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

[onlooker]

34 minutes ago, grasshopper said:

Do you think that if we went back several hundred years or so the same concerns and arguments might have been raised by some of the  people in the separate nations of Scotland, Wales and England before they joined a Union? But obviously the Union was called a Kingdom instead of a State.

Yet the UK has worked and prospered thus far (but maybe not for longer).

Wales and Ireland were different because essentially English rule expanded into a chaotic patchwork of fiefdoms.

In the case of Scotland, James VI came down from Ediburgh and tried to get the English HoC to sign up to Union straight away. They didn't want it because they saw Union as enhancing the despotic power of King James, to the disadvantage of the English nobility and gentry. So the Kingdoms remained separate throughout the 1600s.

But by 1700, Scotland had been bankrupted by the Darien venture, and the English HoC was keen to keep a lid on French and Jacobite influence in Scotland, and so they signed up to Union. But there was dissent on both sides. Many Scots saw the loss of independence as an evil, will many English saw the arrival of lots of Scottish nobles, politicians and businessmen in London as a real pain.

[grasshopper]

5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Yes absolutely.

And people should have the choice to join and leave; and that decision should be respected.

You make a fair point which seems both rational and democratic. It is noticeably though that most states seem to have legal measures in place to protect there integrity.

So in the USA the following applies.

"There is no legal basis for a state to secede from the union." ... But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.S. constitution for a state to secede." In Texas v. White in 1869, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot secede.10 Nov 2016

Scotland cannot call a referendum unilaterally  and seek independence. I think the Catalans have the same problem under Spanish law. Haven't done the research in detail but I suspect this is pretty common.

[grasshopper]

4 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Wales and Ireland were different because essentially English rule expanded into a chaotic patchwork of fiefdoms.

In the case of Scotland, ......

Interesting. We have some very knowledgeable people posting on this site and I have learnt much over the years.

[yelims]

2 hours ago, thehowler said:

Does anyone dispute that the EU/27 needs to evolve? How is that well-served by the UK reverting back to its 30-month old position as a reluctant member?

The UK is the one that needs to evolve

start by becoming a republic, getting rid of monarch and unelected lords, create a modern constitution, and change to proportional representation

Then we can talk about democracy and "will of the people"

[rollover]

 

Quote

 

Brexiteer coup 'is STILL 11 letters short' despite 23 MPs going public

Expectations had been mounting that Mrs May would have to face a Tory vote on Friday on the back of Jacob Rees-Mogg's call to arms. Failure to reach the threshold was acutely embarrassing for the Brexiteer group but Westminster still widely expects a vote next week. The gang are set to meet again in the coming days to agree ultimatum terms. 

But so far only 23 MPs have declared publicly they want a vote of no confidence, while another 14 are believed to have handed their letters in privately. Brexiteers attempting to trigger a party vote of no confidence in Theresa May are understood to be 11 letters short of the 48 they need - despite confidently predicting they'd have them by Friday. Daily Mail

 

Maybe just maybe the ERG does not have support of the 80 MP's, they keep saying they have. It looks like they were bluffing all the time.

[Fromage Frais]

Ok so we are where we are Sat 17th November 2018.

The thread is called "Brexit what happens next" and everything seems up in the air so regardless of views could I trouble some of you for what you honestly think is going to happen next?

my 2p

1)  Vote of no confidence being held up by Gove et al trying to address the backstop over the weekend.  "hey x mp hold your letter whilst we give it another go etc etc".

Dont forget it gets sent > double checked (possibly intimidated)

2)  It fails, as too soon to change anything from the EU perspective.

3)  May wins vonc but not by as much as she would like (that vote is confidential whilst the 1922 letters can be fought back on/held up)

4) The deal gets voted down in parliament this is now the end game.. (of this cycle)

5) May has a last stab with the EU and 30% they go for some changes 60% they do not.  The will say no knowing that a general election will follow in the UK.  She cannot go down the "people's vote route" as thats just to worry mps  (internal consumption for people in the UK) with the EU she is now the good cop to the ERG bad cop and Corbyn.

6)  There is no hope for a "People's vote" because a) the conservatives and labour where voted in on honoring the referendum and b) There is no pro brexit party apart from the Lib dems and their success shows how much good that does you when you hit the general population outside London.

7)  May comes back with either the changes (then repeats) or does not and then resigns forcing a leadership election and general election.  The conservative members are very much brexit much more so than their mps.

8 ) You then have the other big issue Conservatives cannot win without a brexit leader and Labour have 3 sets of supporters imho public sector/students, middle class city social democrats, a section of immigrants..... and then the problem ones working class folk.  You then have this big issue does the labour party run with a "peoples vote" ticket which then dilutes the support.  The hope for them would be the peoples vote and remain conservatives coming over.....however do rich people worry more about Corbyn than leaving the EU?

During this period a memorandum of understanding will be signed with the EU to continue with how things are until it's resolved.

9)  On this basis con v labour both brexit v close to call unless Boris or some other candidate has x factor in excess of May and in either scenario we leave hard (conservative) or repeat steps 1 -  5 again with labour government.

If Labour dump Corbyn and somehow get a Tony Blair type maybe they could run on a people's vote ticket.  However they are just as likely to choose someone worse. 

I think this has some way to go as yet as I would be happy to hold whilst being paid if i were the EU.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Fromage Frais

[GrizzlyDave]

1 hour ago, grasshopper said:

You make a fair point which seems both rational and democratic. It is noticeably though that most states seem to have legal measures in place to protect there integrity.

So in the USA the following applies.

"There is no legal basis for a state to secede from the union." ... But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.S. constitution for a state to secede." In Texas v. White in 1869, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot secede.10 Nov 2016

Scotland cannot call a referendum unilaterally  and seek independence. I think the Catalans have the same problem under Spanish law. Haven't done the research in detail but I suspect this is pretty common.

 

Very interesting - thanks.

Yes sometimes you have to break the rules and take your independence. Rules be damned.

[GrizzlyDave]

1 hour ago, yelims said:

The UK is the one that needs to evolve

start by becoming a republic, getting rid of monarch and unelected lords, create a modern constitution, and change to proportional representation

Then we can talk about democracy and "will of the people"

No thanks.

God save the Queen!

57 minutes ago, Fromage Frais said:

Ok so we are where we are Sat 17th November 2018.

The thread is called "Brexit what happens next" and everything seems up in the air so regardless of views could I trouble some of you for what you honestly think is going to happen next?

my 2p

1)  Vote of no confidence being held up by Gove et al trying to address the backstop over the weekend.  "hey x mp hold your letter whilst we give it another go etc etc".

Dont forget it gets sent > double checked (possibly intimidated)

2)  It fails, as too soon to change anything from the EU perspective.

3)  May wins vonc but not by as much as she would like (that vote is confidential whilst the 1922 letters can be fought back on/held up)

4) The deal gets voted down in parliament this is now the end game.. (of this cycle)

5) May has a last stab with the EU and 30% they go for some changes 60% they do not.  The will say no knowing that a general election will follow in the UK.  She cannot go down the "people's vote route" as thats just to worry mps  (internal consumption for people in the UK) with the EU she is now the good cop to the ERG bad cop and Corbyn.

6)  There is no hope for a "People's vote" because a) the conservatives and labour where voted in on honoring the referendum and b) There is no pro brexit party apart from the Lib dems and their success shows how much good that does you when you hit the general population outside London.

7)  May comes back with either the changes (then repeats) or does not and then resigns forcing a leadership election and general election.  The conservative members are very much brexit much more so than their mps.

8 ) You then have the other big issue Conservatives cannot win without a brexit leader and Labour have 3 sets of supporters imho public sector/students, middle class city social democrats, a section of immigrants..... and then the problem ones working class folk.  You then have this big issue does the labour party run with a "peoples vote" ticket which then dilutes the support.  The hope for them would be the peoples vote and remain conservatives coming over.....however do rich people worry more about Corbyn than leaving the EU?

During this period a memorandum of understanding will be signed with the EU to continue with how things are until it's resolved.

9)  On this basis con v labour both brexit v close to call unless Boris or some other candidate has x factor in excess of May and in either scenario we leave hard (conservative) or repeat steps 1 -  5 again with labour government.

If Labour dump Corbyn and somehow get a Tony Blair type maybe they could run on a people's vote ticket.  However they are just as likely to choose someone worse. 

I think this has some way to go as yet as I would be happy to hold whilst being paid if i were the EU.

I like Corbyn. A bit of socialism is what this country needs.

I would add to your excellent analysis that very soon the EU27 will sign off on this transition deal. The fact that relative chaos awaits versus accepting an unattractive but real outcome has to have a bearing on things.

[grasshopper]

1 hour ago, Fromage Frais said:

Ok so we are where we are Sat 17th November 2018.

The thread is called "Brexit what happens next" and everything seems up in the air so regardless of views could I trouble some of you for what you honestly think is going to happen next?

my 2p

1)  Vote of no confidence being held up by Gove et al trying to address the backstop over the weekend.  "hey x mp hold your letter whilst we give it another go etc etc".

Dont forget it gets sent > double checked (possibly intimidated)

2)  It fails, as too soon to change anything from the EU perspective.

3)  May wins vonc but not by as much as she would like (that vote is confidential whilst the 1922 letters can be fought back on/held up)

4) The deal gets voted down in parliament this is now the end game.. (of this cycle)

5) May has a last stab with the EU and 30% they go for some changes 60% they do not.  The will say no knowing that a general election will follow in the UK.  She cannot go down the "people's vote route" as thats just to worry mps  (internal consumption for people in the UK) with the EU she is now the good cop to the ERG bad cop and Corbyn.

6)  There is no hope for a "People's vote" because a) the conservatives and labour where voted in on honoring the referendum and b) There is no pro brexit party apart from the Lib dems and their success shows how much good that does you when you hit the general population outside London.

7)  May comes back with either the changes (then repeats) or does not and then resigns forcing a leadership election and general election.  The conservative members are very much brexit much more so than their mps.

8 ) You then have the other big issue Conservatives cannot win without a brexit leader and Labour have 3 sets of supporters imho public sector/students, middle class city social democrats, a section of immigrants..... and then the problem ones working class folk.  You then have this big issue does the labour party run with a "peoples vote" ticket which then dilutes the support.  The hope for them would be the peoples vote and remain conservatives coming over.....however do rich people worry more about Corbyn than leaving the EU?

During this period a memorandum of understanding will be signed with the EU to continue with how things are until it's resolved.

9)  On this basis con v labour both brexit v close to call unless Boris or some other candidate has x factor in excess of May and in either scenario we leave hard (conservative) or repeat steps 1 -  5 again with labour government.

If Labour dump Corbyn and somehow get a Tony Blair type maybe they could run on a people's vote ticket.  However they are just as likely to choose someone worse. 

I think this has some way to go as yet as I would be happy to hold whilst being paid if i were the EU.

Excellent analysis. Another possibility may be that the PM wins a leadership contest and then doesn't have to face another one for a further year. She loses her WA  vote on two occasions in the HoC. Determined to see her Brexit plan through, a vote of no confidence is tabled and a GE called.

Tories have PM's Brexit plan in manifesto with Theresa May leading the Conservatives. Labour have an even softer Brexit plan in their manifesto. Lib Dems have no Brexit in their manifesto and UKIP have hard Brexit in their manifesto. I'm a remainer so naturally would wish to stay in the EU. However, this would give a range of options to the people and then let them decide through their sovereign parliament via a GE.

If the new government was not able to get their preferred option through the HoC then as much as I deplore referenda I can't really see the alternative but to have another one. The previous result from the last referendum having being superseded by the GE result.

Edited November 17, 2018 by grasshopper
inserted more information

[OnionTerror]

MOUs arent typically legally binding...I doubt the EU would allow the current situation to carry as is under one...

[pig]

5 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The flaw in all of these polls is that they treat remain as one homogenous lump, but split the brexit vote up.

As previously highlighted you could split remain up in terms of 1) those who want to maintain the exact status quo, 2) those who would like further integration (Euro, Schengen etc), and then 3) those who want the full monty USofE.

You could but in practical terms its a false equivalence.

Remainers are pretty united in not wanting to throw away what Britain has, whereas Leaver constituencies have suddenly realised other leave constituencies are completely unpalatable.

Soft Brexit realises the losses now. Hard Brexit you can pretend at some point in the future, for some future generation Britain might get back on its feet.

However, in terms of garnering support for any Leave option it looks like EEA is best bet for Leavers with the hope enough Remainers feel sorry for them.

[onlooker]

3 hours ago, grasshopper said:

Interesting. We have some very knowledgeable people posting on this site and I have learnt much over the years.

In the case of Ireland and Wales, I should really have said Anglo-Norman, because in most respects the expansion was the project of barons who were more Norman than English.

I have always found the 17th Century interesting, and I had just finished reading a book on the reign of King James VI (Scotland) I (England). The widely held view is that England wanted the Union with Scotland more than the Scots. AFAICS it was the reverse.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, onlooker said:

In the case of Ireland and Wales, I should really have said Anglo-Norman, because in most respects the expansion was the project of barons who were more Norman than English.

I have always found the 17th Century interesting, and I had just finished reading a book on the reign of King James VI (Scotland) I (England). The widely held view is that England wanted the Union with Scotland more than the Scots. AFAICS it was the reverse.

Scotland needed the Union because it had overextended itself financing failed attempts at establishing colonies. 

The Union was a bailout of a small nimber of formally rich Scots, I don't know but would doubt it was supported by the wider population.

[OnionTerror]

9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Scotland needed the Union because it had overextended itself financing failed attempts at establishing colonies. 

The Union was a bailout of a small nimber of formally rich Scots, I don't know but would doubt it was supported by the wider population.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/

[Byron]

3 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

No thanks.

God save the Queen!

I like Corbyn. A bit of socialism is what this country needs.

 

I lived through the incompetent socialism of the late 1940s, suffered the Wilson era of 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' where everything was blamed on '13 years of Tory misrule', put up with the Callaghan years and the utter misery of all the strikes in the 1970s and the Winter of discontent.

Trade Unionists ruled the roost and rather than being true socialists who wanted to help all of society, they only wanted their members to benefit, and there was a real danger of them forming an unelected government along Stalinist lines.

I welcomed Maggie who gave the unions a well deserved kicking.

I suffered the idiot Blair and the fool Brown.

Yet you want more of the same?

 Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me.

[thehowler]

6 hours ago, onlooker said:

Why would there be big changes in NI politics in the next 2/3 years?

They will need an assembly. This and the rapidly changing political groupings in the UK - not to mention the legislative/societal changes taking place in ROI - are going to shake things up in NI.

[cock-eyed octopus]

Guy Verhofstadt loses his temper, blows the lid off why he is so angry with Britain and tells the truth about why he wants to destroy our sovereignty. pic.twitter.com/t1enDS4TXH

[Peter Hun]

50 minutes ago, Byron said:

I lived through the incompetent socialism of the late 1940s, suffered the Wilson era of 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' where everything was blamed on '13 years of Tory misrule', put up with the Callaghan years and the utter misery of all the strikes in the 1970s and the Winter of discontent.

Trade Unionists ruled the roost and rather than being true socialists who wanted to help all of society, they only wanted their members to benefit, and there was a real danger of them forming an unelected government along Stalinist lines.

I welcomed Maggie who gave the unions a well deserved kicking.

I suffered the idiot Blair and the fool Brown.

Yet you want more of the same?

 Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me.

GD has no experience of any of that, which explains why talks utter shite.

[rollover]

9 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Guy Verhofstadt loses his temper, blows the lid off why he is so angry with Britain and tells the truth about why he wants to destroy our sovereignty. pic.twitter.com/t1enDS4TXH

What Guy Verhofstadt said?

[Confusion of VIs]

4 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Guy Verhofstadt loses his temper, blows the lid off why he is so angry with Britain and tells the truth about why he wants to destroy our sovereignty. pic.twitter.com/t1enDS4TXH

Was he talking about Britain or the Euro/Schengen states, hard to tell from a 30 second clip quite possibly taken out of context. If the latter almost everyone agrees that eventually there will be need to be more shared decision making, and cash transfers from the rich northern states if the Euro is to survive.

Where did you see the bit about destroying our sovereignty.  

[Arpeggio]

5 hours ago, yelims said:

The UK is the one that needs to evolve

start by becoming a republic, getting rid of monarch and unelected lords, create a modern constitution, and change to proportional representation

Then we can talk about democracy and "will of the people" 

With Proportional Representation UKIP would have had 83 seats in the house of commons rather than 1 in the 2015 General Election.

I understand that You are a Remainer...?

Apology if I've got your stance wrong. Am genuinely interested in your reply. PS: I agree about proportional representation, not because of UKIP because of democracy.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Arpeggio

[Confusion of VIs]

7 hours ago, thehowler said:

None of the remain campaigners were prepared to say anything about what they wanted from the future in the EU/27, or anything about changing the status quo. It was never mentioned as they were scared it would spook more people into wanting to leave.

You are right that they didn't, however its a stretch to say that was because they thought it would scare people into leaving. What scared people into leaving was the lies that the Leave campaign used to fill the vacuum left by a complacent remain Campaign.

 

  

   

[Confusion of VIs]

6 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Of course it’s not an option. We endorsed staying in the common market in ‘75 and since then none of it has been an option!

Maastricht - no option.

Lisbon - no option.

We have had change after change, implementation after implementation, treaty after treaty, irrescapably closer union and have had NO SAY.

They want a single foreign policy.

They want our UNSC seat.

They want a single president.

They want common taxes and social policy.

They want a single army.

They want a United States of Europe.

All of that is nonsense, the UK was quite capable of stopping any of those items if we had wanted to. Or at least we were until we submitted A50. 

[thehowler]

29 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

GD has no experience of any of that, which explains why talks utter shite.

Please refrain from the self-defeating profanities. This thread makes more headway without them.

[thehowler]

14 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

8 hours ago, thehowler said:

 

You are right that they didn't, however its a stretch to say that was because they thought it would scare people into leaving.

Why then did they fail to mention it?