Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Tea anyone?

Duty281 wrote:The National Crime Agency has found "no evidence" of criminal offences after allegations against Leave.EU and its founder Arron Banks.
The agency launched an investigation into the pro-Brexit campaign group after it was fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission in May last year.
But the NCA said it would not take any further action against Leave.EU, its chief executive Liz Bilney or Mr Banks.
Tweeting after the ruling, Mr Banks said: "Victory is sweet."

Exactly why we adhere to 'innocent until proven guilty' in this country - I remember some on here wanting Banks banged up and the key thrown away (metaphorically speaking) when the investigations were first announced!

Missed a bit.

There have also been media reports alleging that Mr Banks has been involved in other criminality related to business dealings overseas. The NCA neither confirms nor denies that it is investigating these reports.

Supreme court decision this morning as to whether Johnson's move was illegal..

Staggered if it isn't ruled that way.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Supreme court decision this morning as to whether Johnson's move was illegal..

Staggered if it isn't ruled that way.

Well the verdict has come in. Johnson has no authority left.

Johnson

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is all.

I have been hovering over this board for a while now so I thought I would contribute.

My main concern with having another referendum is I still there would be a definitive answer and the worst possible outcome would be a 52/48 split for Remain.

Obviously I get what you lot are saying concerning the questions would be different for a second referendum (Deal, No Deal, Remain), and for that reason it could be a 25/25/50 split.

Being concerned about the outcome of the referendum should not be a reason not to have it at all. But do you lot feel a small Remain win in a 2nd referendum could actually have more dramatic consequences to the UK then leaving the EU without a deal?

How would maintaining the status quo be more dramatic than severing trade ties with our biggest trading partner?

Because the extreme end of the Leave vote would come out in force screaming stitch up? They are being pacified to some extent because there is still a chance they could get what they want/voted for. Take that away however......

They probably will, at which point they can be comfortably told to "suck it up and accept they lost, that's democracy" etc.

The last referendum was based on lies, conjecture and without anyone who voted on either side really knowing what "Leave" would look like.

Holding another referendum when the facts are much clearer seems like a sensible option.

But isn't "suck it up and accept they lost, that's democracy" what the Remain side are being told now? And that is not having any effect.

I agree with what you are saying about the last referendum. However I feel people are underestimating the impact that reversal result in a 2nd referendum would have. It won't be accepted and it is likely to get very ugly.

I just want to point out I have no thoughts on a solution because I genuinely feel we are in a situation where there is no solution.

Oh I'd agree. It certainly wouldn't go down very well. My "suck it up" remark was more in jest than anything else.

Doesn't make a second referendum the wrong thing, though. It's the most democratic solution, especially considering all the falsehoods presented the first time round.

I too, have been hovering for a while. Enjoy the debate when it stays civil

The only real solution I've heard to a second referendum other than just repeating the vote is a two question referendum along the lines of:

1. Should we leave the EU? Leave / Remain

2. If we are to leave, should that be with the deal currently negotiated? (May's deal or something superceding it) Leave with deal / Leave with no deal

Personally, I don't like this idea at all but it's the best idea I've heard on a second referendum. Would be interested to hear other ideas on questions for it from those who support it?

And agree with Twist, a lot of people underestimate the amount of anger and the 'stitch up' that a second referendum will cause. A lot of people that voted for Brexit aren't engaged with politics, anre angry with the system and would feel completely betrayed. Obviously Farage et al are encouraging that mentality but I can understand it.

I'm completely with you both in terms of the anger, I just think this is the most sensible way forward.

But this speaks to the wider question of referenda in general. You wrote:

"2. If we are to leave, should that be with the deal currently negotiated? (May's deal or something superceding it) Leave with deal / Leave with no deal

Personally, I don't like this idea at all but it's the best idea I've heard on a second referendum. Would be interested to hear other ideas on questions for it from those who support it?"

Maybe the three-option question would be best? Remain/Deal/No Deal.

This is the thing about referenda on such complex issues. So many people don't understand what the deal is. So many think that this is a negotiation on a trade agreement with the EU when it's just a negotiation on a transitional agreement while a full trade deal is sorted.

That's an important point Pr4wn. We are struggling to negotiate just to be able to get to the point where we can then negotiate on the future trade agreement.

How are they going to do the second if they struggle with the first?

Well the current government isn't negotiating at all, but that's beside the point.

How can the public be expected to have an informed opinion on this though? It was a ridiculous idea from the outset.

At the time, I always argued the point that we didn't know what we were voting for, so how could anyone vote for anything other than the one thing we could be sure of - Remaining meant staying the same.

I used the analogy, if I gave you the choice to jump into a deep dark hole, telling you that there might be the world's biggest bouncy castle at the bottom, would you do it? Or would you wait to find out what was at the bottom first?

Oh that's tough. I really love bouncy castles.

Afro wrote:At the time, I always argued the point that we didn't know what we were voting for, so how could anyone vote for anything other than the one thing we could be sure of - Remaining meant staying the same

Remaining doesn't mean staying the same or, indeed, anything we could be sure of as the EU is not a static institution. It is constantly evolving and moving towards greater federalisation and integration.

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote:At the time, I always argued the point that we didn't know what we were voting for, so how could anyone vote for anything other than the one thing we could be sure of - Remaining meant staying the same

Remaining doesn't mean staying the same or, indeed, anything we could be sure of as the EU is not a static institution. It is constantly evolving and moving towards greater federalisation and integration.

You know what I meant - the same outcome we would have had if we didn't have a referendum at all.

Do the research, have the conversations, state what leave meant e.g. leave is this deal, or even we can't agree therefore its a Leave without a deal, then have a referendum.

Why do any of that when you can just spout lazy slogans, falsehoods and inaccuracies?

Pr4wn wrote:Oh I'd agree. It certainly wouldn't go down very well. My "suck it up" remark was more in jest than anything else.

Doesn't make a second referendum the wrong thing, though. It's the most democratic solution, especially considering all the falsehoods presented the first time round.

Oh yes 100%. But I see it like 127 hours movie. Cutting your arm off is the right thing to do. Still not enjoyable however and could lead to an even worse situation.....cut it off and still not be rescued.

Although I feel a 2nd referendum is correct, the aftermath of it will be completely diabolical. Even if there was a genuine Remain majority this time round.....say 70/30 in whatever format you want the question to be.

We aren't talking about a friendly demo here by placid (ish) remainers. We are talking about a rise in hate crime, angrier protesting, more court cases and I think a real threat to the lives of certain MPs. I don't class myself as being over-dramatic but I do honestly believe it could get as bad as that.

That is why part of me hopes there isn't a 2nd referendum. It isn't a democratic answer, but I just hope they get some sort of deal through. That is the only outcome I fear that won't cause anarchy, and to a certain extent, a no deal would cause less social issues than a remain 2nd referendum result - which even typing that out seems an insane situation to be in.

You are on a sinking ship that is on fire. Would you rather burn to death or drown?

There are people who think no deal means the status quo, so I'm not surprised that many don't realise that its a transitional agreement

The British public were never informed enough to make this decision. Can the whole thing, either via a second referendum or revoking, let the angry shouty crowd have their little riot and we can forget it ever happened

If only it was that simple

If only

I voted remain and yes, it shouldn't have been a referendum.
But it was and the country voted to leave, so it has to be respected.

The problem is that most people are unwilling to compromise. It's either a clean no deal Brexit or we need to remain. You've also got politicians working for personal and party gain rather than what's best for the country. Boris has been opportunistic throughout all of this, the Labour Party want a general election rather than a Brexit solution.

If we remain and the Brexit brigade can summon up a million marchers to protest then I think we should pay them more attention. I'd be especially impressed if they could do so without violence.

Talking of which one of the side themes with the current sh!te is that 'there will be unrest/violence if..' which is no reason not to do it at all.

And yes I do appreciate that probably only a tiny minority of brexiteers would stoop to violent behaviour, but you don't see leaver politicians getting death threats (unless any of them have dairy allergies).

I saw the point made the other day that those predicting widespread civil unrest if we don't leave on 31st October were also predicting civil unrest if we didn't leave on 29th March.

And speaking of marches, Farage's trek from Sunderland to London was the dampest of squibs.

Trebs wrote:I voted remain and yes, it shouldn't have been a referendum.
But it was and the country voted to leave, so it has to be respected.

The problem is that most people are unwilling to compromise. It's either a clean no deal Brexit or we need to remain. You've also got politicians working for personal and party gain rather than what's best for the country. Boris has been opportunistic throughout all of this, the Labour Party want a general election rather than a Brexit solution.

This frustrates me. It is too simple a reading of a question that is far too complex. Respecting the result, given the closeness of the vote, should have meant reviewing the situation but leaving Brexit on the table. Leaping in head first without a plan was a fatal mistake. Big changes normally require a significant margin because voters are fickle and because having serious numbers is the only way you'll manage to get a consensus on how to proceed.

Respecting the result just means shutting your eyes and ears to all evidence for the last 3 years.

What is the point of respecting something which has so far proved to be undeliverable? At what point do we stop throwing good money after bad?

lostinwales wrote:

Trebs wrote:I voted remain and yes, it shouldn't have been a referendum.
But it was and the country voted to leave, so it has to be respected.

The problem is that most people are unwilling to compromise. It's either a clean no deal Brexit or we need to remain. You've also got politicians working for personal and party gain rather than what's best for the country. Boris has been opportunistic throughout all of this, the Labour Party want a general election rather than a Brexit solution.

This frustrates me. It is too simple a reading of a question that is far too complex. Respecting the result, given the closeness of the vote, should have meant reviewing the situation but leaving Brexit on the table. Leaping in head first without a plan was a fatal mistake. Big changes normally require a significant margin because voters are fickle and because having serious numbers is the only way you'll manage to get a consensus on how to proceed.

Respecting the result just means shutting your eyes and ears to all evidence for the last 3 years.

What is the point of respecting something which has so far proved to be undeliverable? At what point do we stop throwing good money after bad?

Yes, agreed that the campaign promised a rainbow and unicorns if we left. My issue is that so many people who felt that they didn't have a voice for a long time have finally voted in something they believed in. At what point we say screw it, it's not going to work, I don't know.

It isn't deliverable because too many MPs are putting themselves and their party before what's best for the country. Or at least what they believe to be best.

I think a united house, possibly cross party could negotiate a deal which would be good for the country. The problem is the entrenched views of 'stop Brexit' and 'no deal Brexit' would mean that even a 'good' deal would face opposition.

lostinwales wrote:you don't see leaver politicians getting death threats

Yes, this absolutely does happen, unfortunately. Violent bigotry isn't limited to a tiny minority of Leave supporters - it also extends to a tiny minority of Remain supporters.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:you don't see leaver politicians getting death threats

Yes, this absolutely does happen, unfortunately. Violent bigotry isn't limited to a tiny minority of Leave supporters - it also extends to a tiny minority of Remain supporters.

Maybe that is not the best example but there is a huge disparity between violent acts reported for the two sides. And no, one senile old git killing another while shouting about leave is not the same as the murder of Jo Cox.

Trebs wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Trebs wrote:I voted remain and yes, it shouldn't have been a referendum.
But it was and the country voted to leave, so it has to be respected.

The problem is that most people are unwilling to compromise. It's either a clean no deal Brexit or we need to remain. You've also got politicians working for personal and party gain rather than what's best for the country. Boris has been opportunistic throughout all of this, the Labour Party want a general election rather than a Brexit solution.

This frustrates me. It is too simple a reading of a question that is far too complex. Respecting the result, given the closeness of the vote, should have meant reviewing the situation but leaving Brexit on the table. Leaping in head first without a plan was a fatal mistake. Big changes normally require a significant margin because voters are fickle and because having serious numbers is the only way you'll manage to get a consensus on how to proceed.

Respecting the result just means shutting your eyes and ears to all evidence for the last 3 years.

What is the point of respecting something which has so far proved to be undeliverable? At what point do we stop throwing good money after bad?

Yes, agreed that the campaign promised a rainbow and unicorns if we left. My issue is that so many people who felt that they didn't have a voice for a long time have finally voted in something they believed in. At what point we say screw it, it's not going to work, I don't know.

It isn't deliverable because too many MPs are putting themselves and their party before what's best for the country. Or at least what they believe to be best.

I think a united house, possibly cross party could negotiate a deal which would be good for the country. The problem is the entrenched views of 'stop Brexit' and 'no deal Brexit' would mean that even a 'good' deal would face opposition.

A "good" deal already has faced opposition. I'm good friends with a lot of the British Embassy staff here in Manila and they're unanimously saying that May's deal was fantastic, given what she had to work with, and that it would be pretty much impossible (as we're currently finding out) to get anything better out of the EU.

There's a group of MPs in the ERG that are hell-bent on the UK leaving without a deal and no proper journalistic investigation has been done to find out why. It would obviously be disastrous for the UK economy and would cost the country thousands of jobs. Why there isn't more scrutiny on these lunatics is beyond me.

Remain have had 1 million people marching in London with "no significant arrests"

Put 40 leave supporters outside Westminster and there will be physical and verbal abuse galore. Think its obvious which side has more angry shouty types

Yes I agree with you Pr4wn. I think that May's deal, all things considered was a good deal. But most of Labour opposed it for the sake of opposing, with this stupid six tests which was impossible to achieve. You could argue that May should have made this cross party, and you can also argue that the secrecy was necessary. Either way, I probably would have voted for the deal if I were an MP.

Remainers will oppose any deal, because they want to remain, obviously, and the ERG are also opposing a deal. Both sides are using the fact that the deal didn't get through to suggest it's a parliamentary mandate for remain/no deal.

That's what I'm getting at when I say there is a lack of compromise.

Remain - Good Behavior Gents
Leave - Fascist Violent Thugs

Conclusion: Rustic post-war grannies who whittle sticks (an accusation made against Leavers some months back) are Fascist Violent Thugs.

Oh well....good for them. Keeps them active in their retirement years.

lostinwales wrote:Respecting the result, given the closeness of the vote, should have meant reviewing the situation but leaving Brexit on the table. Leaping in head first without a plan was a fatal mistake. Big changes normally require a significant margin because voters are fickle and because having serious numbers is the only way you'll manage to get a consensus on how to proceed.

There's an excellent Twitter thread written by a professor who advised the Welsh Assembly in the wake of the narrow majority in favour of devolution in 1997. It talks about how conscious they were of that narrowness of margin, how vital is was to build losers' consent, and the steps they took to that end. Basically, every step that they took in 1997, Theresa May's government didn't take in 2006.

It sounds like a dry subject, but I promise it's worth a read. I'll post a link later, if I remember!

SecretFly wrote:

Remain - Good Behavior Gents
Leave - Fascist Violent Thugs

Conclusion: Rustic post-war grannies who whittle sticks (an accusation made against Leavers some months back) are Fascist Violent Thugs.

Oh well....good for them.  Keeps them active in their retirement years.

You're smart enough to know that isn't what I meant. You're also smart enough to know that there is a sizeable portion of the leave support treating the result of the referendum like they would treat the result of Millwall vs West Ham in the cup

A very good point made by TwisT on the repercussions of a referendum with remain winning.

1/ Labour would put their soft Brexit deal vs remain (both options are hated by Brexiters, who could boycott referendum, remain would win for sure).

2/ This would cause social unrest, and create a really toxic atmosphere. I don't agree with Brexiters on much, but even I'd agree that a referendum between a soft Brexit and Remain is a bit of a stitch up.

3/ Leavers would immediately call for another referendum. They'd see it as 1-1, so best of 3? Tories and Brexit Party would probably use that anger to win the next general election, so there would be another referendum soon enough.

What's sad is how some (and by no means all) of the people who voted to leave when leaving was generally understood to entail a soft Brexit - even Farage was speaking of a 'Norway-style' deal - have been persuaded that anything less than a hard Brexit won't be Brexit at all. Even now, if you showed them clips of Farage, of Johnson, of Gove, from 2016, and juxtaposed them with what they're saying now, they wouldn't even care that the lines have changed. It's staggering.

Actually, I'll tell you what it is: it's radicalisation.

Every step is a risk. There is a huge risk of unrest if we do Brexit and the baseline WORST CASE predictions come to pass. And the northern Brexit strongholds are almost guaranteed to get it worst.

I don't think threats of unrest should drive what we do next because it is pretty much inevitable that someone is going to be p!ssed off, and letting such threats drive policy is a really bad idea

Trebs wrote:I voted remain and yes, it shouldn't have been a referendum.
But it was and the country voted to leave, so it has to be respected.

No it doesn't. It wasn't made law that we should do it, and democracy is voting in a government who make the (supposed) best intentions for their way of leading the country

It Must Be Love wrote:A very good point made by TwisT on the repercussions of a referendum with remain winning.

1/ Labour would put their soft Brexit deal vs remain (both options are hated by Brexiters, who could boycott referendum, remain would win for sure).

2/ This would cause social unrest, and create a really toxic atmosphere. I don't agree with Brexiters on much, but even I'd agree that a referendum between a soft Brexit and Remain is a bit of a stitch up.

3/ Leavers would immediately call for another referendum. They'd see it as 1-1, so best of 3?  Tories and Brexit Party would probably use that anger to win the next general election, so there would be another referendum soon enough.

Or Remain parties would win the next election.

We shouldn't lose sight of how narrow the margin of victory was, or that every poll bar one since the referendum has shown a majority in favour of remaining, with that one poll being a tie.

BamBam wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Remain - Good Behavior Gents
Leave - Fascist Violent Thugs

Conclusion: Rustic post-war grannies who whittle sticks (an accusation made against Leavers some months back) are Fascist Violent Thugs.

Oh well....good for them.  Keeps them active in their retirement years.

You're smart enough to know that isn't what I meant. You're also smart enough to know that there is a sizeable portion of the leave support treating the result of the referendum like they would treat the result of Millwall vs West Ham in the cup

You mean I'd take my girlfriend along to her first match and very quickly begin to regret it?

lostinwales wrote:Every step is a risk. There is a huge risk of unrest if we do Brexit and the baseline WORST CASE predictions come to pass. And the northern Brexit strongholds are almost guaranteed to get it worst.

I don't think threats of unrest should drive what we do next because it is pretty much inevitable that someone is going to be p!ssed off, and letting such threats drive policy is a really bad idea

I agree with this, but people believing that a 2nd referendum remain win would be all sunshine and rainbows does annoy me. Financially yes, but socially it will feck things up royally.

That isn't to say, I repeat, that we shouldn't do it. But like those that say "be careful what you wish for if you want no deal", I would repeat that for those that want a 2nd referendum. I believe there is an element of scaremongering to them (the leavers would say the same over the consequences of no deal) but if it did come to pass then the quiet numbers that have sat on their hands because they think they will still get what they want, will then come out in force when those hopes are dashed.

That's forgetting the political ramifications. I can't think of any other major vote where the electorate didn't get what/who they voted for - unless you want to go into the realms of vote rigging etc.

TwisT wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Every step is a risk. There is a huge risk of unrest if we do Brexit and the baseline WORST CASE predictions come to pass. And the northern Brexit strongholds are almost guaranteed to get it worst.

I don't think threats of unrest should drive what we do next because it is pretty much inevitable that someone is going to be p!ssed off, and letting such threats drive policy is a really bad idea

I agree with this, but people believing that a 2nd referendum remain win would be all sunshine and rainbows does annoy me. Financially yes, but socially it will feck things up royally.

That isn't to say, I repeat, that we shouldn't do it. But like those that say "be careful what you wish for if you want no deal", I would repeat that for those that want a 2nd referendum. I believe there is an element of scaremongering to them (the leavers would say the same over the consequences of no deal) but if it did come to pass then the quiet numbers that have sat on their hands because they think they will still get what they want, will then come out in force when those hopes are dashed.

That's forgetting the political ramifications. I can't think of any other major vote where the electorate didn't get what/who they voted for - unless you want to go into the realms of vote rigging etc.

But its a fantasy to think that achieving any kind of Brexit would not lead to 'unrest'. Every option is going to lead to trouble. Personally I think remain will lead to the least upset, not least because the brexiteers struggle to get significant numbers on to the street so far.

It's because they don't see any reason to at the moment because they won

SecretFly wrote:

Remain - Good Behavior Gents
Leave - Fascist Violent Thugs

Conclusion: Rustic post-war grannies who whittle sticks (an accusation made against Leavers some months back) are Fascist Violent Thugs.

Oh well....good for them.  Keeps them active in their retirement years.

I’ve only seen one side manage to combine peaceful protests and fighting with the police, and it aint the ones carrying the EU flags.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

BamBam wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Remain - Good Behavior Gents
Leave - Fascist Violent Thugs

Conclusion: Rustic post-war grannies who whittle sticks (an accusation made against Leavers some months back) are Fascist Violent Thugs.

Oh well....good for them.  Keeps them active in their retirement years.

You're smart enough to know that isn't what I meant. You're also smart enough to know that there is a sizeable portion of the leave support treating the result of the referendum like they would treat the result of Millwall vs West Ham in the cup

You mean I'd take my girlfriend along to her first match and very quickly begin to regret it?

Who are you trying to kid?

Well here we are in October - it promises to be quite an eventful month. It's begun with the government denying it's proposing customs checks away from the Norther Ireland border - but the time for it to finally produce its actual proposals is a matter of days away now.

Boris Johnson's said repeatedly that there are plenty of feasible alternatives to the backstop - let's see them.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Well here we are in October - it promises to be quite an eventful month. It's begun with the government denying it's proposing customs checks away from the Norther Ireland border - but the time for it to finally produce its actual proposals is a matter of days away now.

Boris Johnson's said repeatedly that there are plenty of feasible alternatives to the backstop - let's see them.

Rumours abounding that Cummings wants to try to pro-rogue again....

They are desperately worried about Brexit voters deserting because of the Extension that is almost certainly assured..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Well here we are in October - it promises to be quite an eventful month. It's begun with the government denying it's proposing customs checks away from the Norther Ireland border - but the time for it to finally produce its actual proposals is a matter of days away now.

Boris Johnson's said repeatedly that there are plenty of feasible alternatives to the backstop - let's see them.

Rumours abounding that Cummings wants to try to pro-rogue again....

They are desperately worried about Brexit voters deserting because of the Extension that is almost certainly assured..

To be honest the Extension cannot be assured. All BJ needs to do is wait for a country to veto an extension then it is No Deal madness. Apparently, he has already been doing the rounds asking EU members country's leaders to veto an extension.