Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[thatdberight]

Most polls show a shift from leave to remain. Obviously that may not be reflected in voting but it is indicative of sentiment.

Screenshot_20190827-213709~01.jpg

Slightly different question. My partner thinks it was wrong that we voted to leave. They now think we should since that's how we voted.

[dsr]

After all this time, it's incredible that there are people who still believe that we just need to convince the EU that we really are serious about blowing our own legs off for them to cave in and give us whatever we want.

Threatening to leave with no deal has never been, and never will be a serious negotiating tactic, because everyone in that room, including our own government, knows that it damages us far more than the EU.

Even if we are stupid enough to proceed with it, everyone in that room, including our own government, knows that we'll be in an even weaker position when it comes to negotiating again in the very near future.

So instead of making flimsy excuses for why the 'easiest deal in human history' never materialised, maybe leavers should take some responsibility for the lies and fantasies they've peddled for years.

That's hardly logic. Very few negotiators (although it seems the EU might be one of them) will be happy to come out with a (lack of) deal that makes them worse off, and jistify it by saying "we've got poorer, but the other man's even worse".

The point of a free trade deal is that everyone, both Remainers and Brexiters, both UK and EU, think that a free trade deal will make both parties better off. The problem being that for the UK Remainers it's all about the money, and being rich trumps all other ambitions including the ambition to be democratic and the ambition to be independent. While for the pro-Remain EU, money is irrelevant and what is important is to be seen as a political bully who will not give a fair deal to anyone who stands up to them.

And by the way, you seem to be confusing the terms "get a fair deal" and "get whatever we want". They aren't the same. It would be perfectly possible, with goodwill on both sides, to get a fair deal that benefits us all.

[Elizabeth]

I'm going to take the graph in the spirit in which I hope it was intended. While it doesn't include the whole of the 8 months of this year I would be surprised if the trend has altered. The graph does tell us that since the second half of 2018 people were starting to clearly think more and more that it was wrong to leave the EU. Prior to that, and for around 2 years following the referendum this can be seen to not be the case.
My belief is that by far the biggest reason for this was that the public were starting to get fed up and worn down by what is a demoralising issue for the whole country. Brexit was suppose to happen in March 2018, a few months earlier.
I agree that it should not be seen as an indication of how people would vote again. I personally don't think the graph tells us anything in that direction.
I came into this debate as someone who strongly believes that for the good of direct democracy the votes of 17.4 million people should not be ignored. Sadly Parliamentary democracy has been shown up badly and this will be reflected at the next General election.

[nil_desperandum]

That's hardly logic. Very few negotiators (although it seems the EU might be one of them) will be happy to come out with a (lack of) deal that makes them worse off, and jistify it by saying "we've got poorer, but the other man's even worse".
.

How can the EU ultimately end up better off if they start encouraging member states to "leave" by offering them preferential terms to those who remain?
That's been the big issue all along that brexiteers never seemed to have grasped.
The golf club analogy isn't a perfect one, but if I make the decision to leave the club and not pay their fees etc., but they then allow me to continue playing golf and using the facilities then very soon every other member will do the same, and the club just folds.
The golf club might be poorer for not having me as a member, (there might be disagreement on that point), but it will hurt me more than it will hurt them, and they can't afford to make special concession to me since the other members will justifiably be outraged.

[dsr]

How can the EU ultimately end up better off if they start encouraging member states to "leave" by offering them preferential terms to those who remain?
That's been the big issue all along that brexiteers never seemed to have grasped.
The golf club analogy isn't a perfect one, but if I make the decision to leave the club and not pay their fees etc., but they then allow me to continue playing golf and using the facilities then very soon every other member will do the same, and the club just folds.
The golf club might be poorer for not having me as a member, (there might be disagreement on that point), but it will hurt me more than it will hurt them, and they can't afford to make special concession to me since the other members will justifiably be outraged.

You're predicating that on the general principle that the EU's political union is a Good Thing. Not everyone thinks that. The EU's purpose should not be the greater glory of the EU, it should be the best interest of its members; and if, as you suggest, the best interests of the members may be to have a free trade organisation without the political union, then what's wrong with having it?

[nil_desperandum]

You're predicating that on the general principle that the EU's political union is a Good Thing. Not everyone thinks that. The EU's purpose should not be the greater glory of the EU, it should be the best interest of its members; and if, as you suggest, the best interests of the members may be to have a free trade organisation without the political union, then what's wrong with having it?

No I'm not predicating on that at all. I'm essentially referring to Trade, but that's only one of the many elements of our EU membership that we - apparently - want to retain whilst not wanting to be part of the organisation, or contribute, or have free movement.
With regards to the political "union" aspect that you refer to, then it's really up to us. We've agreed to many aspects of this, (voluntarily), but opted out of (e.g. Schengen and the Euro) and can continue to do so, either via our veto, or by threatening to or actually leaving at any point in the future if something changes so that our veto is in jeopardy.
If the members agree "the best interests of the members may be to have a free trade organisation without the political union" then that's up to them and there's nothing wrong with that, but as non-members we wouldn't have a say on that, even if we have to pay to enjoy some of the "club benefits" as Norway currently do, (which is what Farage used to be keen on).

[dsr]

No I'm not predicating on that at all. I'm essentially referring to Trade, but that's only one of the many elements of our EU membership that we - apparently - want to retain whilst not wanting to be part of the organisation, or contribute, or have free movement.
With regards to the political "union" aspect that you refer to, then it's really up to us. We've agreed to many aspects of this, (voluntarily), but opted out of (e.g. Schengen and the Euro) and can continue to do so, either via our veto, or by threatening to or actually leaving at any point in the future if something changes so that our veto is in jeopardy.
If the members agree "the best interests of the members may be to have a free trade organisation without the political union" then that's up to them and there's nothing wrong with that, but as non-members we wouldn't have a say on that, even if we have to pay to enjoy some of the "club benefits" as Norway currently do, (which is what Farage used to be keen on).

Of curse we would "pay" for the free trade benefits. The EU currently sell £345 billion of stuff to the UK; the UK sells £289 billion of stuff to the EU. So the "payment" is that we continue to let the EU sell to us tariff-free, and the EU continue to let us sell to them tariff-free. That would be fair payment, slightly to the benefit of the EU because the balance of payment is in their favour.

What I take issue with is the general assumption that this deal is skewed in favour of the UK, and is so wildly skewed that we have to pay a substantial fee for it to continue, and that it must be under their rules in every respect. If that deal was proposed to any other country in the world, it would be turned down. Why would we accept it?

But the EU, to show its political muscle, will not accept a fair deal. So rather than accept an unfair deal, we need to accept no deal. Eventually they may come to like the idea of free trade with the UK and then a deal can be agreed. Until then, it can't be agreed.

[If it be your will]

Nobody wants a no deal. Not me, not Boris, not you. Given that we voted to leave, how would you deliver that, if the people you've been dealing with have been encouraged to offer you nothing, by the people sitting behind you.
The hypocrisy of Labour suggesting they'd offer another referendum, a choice between remain or the better deal they would seek. That's called Hobsons choice, everyman and his dog knows that under those circumstances the EU would **** themselves laughing.
The truth, however unpalatable to you, is the only way to get a deal, is to leave without one first. Parliament has caused this mess, by reneging on every promise, every MP made, prior to the referendum.

Labour's position on Brexit is even more moronic than you are painting it. It's: Halt Brexit, win a GE, negotiate a new deal, put the new deal to a second vote, campaign for remain in that referendum against their own deal. Can you imagine going into a GE with that as your Brexit policy?

Why they don't just stand on a 'Revoke Article 50' platform I'll never know. No leave voter is falling for this nonsense anyway, and at least it would be coherent (and vaguely honest).

[Burnley Ace]

Of curse we would "pay" for the free trade benefits. The EU currently sell £345 billion of stuff to the UK; the UK sells £289 billion of stuff to the EU. So the "payment" is that we continue to let the EU sell to us tariff-free, and the EU continue to let us sell to them tariff-free. That would be fair payment, slightly to the benefit of the EU because the balance of payment is in their favour.

What I take issue with is the general assumption that this deal is skewed in favour of the UK, and is so wildly skewed that we have to pay a substantial fee for it to continue, and that it must be under their rules in every respect. If that deal was proposed to any other country in the world, it would be turned down. Why would we accept it?

But the EU, to show its political muscle, will not accept a fair deal. So rather than accept an unfair deal, we need to accept no deal. Eventually they may come to like the idea of free trade with the UK and then a deal can be agreed. Until then, it can't be agreed.

At the moment we trade on an equal footing, it’s more of a level playing field, leaving the EU means we can now undercut them by, for example, reducing our tax, reducing our health and safety requirements, reducing labour costs etc - that’s not “fair”

[Colburn_Claret]

That may well be a good way of getting a deal but personally I'd say it's the best way to get a bad deal. Hamstringing our economy is going to leave us more desperate for a deal, not negotiating from a position of strength.

That might well be true IF our economy is hamstrung, IF we are desperate for a deal, IF we are negotiating from a position of weakness.
I dont believe those things will be the reality, I dont believe it will be all roses either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
We arent in a position to punish them, apart from the money, but why would we want to, we still want to trade on good terms with our neighbours, but the same holds true for them. Their position is most likely poisoned by the fact they couldn't believe that they nearly got away with TMs withdrawal agreement. Instead of meeting in the middle, we let them stand on our toes, and now we are asking them to step back. Instead of being in a position where we could both win, we've put them in a place where they feel like they are losing.
Theresa bloody May has a lot to answer for.

[dsr]

At the moment we trade on an equal footing, it’s more of a level playing field, leaving the EU means we can now undercut them by, for example, reducing our tax, reducing our health and safety requirements, reducing labour costs etc - that’s not “fair”

That's no big deal. Ireland and Luxembourg have been trading for years on having lower tax rates; health and safety requirements are way above EU statutory rules, such as they are; and our minimum wage is about 4 times the EU statutory.

[Burnley Ace]

That's no big deal. Ireland and Luxembourg have been trading for years on having lower tax rates; health and safety requirements are way above EU statutory rules, such as they are; and our minimum wage is about 4 times the EU statutory.

It is now! You don’t really think they are going to stay the same

[aggi]

Let's see what Brexit voters think about democracy and sovereignty now.

BBC News - Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

How are the democracy lovers feeling about this then?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

[summitclaret]

It is now! You don’t really think they are going to stay the same

Who knows but at least it will have been decided by a UK government. Or do you think that only right wing governments will exist here?

[martin_p]

Who knows but at least it will have been decided by a UK government. Or do you think that only right wing governments will exist here?

If the minimum wage is four times the EU rate now presumably it’s been decided by a U.K. government already.

[dpinsussex]

Must say well done Boris.

At last someone who is grabbing the bull by the horns prepared to deliver Brexit. Finally all of this political bickering will be over.

(Hopefully)

[martin_p]

Must say well done Boris.

At last someone who is grabbing the bull by the horns prepared to deliver Brexit. Finally all of this political bickering will be over.

(Hopefully)

And all he has to do to get back our sovereignty is stifle the sovereignty of parliament. All he has to do to make sure democracy is respected is bypass democracy.

[Quickenthetempo]

It's time for the Brexiteers to get the popcorn out and watch the meltdown.

Obviously the treasonous MPs who have done all they could to go against the public vote.

Not you nice remainers on here.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its time for Brexiteers to **** off quite frankly.

[SonofPog]

Its all about Sovereignty... Suspend Parliament... Huzzah!!!... You do see the irony right? Please tell me you see that.

If De Pfeffel suspends Parliament to force a No Deal Brexit, that a majority of his party don't want, that a majority of parliament don't want, that no one, yes, no one voted for. It'll be the greatest abuse of British Sovereignty since Cromwell used a Barebone's Parliament to force through the execution of King Charles II.

But heck, our only Military dictator got voted in the top 10 Britons of all time and has his own statue outside Parliament. De Pfeffel will probably get sainted for this attack on British Sovereignty.

[Quickenthetempo]

Its time for Brexiteers to **** off quite frankly.

Don't be like that.

[dsr]

When should Parliament be prorogued? This parliament is already longer than any parliament of modern times. Proroguing is usually an annual event, and it's way overdue. Conference season seems as good a time as any.

MPs have had five weeks since Boris became PM to have all these debates and pass all these laws. So did they? No, because they all wanted to go on holiday instead. That's how seriously they treat the Brexit debate - not important enough to cancel a holiday for.

Proroguing Parliament is the norm. Tony Blair did it nine times. It's nothing new.

[nil_desperandum]

So what we have here is an unelected, minority government asking an unelected medieval royal council to ask the unelected head of state (in her Scottish castle) to dismiss the elected members of Parliament.
And this coming from a man who wanted to “Take back control for the UK Parliament and restore Sovereignty", (presumably on the advice of the unelected Dominic Cummings.)
Anyone who's ever voted Conservative in their life should hang their heads in shame that they elected this "pro- Rogue", scoundrel into office.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Its all about Sovereignty... Suspend Parliament... Huzzah!!!... You do see the irony right? Please tell me you see that.

If De Pfeffel suspends Parliament to force a No Deal Brexit, that a majority of his party don't want, that a majority of parliament don't want, that no one, yes, no one voted for. It'll be the greatest abuse of British Sovereignty since Cromwell used a Barebone's Parliament to force through the execution of King Charles II.

But heck, our only Military dictator got voted in the top 10 Britons of all time and has his own statue outside Parliament. De Pfeffel will probably get sainted for this attack on British Sovereignty.

Honestly if people don't react to him suspending parliament and forcing through a no-deal Brexit, Britons will deserve everything that comes after.

Wake the f**k up.

I've never been gladder to be out of it. My next visit to see family in October may prove to be my last for a long time. I have another set of flights booked in November but honestly i dont see myself using them at this point.

I don't recognise Britain any more. It is sleepwalking into an insular, suspicious, hostile, and bilious future that i want no part of

[ŽižkovClaret]

When should Parliament be prorogued? This parliament is already longer than any parliament of modern times. Proroguing is usually an annual event, and it's way overdue. Conference season seems as good a time as any.

MPs have had five weeks since Boris became PM to have all these debates and pass all these laws. So did they? No, because they all wanted to go on holiday instead. That's how seriously they treat the Brexit debate - not important enough to cancel a holiday for.

Proroguing Parliament is the norm. Tony Blair did it nine times. It's nothing new.

Context is everything, the timing of this means it is simply madness

[aggi]

That might well be true IF our economy is hamstrung, IF we are desperate for a deal, IF we are negotiating from a position of weakness.
I dont believe those things will be the reality, I dont believe it will be all roses either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
We arent in a position to punish them, apart from the money, but why would we want to, we still want to trade on good terms with our neighbours, but the same holds true for them. Their position is most likely poisoned by the fact they couldn't believe that they nearly got away with TMs withdrawal agreement. Instead of meeting in the middle, we let them stand on our toes, and now we are asking them to step back. Instead of being in a position where we could both win, we've put them in a place where they feel like they are losing.
Theresa bloody May has a lot to answer for.

I struggle to see the logic in it.

The two scenarios are:

No Deal Brexit is damaging to the EU and that's why it will force the EU to make a deal. However, if that's the case then it's clearly going to be more damaging to the UK than the EU so we are negotiating from a position of weakness.

No Deal Brexit isn't damaging to the UK. Ergo it isn't damaging to the EU and won't force a deal.


Any negotiation with the EU is just going to pick back up where we left off: the Irish border, the divorce bill, etc with us either in the same position or a worse position. I don't see how a No Deal is going to change the landscape in our favour.

[SonofPog]

"Proroguing Parliament is the norm. Tony Blair did it nine times. It's nothing new."

Why did you take a sh1t on my lawn? What's your problem, people sh1t all the time?"

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Britons will deserve everything that comes after.

They certainly will

[dsr]

So what we have here is an unelected, minority government asking an unelected medieval royal council to ask the unelected head of state (in her Scottish castle) to dismiss the elected members of Parliament.
And this coming from a man who wanted to “Take back control for the UK Parliament and restore Sovereignty", (presumably on the advice of the unelected Dominic Cummings.)
Anyone who's ever voted Conservative in their life should hang their heads in shame that they elected this "pro- Rogue", scoundrel into office.

This happens every year (except that Theresa May never did it). We aren't talking about dismissing elected members, we're talking about closing Parlaiment and re-opening it in the way it has been done for centuries.

The timing is controversial. The way of doing it is absolutely normal.

[ŽižkovClaret]

This happens every year (except that Theresa May never did it). We aren't talking about dismissing elected members, we're talking about closing Parlaiment and re-opening it in the way it has been done for centuries.

The timing is controversial. The way of doing it is absolutely normal.

Exactly. Spring cleaning is perfectly normal. doing it when your house is on fire and the dog is shagging the cat is madness.

[Colburn_Claret]

Let's see what Brexit voters think about democracy and sovereignty now.

BBC News - Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the hell do you expect them to do.
Democracy should have delivered Brexit by now , if he has to use political protocols to make sure that the referendum is delivered, how can that be undemocratic. MPs arent representing their constituents, they're representing themselves. Shame on them.

[nil_desperandum]

When should Parliament be prorogued? This parliament is already longer than any parliament of modern times. Proroguing is usually an annual event, and it's way overdue. Conference season seems as good a time as any.

MPs have had five weeks since Boris became PM to have all these debates and pass all these laws. So did they? No, because they all wanted to go on holiday instead. That's how seriously they treat the Brexit debate - not important enough to cancel a holiday for.

Proroguing Parliament is the norm. Tony Blair did it nine times. It's nothing new.

Stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of some gullible "leavers".
Proroguing is routine as part of every Parliamentary session, but that's an entirely different context.
Blair did it once - outside of normal convention, around the time of "Cash for questions".
The only other precedent in modern times, that I can find, was Attlee in 1948, when he had a landslide majority in the Commons but the Lords were being awkward. (That appears to me to be entirely different, since Attlee had a massive mandate from the people, and the Lords are unelected).

[ŽižkovClaret]

Slightly different question. My partner thinks it was wrong that we voted to leave. They now think we should since that's how we voted.

Can you ask them, if they plan to go for a walk, but the only route is covered in dog ****, would they think again about her stroll?

[nil_desperandum]

This happens every year (except that Theresa May never did it). We aren't talking about dismissing elected members, we're talking about closing Parlaiment and re-opening it in the way it has been done for centuries.

The timing is controversial. The way of doing it is absolutely normal.

That's a totally dishonest way of describing what Johnson proposes to do. This isn't procedural at all. It's a power grab by an unelected right wing executive.

[Colburn_Claret]

Must say well done Boris.

At last someone who is grabbing the bull by the horns prepared to deliver Brexit. Finally all of this political bickering will be over.

(Hopefully)

It isnt delivered yet, but the rhetoric since the day he took office, the shake up in the Civil Service to get on and prepare for a no deal, the message given to Brussels, has all been spot on.
It should have been done long ago, but that isnt his fault.

The more this gets dragged out the more likely that Boris will win a landslide in a GE. People are just so ****** off with MPs dragging this out, again, I think even a lot of remainers will think the same. Hopefully a lot of professional politicians will be falling on their swords.

[dsr]

Parliament still has the period from 25th July to 14th September to make their objections, and from 14th October onwards. (Obviously they didn't use the first 6 weeks because they wanted theior holidays more than they wanted to discuss Breexit.) They can still vote down the Queen's Speech and appoint a new PM. They could even do a vote of confidence before then.

I don't think it's a sound tactical move by Boris because it can and will be portrayed as an affront to Parliamentary democracy. But it isn't the Greast Scandal that people are making it out to be.

[aggi]

This is probably the option, more than a No Deal Brexit, that will lose Johnson a confidence vote.

There were a number of Labour MPs who wouldn't be against a No Deal Brexit but would be against an attempt to cut Parliament out of the decision making process and a number of Tory MPs of the same view.

Obviously the issue after that would be to put together a government. If the politicians can't do that then it's a general election with the same result.

[Imploding Turtle]

So this is what Brexiteer democracy looks like - suspending parliament because parliament won't let you do what you want to do.

[Damo]

Its time for Brexiteers to **** off quite frankly.

Welcome back pal

[Damo]

So this is what Brexiteer democracy looks like - suspending parliament because parliament won't let you do what you want to do.

Dry your eyes mate

[Imploding Turtle]

Dry your eyes mate

I think it's hilarious.

[AlargeClaret]

Dame Judy Dench is seething so it can’t be all bad.
Seriously though wasn’t this always BoJo’s plan of action to in effect turn the thumbscrews on the EU . Boris does want a deal but it’s 100% clear parliament won’t stand up to the EU .Ultimately the EU need to see we’re totally serious before they budge . Though this isn’t quite the overblown “Hitler esque “ piece of political chicanery the media are howling over

[Colburn_Claret]

And all he has to do to get back our sovereignty is stifle the sovereignty of parliament. All he has to do to make sure democracy is respected is bypass democracy.

It's amazing that you cant see how silly your argument is.

[Colburn_Claret]

Its all about Sovereignty... Suspend Parliament... Huzzah!!!... You do see the irony right? Please tell me you see that.

If De Pfeffel suspends Parliament to force a No Deal Brexit, that a majority of his party don't want, that a majority of parliament don't want, that no one, yes, no one voted for. It'll be the greatest abuse of British Sovereignty since Cromwell used a Barebone's Parliament to force through the execution of King Charles II.

But heck, our only Military dictator got voted in the top 10 Britons of all time and has his own statue outside Parliament. De Pfeffel will probably get sainted for this attack on British Sovereignty.

********.
The people voted leave, no more, no less.
The argument that they never voted for no deal is moot. It wasnt an option.
You lost. If you lost because you ****** it up, you still lost.

[AlargeClaret]

Boris is certainly taking a gamble , he could get a deal and win by a landslide and have the majority to ride out the early post Brexit aggro. It could also blow up badly as the media might really go to town on this

[Spijed]

Boris does want a deal

No. Boris Johnson wants a longer term as PM. He couldn't care less about Brexit.

[Colburn_Claret]

So what we have here is an unelected, minority government asking an unelected medieval royal council to ask the unelected head of state (in her Scottish castle) to dismiss the elected members of Parliament.
And this coming from a man who wanted to “Take back control for the UK Parliament and restore Sovereignty", (presumably on the advice of the unelected Dominic Cummings.)
Anyone who's ever voted Conservative in their life should hang their heads in shame that they elected this "pro- Rogue", scoundrel into office.

As should any Socialists who voted for Momentums puppet.

[SonofPog]

********.
You lost. If you lost because you ****** it up, you still lost.

And all it took you to win was abandoning everything you said you stood for.

[Imploding Turtle]

And all it took you to win was abandoning everything you said you stood for.

Kinda like how fans will accept their players diving to win football games. Their "principles" are not principles, they're talking points.