Leave voters who all have their own interpretations- for instance my parents , who are rabid brexit supporters- like literal all their lives) which lets the ERG off the hook, which is fine. But the objective political reality (Not what we want to happen) is they too are responsible for this current mess by doing so.

    This is indeed partly right, also true though is that May could not guarantee that groups like the ERG would support her signing up to Labour's demands for working rights and environmental protections remaining consistent. Again the ERG has a particular vision for brexit (as does most leave and remain factions) that they pursued- together these culminated in the current crisis.

    Polling is not particularly relevant or irrelevant and certainly its nothing new- https://www.theguardian.com/politics...een-study-says Its consistently had problems with accuracy historically. What i would personally say is that polling so far has struggled to accommodate the impact of social media diffusion in politics, though its not attempting to model this. More to the point though is that polling data still informs and influences government policy regarding elections and particularly political advisers continue to use them, so its not necessarily that polling can predict the outcome, but the fact its predictions can and do influence current policy and pathways.

    The only way this ends is with a government which will follow through with leaving; the lid is off and won't be going back on. Whether it takes 3 months or 3 decades, one way or another the piper will be paid.
    This is exactly what i've argued over the last few posts, however the point you are missing is that while indeed its likely we leave the EU, its equally likely dowe the line we rejoin again... and then potentially leave again on different terms, or indeed competing EU relationships are implemented- no-deal becomes a May-esque deal, which is then scrapped. This is not and has never been a 'winner takes all', and again its a complete joke that some MP's are still trying to spin it as that, because the political realities have made this impossible. The political and electoral divisions are too polarized and there is too much political capital to be made from parties choosing to accommodate one group or the other.

    No they are not. Advocates of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union have dominated British politics since the end of Thatcher. Parliament's histrionic response to Johnson's government is evidence enough that the legislature hasn't been led by an open Eurosceptic for decades. So while you're busy trying to apportion culpability to both sides, you might want to remember the following facts: It was Europhiles who committed the United Kingdom to the Maastricht Treaty and Libson Treaties without a proper public consultation; It was Europhiles, who, at the same time as they were entrenching Britain within Europe, devolved power to the nations so as to create Brussels as a competing sources of authority to Westminster; It was Europhiles who waived the United Kingdom's right to delay opening up its markets to eastern bloc migrants in 2004; It was Europhiles who engineered and then signed into law the Referendum Bill and who then arrogantly failed to consider that they might not win the popular vote; It was Europhiles who controlled the government during the referendum's campaigning period; It was a Europhile (May) who took over the government following the result, destroyed her own majority and then presented parliament with a remain-centric agreement which was thwarted primarily by - you guessed it - Europhiles, and; It is Europhiles who are currently in the process of sabotaging their own pledges and laws whilst denying voters the chance to have their say in a general election.
    I'm afraid i can't agree with the assessment here Ep1c. As ever i hugely respect you and enjoy our discussions, but the first thing about this, this is essentially a teleological history at its worst. To fit into a contemporary divide, you've taken a wide historical sounding of events and instances and placed the assumption onto them that they were all geared simply towards 'Europhiles' (which is a broad definition as just like current remainers, historical 'Europhiles' had different reasons for supporting the EU, and were not neccessarily at all supportive of Europe, but other concerns played a part in informing policy). It also relies on the assumption that 'Europhiles' back then had a crystal ball of how events would continue on to now, which is impossible as the only reason there was a Brexit referendum in 2015 was because Cameron brought it up, there was no cascade of slow burning pressure, while we could argue UKIP might be a pressure- they were a small one, and never in any position to actually establish themselves as a Westminster party. Internal Tory politics and the raw choice of dealing with the Eurosckeptics once and for all in the 'modernized' Conservative party off the back of a won Scottish referendum had Cameron take the choice. For your argument here to work there would need to be significant, powerful long-term eurosceptic forces at work (i.e. a linear interpretation, which their just isn't, Euroscepticism and engagement with the EU could usually find themselves embodies in the same party, or indeed even leader- Thatcher for instance- there is no historic 'leave' or 'remain' sides as indeed Brexit was just not a thing and certainly the arguments of brexit were not taken politically seriously as they have been now), it also assumes the EU is on a one-road to federal Union, which i agree with, but is debatable- where we differ though is that their is also the fact that the EU has a two-tier membership system of core federalizing states and those on the outer-ring of which the UK position is ensured legally- the EU can't force the UK to join, unless the UK themselves actually offers itself up- due to this two-track though the interpretations again of historic euro skeptics and supporters are complicated. The other main point as to why this interpretation doesn't work properly is again the taking of events out of their contemporary concerns and the emphasis on one aspect that at the time was not even present.

    For instance the devolution of the United Kingdom was absolutely necessary given the loss of purpose and identity and the consistent rise of the SNP to keep the Union politically viable. The alternative was dissolution entirely which was deemed absolutely dire at the time. For more on this i can send you a reading list which covers the ground-work for this complication, its roots stemming back to the failed conceptions of a 'Greater Britain' and the loss of the imperial project undermining 'British' identity. If you remember prior to devolution the debate in the 90s was not 'How will the UK look in 30 years', but 'When will the UK dissolve'.

    Secondly again public consultation is not what the Westminster system was based on or indeed is desirable within it (for all the problems we've seen so far with the Brexit vote- the system fundamentally does not allow the public to ensure any referendum result is respected because their own recourse for this- a GE, has multiple competing interests for their attention that may override it- as we saw in 2017), it was indeed Blair who actually tried to integrate referendums as being 'proper course' for the UK, but this was in conjunction with electoral reform, devolution and a radically altered second house. Blair's reforms though rightly or wrongly floundered and so you are left with a drive towards direct democracy (which is where your public consultation is important) that was unfulfilled. Britain did more than merely waive its right by the way in regards to Eastern European expansion, but by all accounts it actively supported it (within the limits its domestic politics allowed) as a means to create on its 'second tier' a bloc of grateful supporters that could compete against French attempts to control the Union, likewise even prior to Lisbon and Maastricht signings, Thatcher supported single market membership and the EU project, though advocated for British leadership- something that British Governments consistently followed and is highlighted by both the struggle over the EU between Blair and Chirac and also the UK's numerous rights, privileges and opt-outs (Which prevented the UK being 'forced' into a federal union- hence the two-track system, unless of course British governments supported it). The issue being of course is that the UK has never actually had a eurosceptic government until post-2016. The EU has always been a core part of Britain's Three Pillars strategy that helped to balance being dominated completely the US (hence indeed a big reason why Britain joined as in the US-UK struggle over the Commonwealth, Britain was losing). So sure you can blame europhiles historically, but that simply is because euroscepticism in the political class was rare, particularly on the front-benches and especially in a form that had actual impact- when it was displayed it was tempered by Cold War, US or economic concerns which meant continued EU membership in all its forms was supported by the British governments of the day, from Wilson to Thatcher to Blair to Cameron.

    In terms of the current brexit crisis, nearly all of the broader history you're bringing in is entirely irrelevant to the political realities of brexit and where blame currently is applied for both the original economic point we made (unless you are arguing that Thatcher, Blair etc should have had a crystal ball to see that Cameron to attempt to resolve his own back-bench troubles would call a referendum on the subject) or to the current political circumstances that has been discussed (Again unless previous governments had a crystal ball that would show hardline brexiteers and remainers would refuse to budge from their respective positions, instead digging their heels into the ground, kicking and screaming). Realities understood even early on. The simple fact is when partisanship is removed, you have a bloc of remainers and bloc of Brexiteers trying to impose their particular vision and refusing to accept compromise, who have both undermined attempts to deliver brexit, as well as currently are threatening to bring down Boris (Who is only seeking changes to the backstop by his own statement- which the ERG has said they will not support him in)- Boris who also has a particular brexit vision (i.e. any that gets him into office) and has squandered his own majority (not europhiles, literally the Governments own fault) and followed so far a disastrous set of actions that see's the Tory party in real trouble. I mean heck, even if we do leave on the 31st (I suspect we will), the ability for the ERG, or for Boris to deliver their particular post-brexit vision is now essentially off the table- and that is as i've said time and time again where the real brexit battle begins, the withdrawal agreement passing is only the first in a long series of large political battles ahead.

    It is Europhiles who are currently in the process of sabotaging their own pledges and laws whilst denying voters the chance to have their say in a general election.
    This deserves a special call-out though as essentially you are entirely ignoring that this is a mess of the Governments own making- literally. They overreached hugely and blundered. Boris didn't have to kick the 21 out- these were 21 Tories who nearly all of them had voted for a brexit deal- the very thing Boris is touting he is after. He didn't then have to prorogue parliament with the now openly known intention of 'doing a May' and avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny as far as possible- he also then from these actions started bleeding MP's- again own fault, and he managed to unify the opposition- again own blunder. He didn't have to reject Farage's offer for a pact, which might have been (and still its only a slim chance) as the way for him to win a GE.

    He also didn't have to fight the no-deal legislation as he's threatened (which again hit him quite heavily politically)- he's seeking a deal, no-deal everyone knows the UK is not prepared for, no-deal also would see Brexit undermined as what public support it did have would fall after any disruption (or spinning of said disruption), The argument that it would hurt the EU too- sure, but not as bad, because the UK has not prepared or had time to prepare- the Tories fault (and indeed as i've shown most UK businesses have no even bothered to prepare for it). So Boris could now just go and get a deal, he has stated he only wants to change the backstop, that's it. The anti-no deal legislation has very little impact then on his negotiating position, unless you totally believe that a UK who is objectively unprepared for no-deal, which is something the EU knows, is a 'strong card' (and also by the way, no-deal extends to things like struggling to get post-brexit trade deals up and running, nearly all of ours currently rely on a deal and the states we've signed agreements with have all reserved the right to change the terms once the EU has left- as no deal would swing things even further in their favour- again good luck getting the British public on board with that- that's not even with the political mine-field that is a US trade deal- not to mention we still have no resolved our schedules at the WTO). So again particularly over the last few weeks, this situation is Boris's to own, but is also informed by the ERG and Remain groups among the opposition who have put constraints on what he can and cannot do (For instance if as likely Boris comes back with a reheated May's deal- are the ERG 'blameless' again in voting it down? Hell no, they would have directly contributed as they did under May 3 times to the brexit impasse continuing). These are the political realities of the current situation, again i get you argue that if we had 'better MP's' this would all be different, but we don't and there is no hope of us getting 'better MP's', the ERG, Lib-dems, One Nation Tories, Labour Blarites and Corbyn's group et al all have a very specific aim they are gunning for and using their brexit stance to help achieve this- none of them are simply about honoring the referendum, otherwise a compromise deal would have been found. They all particularly have an eye on fundamentally changing the UK and using Brexit (or indeed cancelling Brexit) as the means to do so.

    EDIT: The one group who could be deemed to not bear any blame or be using their brexit stance to push a wider political agenda by cashing in on the political capital it provides is the Brexit Party...for now (at least unless Farage releases a domestic agenda- which if his past is anything to go by will be typically neoliberal in outlook and would not make it during a GE), however the fact he has not released a domestic agenda, means that fairly he can say he simply wants Brexit, specifically a no-deal one, for the sake of leaving the EU (Though even here there are implications regarding again previous views of the structure of British financial services, that in fairness have not resurfaced yet- though that's because nothing has resurfaced in terms of fleshing out policy). They have not contributed to the current issues, and indeed with Boris's government having outright rejected them, they are under threat from the Conservatives who are attempting to as with UKIP, squeeze their electoral share into the Tory fold.
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; September 12, 2019 at 12:06 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  5. #2745
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,080

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Reading your analysis Dante, the UK home situation sounds really like deepshit quagmire. So the logical conclusion is the EU will be probably decided in EU. Uk simply cannot get majority for anything even in short term...all agreement so far was about rejection something or getting more time. Either the EU will try to keep defensive status and provide long extension ...like we know EU economy especially Germany is not great at the moment so keeping UK is about preventing possible crisis. OR they will just say, screw it, we are prepared as we can be and brexit will only dragg on so bye bye and push Uk out. (actually EU donīt have to do much, Bojo will probably behave in such way or say something that it will be totally his fault (even if it isnīt )) This could easily lead to Scotland leaving UK, making bigger mess and finally UK returning after struggle...

  6. #2746
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,969

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Reading your analysis Dante, the UK home situation sounds really like deepshit quagmire. So the logical conclusion is the EU will be probably decided in EU. Uk simply cannot get majority for anything even in short term...all agreement so far was about rejection something or getting more time. Either the EU will try to keep defensive status and provide long extension ...like we know EU economy especially Germany is not great at the moment so keeping UK is about preventing possible crisis. OR they will just say, screw it, we are prepared as we can be and brexit will only dragg on so bye bye and push Uk out. (actually EU donīt have to do much, Bojo will probably behave in such way or say something that it will be totally his fault (even if it isnīt )) This could easily lead to Scotland leaving UK, making bigger mess and finally UK returning after struggle...
    This is true essentially- though the EU too might as you say simply grant an extension and then things continue on. But short of:

    -Scotland leaving the UK soon (which will change parliamentary arithmetic potentially significantly and certainly will allow for a reshuffle of constituency boundaries)
    -The Government (Boris or his replacement if he's toppled by opposition or his own party) coming back with a deal- likely May's Deal or a rendition of it, that might get parliamentary approval (Though recent circumstances show this is unlikely given the ERG's stance and Lib-dems moving to outright remain).
    -Kinnock's amendment which was accidentally passed bringing back May's deal is voted on and passed.

    There are no sustainable ways now to do brexit, no-deal is mired in polarization and will ensure essentially a huge fightback as the political capital is there for the taking from opposition parties (especially if there is any disruption at all from no-deal, as it would undermine public support, which is divided regardless, for brexit). Outright Remain- same as no-deal, but in reverse, Leave voters are unlikely to just diminish, especially as parties can make political capital over advocating for brexit, and heck even the 'compromise deal' would present a challenge for a government to get it to stick, they'll have to continually win elections or get a consensus from all major parties that this is for the best, and then do as Tory and Labour leaders have done in the past- ruthlessly keep their euroskeptic backbenchers stamped on somehow, while relying on FPTP to do its job and prevent the Brexit party gaining any real traction.

    Essentially the 'safest' route (though has its own huge can of political problems) is getting Scotland to leave the rUK and so changing the parliamentary landscape.

    But aye, pending this i suspect in the end it may well be up to the EU to decide what to do and how, they are technically the only ones who could create a 'lasting' settlement for Brexit in the UK, by taking a firm stance of either accommodation for the UK while we flounder around for a decade or as Ep1c argues even longer, or by saying 'enough is enough'.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  7. #2747

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Obviously. Dante has argued that "The issue being that a referendum would only be decisive because sure, its currently likely to return a 'Remain' result- which is exactly what those advocating a second ref want. Which indeed would solve everything currently, article 50 would be revoked and Britain continues as is.However, that essentially merely creates an unstable but core state within the EU..."
    But, so what? nothing is immutable, nothing is permanently stable, laws can be changed, even constitutions can be changed, new referendums can be made. In my opinion, the UK needs internal stability, and now faces disaggregation. So, which is worse? The Scottish Parliament has approved a new Independence Referendum, to take place between late 2018 and early 2019, "when the shape of the UK's Brexit deal will become clear".
    The New EU's chief trade negotiator is the Irish Phil Hogan. The nomination of "Big Phil" means that the EU will continue to prioritize the issue of the Irish border. It's crystal clear that the Irish border order will see checks after a non deal Brexit.
    It's also crystal clear to me that the nationalist concept of the Brexit, the nationalist concept of the proud nationalist Brexiteers (Boris,"We shall never surrender"- oh dear, but the EU is not the nazi Germany) is not a Scottish, Irish or Welsh concept. It is an English concept, a by product of English exceptionalism in British history.
    -----

    Yes, it is a "ridiculous" claim for your right wing xenophobic and racist friends in the Uk and across the world. As a side note, it's a well known fact that that populistas have a special love for direct democracy.Do populist-leaning citizens support direct democracy? : Democratic
    Ah, and I was wondering when the "raaaaaaycist" card was going to be played.
    It's really funny that you would resort to someone else's description of how the "populists" think (this someone else's objectivity, of course, leaves a lot to be desired), instead of going directly to the source.
    Salvini can walk among the people (scores of them) without the protection of riot police. Very few "democratic" leaders can actually do the same.
    But I forget, if the people protest, they are "xenophobic fascists", so we got that one covered, too.
    But tell me, how does it feel that your flavour of "democracy" is such that it leaves itself exposed to criticism from a "fascist"? Imagine that, wishing for a second referendum because the results of the first one were not to your liking is such a democratic idea, that not even a "fascist" would go along with it.
    And honestly, I can't, in all seriousness imagine ANYONE here opening a thread suggesting that Bremain should be scrapped for a second referendum. Such nerve, such lack of democratic principles is to be found only in the pro-EU side, it seems.

  8. #2748

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    The results of the vote isn't the problem ioannis76, it's the vision of Englishmen and women fighting for the last fresh tomatoes in Waitrose that is undermining Brexit.

    Here's a thought about the ridiculousness of the whole thing. As no deal Brexit before 31 Oct is now illegal, the Ģ100m spent on no deal advertising is just a massive pile of public cash blown away on a vanity project. Could have spent that on nurses, teachers etc.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 12, 2019 at 01:35 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  9. #2749
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,969

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    I think just to weigh in on the debate about uninformed voters- whatever impact that may be argued to have or not, i don't think it really impacts the legitimacy of the referendums first result, because essentially voters in the Breixt referendum, whether remain or leave are no more or less informed than those voting in a General election. Britain's quality of political education among voters of all ages is sadly lacking (there was a very interesting series of studies conducted about perception vs reality, and most Britain's, including myself in some areas were way off about most things). Just to drum up some personal stories, a long time ago now (2010...) i remember a fellow student (Studying Physics though, so maybe its to be expected ) voted for the Conservatives simply because they were the first to put a leaflet through her door and it was blue. I don't knock that, each to their own, but that is by no means at all an 'informed vote'.

    Likewise to go to the safer realms of macro-examples, the very fact the UK has 'traditional' voters for all main parties- people who vote Labour, Tory or Lib-dem because their parents did or due to their friends, or the region they live in highlights that an 'informed' electorate has never been something the UK could really ever claim. Manifesto's - https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-re...now-manifesto/ The vast majority of people barely touch or read them, let alone scrutinize what they mean, indeed 10% of Britons have no idea what a manifesto actually is.

    This is not a politically engaged populace, historically or currently- we're a representative democracy indeed, its not really a 'duty' for the populace to be politically educated or even 'informed' because the basis of the Parliamentary system is you vote for a representative whose judgement you trust to exercise their own judgement and do all the politics for you, its why historically, trust for politicians has been rather naively (though hindsight is 20/20) high, Briton's just believed they get on with the business of governing once we voted them in, and we'd hear no more about it. This was only really rocked in the 90's by the 'sleaze' scandals and subsequent crash in trust for politicians who were exposed as doing things they'd always done, but now with a 24 hour news cycle, they couldn't really control the narrative of as capably (An interesting aspect to the Conservative decline vis a vis Blair- both parties had 'sleaze' issues and were very wary of it, but the Tories by their own open admission lacked a Campbell who understand the new media age).

    Post-90s, much the same attitude existed in terms of most people firing off a vote while never being technically informed about anything, only now arguably instead of trusting the MP to do right by them, the political culture changed that they perhaps voted for the person who was the 'least worst' in terms of them personally and who the party leader was- though a more balanced analysis is that it simply carried on. People voted for Labour because Labour, voted Tories because Tories (and the FPTP encouraged this).

    With that context in mind though, with no requirement to be 'informed' and indeed with most in Britain people not being properly informed about politics to the level they could scrutinize manifesto promises and interrogate themselves what politicians say- why should a referendum have higher requirements to be a legitimate result than any other British political vote. Indeed in Britain, as in General Elections the 'sides' trying to win the vote (be that Remain, Leave, Labour or the Conservatives etc) have the onus to convince people (within the law of course) to vote for them and to provide the information to voters. It has never been the case in the British system that the majority of voters have to be politically informed, or even able to think critically about the policies and issues on offer.

    The vast majority contemporarily or historically never really have been what could be properly said to be 'informed', (Important to note this does not mean they were not politically engaged though- there is a big difference that is often overlooked) FPTP and the Westminster system does not force them to be so, and frankly most people don't have the time, interest or easy access to resources to be able to properly inform themselves to the standards of being able to scrutinize the party/group their going to vote for in a rigorous way (and again the vast majority of people, even if they have that capacity never seem to bother according to the manifesto data, no judgement on them for that, i'll leave the hand wringing to the political theorists ).
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; September 12, 2019 at 04:40 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  10. #2750
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    8,717

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Great Analysis Dante. One point I would add is that it is true that in a representative democracy, voters choose representatives, not policies, but there is also accountability.

    Compare that to a referendum. Those who campaign for one result or another have no democratic accountability for the outcome.

    That is an issue that needs to be resolved up front. The options for a referendum have to be such that the accountability rests with 'the people' as well. That means there can be no political angle to the implementation of the result. It has to be 'ready to go' the day after.

    In this case, there was a lot yet to figure out and in a representative democracy, MP's will be held accountable.

    So what do they do? They have a choice between their own mandate, which says they ought to represent people's interests using their own judgement and an instruction from a referendum that leaves a lot of decisions to be made. They are in the unenviable position where they will be held accountable for the way in which they reconcile the two. That is what the Parliamentary stalemate is about.

    The only way not to acknowledge this is to argue the instructions were unequivocal, which is either a lie or a very good illustration of why we need representative democracy.
    Last edited by Muizer; September 13, 2019 at 04:07 AM.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  11. #2751
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,362

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    I'm afraid Muizer it's even worse than that. Dante's analysis showcases why the referendum should have never happened, why there is and should be a representative democracy in Britain. But it would be naive to think that parliamentarians did not call for that referendum exactly because they wanted to eschew their responsibilities. It would be naive to think that was a happy accident and not intentional.

    You see when it comes to representative democracy there is (at least) two competing philosophies, that of the trustee and that of the delegate. One of the primary issues that plague representative democracies is that parliamentarians at large want the autonomy given to them by the trustee system, with the relative lack of responsibility provided by the delegate system. So we end up with a representative system that is both and neither of these things. Always to the benefit of the parliamentarian, always to the detriment of the people and of course the democratic system in use. That referendum in my opinion, was but yet another example of this uncertainty in the system, this confused understanding of what representative democracy is, indeed what democracy is. And considering some very specific people stand to gain from that, I would first look at those when trying to find the ones responsible.

  12. #2752
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,749

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Great Analysis Dante. One point I would add is that it is true that in a representative democracy, voters choose representatives, not policies, but there is also accountability.

    Compare that to a referendum. Those who campaign for one result or another have no democratic accountability for the outcome.

    That is an issue that needs to be resolved up front. The options for a referendum have to be such that the accountability rests with 'the people' as well. That means there can be no political angle to the implementation of the result. It has to be 'ready to go' the day after.

    In this case, there was a lot yet to figure out and in a representative democracy, MP's will be held accountable.

    So what do they do? They have a choice between their own mandate, which says they ought to represent people's interests using their own judgement and an instruction from a referendum that leaves a lot of decisions to be made. They are in the unenviable position where they will be held accountable for the way in which they reconcile the two. That is what the Parliamentary stalemate is about.

    The only way not to acknowledge this is to argue the instructions were unequivocal, which is either a lie or a very good illustration of why we need representative democracy.
    We don't have representitive democracy as the present situation bears out, we have nothing short of a political coup going on. The UK now has a minority government which commands no power and yet is unable to dissolve itself. The opposition, if you include Tory rebels, now command the House of Comons and are denying the people the chance to displace them through an election. It is a shambles and an utter disgrace.

  13. #2753
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,362

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    We don't have representitive democracy as the present situation bears out, we have nothing short of a political coup going on. The UK now has a minority government which commands no power and yet is unable to dissolve itself. The opposition, if you include Tory rebels, now command the House of Comons and are denying the people the chance to displace them through an election. It is a shambles and an utter disgrace.
    A coup? You mean the prorogation? Indeed BoJo is shutting down the one elected body of this representative democracy that can scrutinize him. Eh? More seriously, I would say one should be careful when using such big words. They don't exactly defuse this already charged situation, they simply exacerbate the differences between the two competing tribes.

  14. #2754
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,749

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    A coup? You mean the prorogation? Indeed BoJo is shutting down the one elected body of this representative democracy that can scrutinize him. Eh? More seriously, I would say one should be careful when using such big words. They don't exactly defuse this already charged situation, they simply exacerbate the differences between the two competing tribes.
    "Careful you say", this is about our elected government which is in a state of moribund! It's a coup, A siege of power of a group which desn't have a full electoral mandate. We have elections for a purpose, and yes.. referendums too for the same reason. To express the will of the people and decide a course of action.
    Last edited by caratacus; September 13, 2019 at 05:45 AM.

  15. #2755
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,362

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    "Careful you say", this is about our elected government which is in a state of moribund! It's a coup, A siege of power of a group which desn't have a full electoral mandate. We have elections for a purpose, and yes.. referendums too for the same reason. To express the will of the people and decide a course of action.
    Your elected government? Who elected it? The PM? Again, the only elected body in this mess is parliament and BoJo is the one that shut it down. BoJo, the unelected PM. As for elections, yes you have them for a purpose, to elect the people that will represent you for the next 5 years. You did that. Now it's up to them to decide if they should come back to you or exhaust those 5 years that they were elected to serve. That is part of their mandate. So yes careful when throwing accusations of a coup around, in such charged circumstances they can be turned around with surprising ease based on one's perspective. And they don't help defuse a situation in dire need of compromise.

  16. #2756
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,749

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Your elected government? Who elected it? The PM? Again, the only elected body in this mess is parliament and BoJo is the one that shut it down. BoJo, the unelected PM. As for elections, yes you have them for a purpose, to elect the people that will represent you for the next 5 years. You did that. Now it's up to them to decide if they should come back to you or exhaust those 5 years that they were elected to serve. That is part of their mandate. So yes careful when throwing accusations of a coup around, in such charged circumstances they can be turned around with surprising ease based on one's perspective. And they don't help defuse a situation in dire need of compromise.
    People elect a government to govern the country, not an opposition (they are the ones that lost). There is no compromise to that. If a government cannot govern, there needs to be an election. This whole prorogation issue is a smoke screen to disguise what is going on. That we have a parliament that is breaching its promise to abide by the referendum result. We have a zombie government without any chance of negotiating a trade deal with the EU and as a result the Country is stuck in limbo land.
    Last edited by caratacus; September 13, 2019 at 06:21 AM.

  17. #2757
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,362

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    People elect a government to govern the country, not an opposition (they are the ones that lost). There is no compromise to that. If a government cannot govern, there needs to be an election. This whole prorogation issue is a smoke screen to disguise what is going on. That we have a parliament that is breaching its promise to abide by the referendum result.
    If you check your election ballot, you will see you are asked to vote for an MP, not a government. Parliament is who you vote for. Every MP that enters parliament is a winner and they have their mandate and they represent their voters. You do not elect a government. A government is elected by the leader of the winning party and serves only as long as parliament allows it to, hence the votes of confidence. Your parliament is not breaching any such promise, the referendum never said "leave with no-deal", the policy pursued by your government, yes it didn't mention explicitly deals but the pro-brexit side campaigned while taking a deal for granted. So the interpretation I'm using clearly has weight.

  18. #2758
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,749

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    If you check your election ballot, you will see you are asked to vote for an MP, not a government. Parliament is who you vote for. Every MP that enters parliament is a winner and they have their mandate and they represent their voters. You do not elect a government. A government is elected by the leader of the winning party and serves only as long as parliament allows it to, hence the votes of confidence. Your parliament is not breaching any such promise, the referendum never said "leave with no-deal", the policy pursued by your government, yes it didn't mention explicitly deals but the pro-brexit side campaigned while taking a deal for granted. So the interpretation I'm using clearly has weight.
    The fact remains, that a political group cannot form a government without demonstrating it has the clear majority support of the Country. We don't vote for Prime Ministers but we do vote for the party we wish to form a government. When that PM goes to the monarch and requests to form a government, they do so with the promise that they have recieved the support of her subjects. And yes in the UK we are subjects of the Crown not citizens of parliament.

    We have a parliament who approved the passage of a bill which received royal assent, that the referendum result would be honoured and that the UK would leave the EU. Instead we have a clear breach of that promise by those MPs who have been actively working together with foreign nationals to undermine that outcome and are now directly impeading it. They have no public mabndate whatsoever. The British people need, nay should demand an election to resolve this.
    Last edited by caratacus; September 13, 2019 at 06:48 AM.

  19. #2759

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    The fact remains, that a political group cannot form a government without demonstrating it has the clear majority support of the Country. We don't vote for Prime Ministers but we do vote for the party we wish to form a government. When that PM goes to the monarch and requests to form a government, they do so with the promise that they have recieved the support of her subjects. And yes in the UK we are subjects of the Crown not citizens of parliament.

    We have a parliament who approved the passage of a bill which received royal assent, that the referendum result would be honoured and that the UK would leave the EU. Instead we have a clear breach of that promise by those MPs who have been actively working together with foreign nationals to undermine that outcome and are now directly impeading it. They have no public mabndate whatsoever. The British people need, nay should demand an election to resolve this.
    There is one problem. People in the know predict that if no deal Brexit happens, the UK will look like this*..........





    Do you know many bottlecaps it will take to keep one's family fed with Mac N Cheese and Squirrel bits?

    * There are some who suggest that after a decade of austerity, parts of the UK already do.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  20. #2760
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,362

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    The fact remains, that a political group cannot form a government without demonstrating it has the clear majority support of the Country. We don't vote for Prime Ministers but we do vote for the party we wish to form a government. When that PM goes to the monarch and requests to form a government, they do so with the promise that they have recieved the support of her subjects. And yes in the UK we are subjects of the Crown not citizens of parliament.

    We have a parliament who approved the passage of a bill which received royal assent, that the referendum result would be honoured and that the UK would leave the EU. Instead we have a clear breach of that promise by those MPs who have been actively working together with foreign nationals to undermine that outcome and are now directly impeading it. They have no public mabndate whatsoever. The British people need, nay should demand an election to resolve this.
    Form a government without a clear majority support of the country? You mean like every government? No, a government doesn't need a majority support in the country, it needs a majority support in parliament. Because however you like to dress it, the Queen and all the last vestiges of the monarchy do not change the fact that you have a representative democracy and parliament is sovereign. Oh and if you are voting for a party instead of a representative, in a representative democracy, you are doing it wrong.

    Now your point about the opposition colluding with "foreign nationals" has reached Trumpian hysteria levels. First of all, of course MPs are within their rights to consult foreign political actors/analysts/etc when deciding policy. Particularly if said policy will have to take into considerations the will of other states, like Brexit does. Second, I don't remember the referendum having a date of delivery for Brexit. In fact I remember it being quite sparse on detail. Both major parties in parliament have been trying to get a deal and leave, they seem to disagree on the kind of deal. The majority of parliament has also rejected no-deal Brexit, again within their rights and not against the referendum. No coups here. A very malfunctioning representative democracy sure, but no coups. As for a GE, I really don't see what electing another hung parliament will resolve.
    Last edited by Alastor; September 13, 2019 at 07:28 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •