Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[HairyOb1]

Just now, GrizzlyDave said:

 

I think soft brexit is much more likely than no brexit.

soft brexit means not a region of the USofE.

thats enough.

I actually think the opposite, I think it will not be voted through and they'll be sent back to renegotiate, with a different team.  That will kick it into the long grass until the next election, then all bets are off. 2 of my kids will be eligible to vote in the next election, and all of their friends. They are very motivated to stop brexit, well the eldest and her friends, and have no party affiliation, with mostly centrist parents, I'd assume.  If this is kicked out until then, as I think it will be, then all bets are off for Brexit.  I think, if some of the important amendments go through the HoC, then it's the end of brexit, as any of us knew it.

[HairyOb1]

18 minutes ago, highYield said:

We're all guessing about the unknowable future here.

Absolutely, we can only use the information at hand, any understanding of negotiations and politicking.  That's and looking at the political and public zeitgeist.

I think most of the House is losing any fondness for brexit, apart from the right of the conservatives, and Hooey, who I think may even be deselected come the next election.

[IMHAL]

20 minutes ago, highYield said:

We're all guessing about the unknowable future here.

It seems logical to me that removing our top supreme political layers (3 for the price of 1) will expose the remaining political layers to both increased scrutiny & responsability. Nothing can be as effective for them to hide behind/beneath.

Please don't take this the wrong way... you fundamentally don't understand politicking. Nothing and no one will stand in the way of them blaming an easily identifiable 'other' for their ineptitude. If you think that stripping away 'these three layers' will make them ....take it on the chin, you are sadly mistaken.

[GrizzlyDave]

28 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I actually think the opposite, I think it will not be voted through and they'll be sent back to renegotiate, with a different team.  That will kick it into the long grass until the next election, then all bets are off. 2 of my kids will be eligible to vote in the next election, and all of their friends. They are very motivated to stop brexit, well the eldest and her friends, and have no party affiliation, with mostly centrist parents, I'd assume.  If this is kicked out until then, as I think it will be, then all bets are off for Brexit.  I think, if some of the important amendments go through the HoC, then it's the end of brexit, as any of us knew it.

As long as the redlines shift to inside CU&SM then the majority of politicians in HoC will vote for it. All TM has to do is soften the red lines.

If we have another referendum - I will be happy with any result and move on. I’m done with it. As I’ve said before - I’d abstain!!!

[OnionTerror]

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

Again, you're missing, completely, what I said.

What you are saying is currently the default option.  What was voted in the HoL yesterday, was what the new default position will be.  There's also talk that the MP's will get three options in their meaningful vote:

 1. Leave with deal offered

2.  Leave with no deal

3. Don't leave

What happened yesterday, in the HoL, if re-enacted in the HoC kicks brexit into the long grass.

I think they will be adhering to the will of the people, as the will of the people is fluid, can change, and by all accounts has.  What I would want, is a bare it all, here is the deal, stay in or leave with that deal, 2nd referendum.  If we don't get that. I am happy as Larry that the MP's do their work.

The vote was 51.9, 48.1.  Demographics alone suggest this will have reversed by 2019 anyway.  We live in a democracy, we have voted in MPs to do our work.  Brexiteers wanted parliament to regain sovereignty, this shows they always had it.  

Nothing has to be enacted, especially is it's considered to be detrimental to the country and its inhabitants.

 

A vote will be completely meaningless anyway.  The EU want this sorted out by June.  When do they want this vote?  October?

Edited May 1, 2018 by Dave Beans

[thehowler]

43 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I think soft brexit is much more likely than no brexit.

soft brexit means not a region of the USofE.

thats enough.

The problem with this is that it offers no benefit to the UK beyond what we already have. Indeed, it's a much worse situation than the present one. If an MP accepts that they might as well stay in the CU, to avoid damaging the UK, how can they then believe it's worth leaving the EU? They won't, which is the whole strategy of those opposed to Brexit.

[HairyOb1]

42 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

A vote will be completely meaningless anyway.  The EU want this sorted out by June.  When do they want this vote?  October?

It will not, that's the whole notion of he amendment, that it stops being meaningless.

You think, if there's a sniff of us staying, that the EU will make that difficult for us?

17 minutes ago, thehowler said:

The problem with this is that it offers no benefit to the UK beyond what we already have. Indeed, it's a much worse situation than the present one. If an MP accepts that they might as well stay in the CU, to avoid damaging the UK, how can they then believe it's worth leaving the EU? They won't, which is the whole strategy of those opposed to Brexit.

Absolutely, this is precisely the point.  It's, effectively, kicking it into the long grass, if it gets passed through the HoC, which would look probable currently.

[thehowler]

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

the will of the people is fluid, can change, and by all accounts has.

By what accounts? You are the only voice I hear claiming this. And if you're right and we can challenge the result of the vote, how will your proposed 2nd referendum be any more binding? By your logic we could then argue for a 3rd ref etc which is why even the Labour party have no interest in a 2nd ref - witness the recent sacking of Owen Smith for daring to suggest it.

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

The vote was 51.9, 48.1.

Not in England. The stats are different for England and I think this is significant.

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

We live in a democracy, we have voted in MPs to do our work.

The referendum transcended the normal role of our MPs. They voted to promise they would simply rubber stamp it.

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

Brexiteers wanted parliament to regain sovereignty, this shows they always had it.

Sovereignty from the EU, not from their own people. The MPs are merely the servants of the public's will in the referendum, no more.

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

Nothing has to be enacted, especially is it's considered to be detrimental to the country and its inhabitants.

And here is the great Brexit dichotomy, in a nutshell. Whether Brexit is detrimental or not, the people chose it. By arguing that MPs need to overrule the public, you are letting the great moggie out of the bag and saying the public are too stupid to make such a choice. When remainers say they respect the result of the referendum, do they mean it?

[HairyOb1]

19 minutes ago, thehowler said:

1.  By what accounts? You are the only voice I hear claiming this. And if you're right and we can challenge the result of the vote, how will your proposed 2nd referendum be any more binding? By your logic we could then argue for a 3rd ref etc which is why even the Labour party have no interest in a 2nd ref - witness the recent sacking of Owen Smith for daring to suggest it.

2.  Not in England. The stats are different for England and I think this is significant.

3.  The referendum transcended the normal role of our MPs. They voted to promise they would simply rubber stamp it.

4.  Sovereignty from the EU, not from their own people. The MPs are merely the servants of the public's will in the referendum, no more.

5.  And here is the great Brexit dichotomy, in a nutshell. Whether Brexit is detrimental or not, the people chose it. By arguing that MPs need to overrule the public, you are letting the great moggie out of the bag and saying the public are too stupid to make such a choice. When remainers say they respect the result of the referendum, do they mean it?

1.  If I am the only voice you've heard, then you're not listening.  Every poll taken this year has seen remain in the lead, and this will only, through demographics, become higher.

2.  Ah, so cherry picking.  Would it be England only in a second vote?  No.

3.  In 2016, in 2017 there was a GE in which several of those MPs were ousted.  Things change, democracy is fluid.

4.  No, they are not the servants, they are representatives given the largess to represent what they think #1 reflects their constituents view and #2 What's in the national interests, which transcends the public view and party politics

5.  That's why we have MPs, that is the huge dichotomy: they act on our behalf, but also on the behalf of the interests of the country.  It would be likelythat if everything was put to a vote, dependent on timing, it would result in some atrociously detrimental outcomes for the country, which MPs would rightly disagree with. Remember, MP's are bound to do what is in the national interest first.  And also yes, the public sometimes are too stupid.

Edited May 1, 2018 by HairyOb1

[thehowler]

9 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

And also yes, the public sometimes are too stupid.

Je pose mon valise.

[thehowler]

And even the Lords don't want a 2nd referendum - the Lib Dem amendment proposing one was voted down last night.

[OnionTerror]

38 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

It will not, that's the whole notion of he amendment, that it stops being meaningless.

You think, if there's a sniff of us staying, that the EU will make that difficult for us?

Absolutely, this is precisely the point.  It's, effectively, kicking it into the long grass, if it gets passed through the HoC, which would look probable currently.

I see why you like this vote option - you hope it’ll keep us in the EU.

Brexit will be happening in March 2019 whether you like it or not.

[thehowler]

8 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Brexit will be happening in March 2019 whether you like it or not.

Agree. Parliament will vote to save its own skin - and that means propping up the idea of democracy.

[Riedquat]

34 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

5.  That's why we have MPs, that is the huge dichotomy: they act on our behalf, but also on the behalf of the interests of the country.

Implying that what's in the interests of people isn't necessarily the same as what's in the interests of the country? And what is in the interests of either? Just money? That's all Remainers usually seem to fall back on.

[GrizzlyDave]

1 hour ago, thehowler said:

The problem with this is that it offers no benefit to the UK beyond what we already have. Indeed, it's a much worse situation than the present one. If an MP accepts that they might as well stay in the CU, to avoid damaging the UK, how can they then believe it's worth leaving the EU? They won't, which is the whole strategy of those opposed to Brexit.

The arrangement may only last for a few years; but it gets us out of the ever closer USofE.

GFC2 will be Make or break for the EU. I’d rather be on the periphery.

Edited May 1, 2018 by GrizzlyDave

[HairyOb1]

37 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

I see why you like this vote option - you hope it’ll keep us in the EU.

Brexit will be happening in March 2019 whether you like it or not.

You keep hold of that thought, you may need it for a crutch

27 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Agree. Parliament will vote to save its own skin - and that means propping up the idea of democracy.

I think you underestimate the power of 12 mps

17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Implying that what's in the interests of people isn't necessarily the same as what's in the interests of the country? And what is in the interests of either? Just money? That's all Remainers usually seem to fall back on.

Absolutely in the first instance, and brexit isn't necessarily in the interest of the people who voted for it, they simply voted for something, they weren't aware of, as many will now attest to, their minds have changed as the problems regarding brexit come to the fore.

If I am wrong, I will hold my hand sup and admit I was wrong, completely so, if Brexit is not bad on the country, and by that I mean job losses and price increases. It's not just money, it's livelihoods.  If I am wrong on that, I will most certainly embrace brexit, if indeed it ever happens.  However, I hold form, currently, to the position it will be bad for the country, in almost every single way, in that our rights will be eroded, our standards eroded, our living standards eroded, working conditions and we will fall prey to the whims of every larger trading block that we wish to trade with.  I see the 1%, the elite, benefitting from it the most, and I see the man in the street benefitting from it the least.

It's not just about money.

Edited May 1, 2018 by HairyOb1

[HairyOb1]

Fox starts the bed wetting...

D.D. preparing for the inevitable...

All good news to anyone who thinks we should stay in, and renegotiate our membership, not to leave.

[thehowler]

13 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

think you underestimate the power of 12 mps

No, I accept they could bring the government down. Where we differ, I think, is that I believe the consequence of this would be a new government or demagogue with a more damaging end result.

2 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

renegotiate our membership

We are negotiating our departure. We leave in March 19. Even the EU will not be able to fudge this one, it would destroy any pretence of democractic principle within the bloc.

16 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

It's not just about money.

Indeed. The people were essentially asked do you want to be more or less European and they chose the latter. What I think we all need to accept is that Cameron should never have allowed the referendum to take place. The same applies to your idea for a 2nd ref. Would we be taking the Euro after your ref? Would we enjoy the exact same benefits as our former membership? All the technical difficulties, obstacles and contradictions that the remainers have cited to skewer leavers over the last two years would be reversed and used against them. It would be mayhem.

[Errol]

43 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And what is in the interests of either? Just money?

And ironically, for most who voted 'leave', money was a total irrelevance. It just has zero to do with the decision and never will even if the referendum is held 100 times.

[HairyOb1]

17 minutes ago, thehowler said:

No, I accept they could bring the government down. Where we differ, I think, is that I believe the consequence of this would be a new government or demagogue with a more damaging end result.

We are negotiating our departure. We leave in March 19. Even the EU will not be able to fudge this one, it would destroy any pretence of democractic principle within the bloc.

Indeed. The people were essentially asked do you want to be more or less European and they chose the latter. What I think we all need to accept is that Cameron should never have allowed the referendum to take place. The same applies to your idea for a 2nd ref. Would we be taking the Euro after your ref? Would we enjoy the exact same benefits as our former membership? All the technical difficulties, obstacles and contradictions that the remainers have cited to skewer leavers over the last two years would be reversed and used against them. It would be mayhem.

1. If it brings the government down, then it will cause a new government, no?

2, That can and probably will be paused, as both sides have already agreed, and the courts, is legally possible.

3, Not really, it would be a case of stay in.  Then we're in a better position to negotiate change, change that most modern governments are asking for anyway.  It wouldn't be mayhem.  Voting to remain, was simply that, to stay, to keep the status quo.  I've long believed the EU was flawed, but that we were better with it, than out of it.  It needs to change but with the power of being inside, not outside.  The moment we're outside, we lose our voice and when we inevitably rejoin, unless it implodes (which I consider very unlikely), then we'll have no leverage at all, so would be applying to join, and in that case, I assume we'd have to accept the Euro and all the other accoutrements of membership.

If we rescind Art 50, which is legally possible, then nothing changes.

Edited May 1, 2018 by HairyOb1

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

Absolutely in the first instance, and brexit isn't necessarily in the interest of the people who voted for it, they simply voted for something, they weren't aware of, as many will now attest to, their minds have changed as the problems regarding brexit come to the fore.

If I am wrong, I will hold my hand sup and admit I was wrong, completely so, if Brexit is not bad on the country, and by that I mean job losses and price increases. It's not just money, it's livelihoods.  If I am wrong on that, I will most certainly embrace brexit, if indeed it ever happens.  However, I hold form, currently, to the position it will be bad for the country, in almost every single way, in that our rights will be eroded, our standards eroded, our living standards eroded, working conditions and we will fall prey to the whims of every larger trading block that we wish to trade with.  I see the 1%, the elite, benefitting from it the most, and I see the man in the street benefitting from it the least.

It's not just about money.

I can accept the principal of people going for the wrong thing that ultimately doesn't improve things, so I'm not going to have a go at you for that, but I don't think that's the case here. It's the rest I disagree with and that I think you're still ultimately looking at in financial terms. Some because I outright disagree with (rights? don't like what the government is doing there, vote for a different one), and living standards in any meaningful sense are going down the drain even if the ability to buy more cheap tat isn't.

The elite are generally those who benefit the most from wider-ranging, larger-scale, small world situations and were predominantly Remain because of that. Of course they'll try to find and push for alternatives, but ask yourself why they weren't fighting for those in preference to the EU to begin with.

[kzb]

Are there any official, concrete offers of concessions for staying in?  All I am aware of is words from suchlike as Tony Blair.

Any concrete offers of policy changes?

People keep on about "A" customs union, but the EU side have apparently rubbished that, so why pretend it is an option?

No, let's face it, they are determined there will be no concessions whatsoever. The UK population, going by the referendum result, is clearly very unhappy with the EU. 

Democracy in action EU-style:  take it or leave it -we're not changing anything at all.

Given this performance, how can we say there is any hope of reforming this organisation from within?

Next thing, just a reminder there is no such thing as "no deal".  According to A50, it has to be sorted.

[thecrashingisles]

2 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The arrangement may only last for a few years; but it gets us out of the ever closer USofE.

GFC2 will be Make or break for the EU. I’d rather be on the periphery.

We're on the periphery of Europe regardless of the political structures we're part of.  Even in your doomsday scenario the only practical difference would be that we would have no say on what happens.

[thehowler]

1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

f we rescind Art 50, which is legally possible, then nothing changes.

Nothing changes except two years of some of the most febrile politics in living memory...that genie will not go back into the bottle.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Nothing changes except two years of some of the most febrile politics in living memory...that genie will not go back into the bottle.

Which genie?  Brexiteer politicians have been shown to be charlatans and people will never let them get near power again.