UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

On the one hand, I feel a bit bad for her because this is really all David fucking Cameron's fault - I think he has to go down as one of the worst British people in the history of Britain for this. On the other hand, it's her fault (and her party's fault) that we've spent 2 years of negotiation with the EU just utterly wasted and are 17 days from No Deal.

What the difference between no deal and hard brexit? They must be quite similar?

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

What the difference between no deal and hard brexit? They must be quite similar?

They’re the same

[Bluebird Hewitt]

23 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

On the one hand, I feel a bit bad for her because this is really all David fucking Cameron's fault - I think he has to go down as one of the worst British people in the history of Britain for this. On the other hand, it's her fault (and her party's fault) that we've spent 2 years of negotiation with the EU just utterly wasted and are 17 days from No Deal.

While I agree that she could have done this better (in general, being more open to the other parties (where possible) in terms of a better deal for the UK), I think the part in bold is a tad harsh.

What is she supposed to do when the likes of the SNP (who admittedly have their duty to the Scottish who overwhelmingly voted to remain), Plaid Cymru (who pretty much gave the middle finger to the majority of the voters in Wales) and Lib Dem basically fight against Brexit at all costs and barely (if at all) provide anything in terms of negotiations to try and get the best deal? 

What is she supposed to do when Labour, the main opposition, has been indecisive for the two years as well and have done very little in terms of negotiations, followed by Corbyn's temper tantrum after losing a no confidence vote against May and instructed Labour not to discuss anything with her? 

What is she supposed to do when the Tories effectively started back stabbing each other and imploding because any deals made wasn't 'there ideal Brexit' (I admit that this is something May could have possibly sorted out, but even then you can't predict when something like this could happen)? 

What is she supposed to do when many MP's from most parties simply didn't want anything to do with Brexit whatsoever and even attempting to lie about it (such as Owen Smith persistently lying that his constituency voted to remain in the EU)? 

This is just internal to the UK. Put all these together and you get the main question. 

How was May going to negotiate any form of deal that could possibly benefit the UK when she is sent to negotiate with the EU with her hands, feet, fingers, toes and wrinkled pussy tied by all parties (including her own)? 

You also have to question whether those who rejected the deals actually had it 'in the best interests of the UK' or whether it was purely politically motivated ('I won't vote for this because it's the Tories etc).

Don't get me wrong. This is not intended to be a full defence of May and when she took over from Cameron, she knew what she was walking into, but for some to say that she's one of the worst PM's simply because of this (especially as we had a PM who went to war on the basis of 'a belief' and innocent people are now paying the price for it) is ridiculous. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Bluebird Hewitt said:

While I agree that she could have done this better (in general, being more open to the other parties (where possible) in terms of a better deal for the UK), I think the part in bold is a tad harsh.

What is she supposed to do when the likes of the SNP (who admittedly have their duty to the Scottish who overwhelmingly voted to remain), Plaid Cymru (who pretty much gave the middle finger to the majority of the voters in Wales) and Lib Dem basically fight against Brexit at all costs and barely (if at all) provide anything in terms of negotiations to try and get the best deal? 

What is she supposed to do when Labour, the main opposition, has been indecisive for the two years as well and have done very little in terms of negotiations, followed by Corbyn's temper tantrum after losing a no confidence vote against May and instructed Labour not to discuss anything with her? 

What is she supposed to do when the Tories effectively started back stabbing each other and imploding because any deals made wasn't 'there ideal Brexit' (I admit that this is something May could have possibly sorted out, but even then you can't predict when something like this could happen)? 

What is she supposed to do when many MP's from most parties simply didn't want anything to do with Brexit whatsoever and even attempting to lie about it (such as Owen Smith persistently lying that his constituency voted to remain in the EU)? 

This is just internal to the UK. Put all these together and you get the main question. 

How was May going to negotiate any form of deal that could possibly benefit the UK when she is sent to negotiate with the EU with her hands, feet, fingers, toes and wrinkled pussy tied by all parties (including her own)? 

You also have to question whether those who rejected the deals actually had it 'in the best interests of the UK' or whether it was purely politically motivated ('I won't vote for this because it's the Tories etc).

Don't get me wrong. This is not intended to be a full defence of May and when she took over from Cameron, she knew what she was walking into, but for some to say that she's one of the worst PM's simply because of this (especially as we had a PM who went to war on the basis of 'a belief' and innocent people are now paying the price for it) is ridiculous. 

I mean I do agree with you, she was given an impossible task - and even in negotiating with the EU, when she comes back she has to either sell a bad Brexit deal to both Brexiteers and remainers. And the EU held all leverage in negotiations, but the problems domestically really made it unfeasible. You've got around half the country that didn't want to leave in the first place, then the leave camp that's made up of shitloads of views with very few of them being realistic.

[Fairy In Boots]

On 27/02/2019 at 14:54, Harvsky said:

This isn't true of metropolitan areas. It's true of the smaller inner city boundaries within a metropolitan area. 

If you look at the metropolitan then 7 of the 10 borough's of Greater Manchester voted leave. 5 of the 8 districts of Merseyside voted leave. 22 of Birmingham's 40 wards voted leave. 5 of London's 33 borough's voted leave. 

 

On 27/02/2019 at 16:20, Harvsky said:

It might not be that different. Digging a little deeper, Birmingham as a city, in terms of giving a result under that name, was based on around 450,000 votes.

Liverpool on the other hand as a city giving its result was based on 200,000 votes. Manchester similarly gave it's result as 200,000 voters.

Clearly the boundary of Birmingham is encapsulating substantially more and that may be distorting the result comparison. 

One thing common in all metro areas is that the suburbs were more likely to vote leave. The difference is not a surprise as there has been a significant demographic and social change in city centres with the rapid expansion of universities and service sector work.

I don't think the result given as Birmingham concludes for sure that it is somehow a truly distinct place.

Birmingham as a city doesn’t encapsulate the rest of the West mids, the Black Country is adjacent to the left Redditch & Bromsgrove to the south, Solihull and Coventry to the West with Walsall and Tamworth to the North. 

All those voted Leave by a 55% or higher margin so Birmingham as a city was more remain that the surrounding areas. 

[Harry]

12 hours ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

While I agree that she could have done this better (in general, being more open to the other parties (where possible) in terms of a better deal for the UK), I think the part in bold is a tad harsh.

What is she supposed to do when the likes of the SNP (who admittedly have their duty to the Scottish who overwhelmingly voted to remain), Plaid Cymru (who pretty much gave the middle finger to the majority of the voters in Wales) and Lib Dem basically fight against Brexit at all costs and barely (if at all) provide anything in terms of negotiations to try and get the best deal? 

What is she supposed to do when Labour, the main opposition, has been indecisive for the two years as well and have done very little in terms of negotiations, followed by Corbyn's temper tantrum after losing a no confidence vote against May and instructed Labour not to discuss anything with her? 

What is she supposed to do when the Tories effectively started back stabbing each other and imploding because any deals made wasn't 'there ideal Brexit' (I admit that this is something May could have possibly sorted out, but even then you can't predict when something like this could happen)? 

What is she supposed to do when many MP's from most parties simply didn't want anything to do with Brexit whatsoever and even attempting to lie about it (such as Owen Smith persistently lying that his constituency voted to remain in the EU)? 

This is just internal to the UK. Put all these together and you get the main question. 

How was May going to negotiate any form of deal that could possibly benefit the UK when she is sent to negotiate with the EU with her hands, feet, fingers, toes and wrinkled pussy tied by all parties (including her own)? 

You also have to question whether those who rejected the deals actually had it 'in the best interests of the UK' or whether it was purely politically motivated ('I won't vote for this because it's the Tories etc).

Don't get me wrong. This is not intended to be a full defence of May and when she took over from Cameron, she knew what she was walking into, but for some to say that she's one of the worst PM's simply because of this (especially as we had a PM who went to war on the basis of 'a belief' and innocent people are now paying the price for it) is ridiculous. 

I honestly think Teresa May has the worst job in the entire world right now. I'm shocked she hasnt spat the dummy, launched a scathing attack on the majority of the parliament, mic dropped and got the fuck out of there. 

[Stan]

I'm genuinely surprised that she's still in 'power' and either hasn't been pushed out yet or just thrown in the towel.

There's stubborn and then there's Theresa May. 

[The Artful Dodger]

Who wants it? I think power hungry politicians are more than happy for her to face this period. When it becomes clear where the UK is headed then she'll be removed.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They’re the same

Not sure if I would agree they are the same from what I have read and seen. It appears that with a deal at least some stuff is sorted. From whatching the news it appears as if there is good reason to have a second referendum. Even though they just voted against it. I mean the leave campaign said we would get a good deal where as it appears as if if it won't happen.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Not sure if I would agree they are the same from what I have read and seen. It appears that with a deal at least some stuff is sorted. From whatching the news it appears as if there is good reason to have a second referendum. Even though they just voted against it. I mean the leave campaign said we would get a good deal where as it appears as if if it won't happen.

A lot of articles seem to use them as synonyms tbh - here's just one example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/17/france-triggers-hard-brexit-plan-warns-no-deal-less-less-unlikely/

I've always considered a soft-Brexit to be something along the lines of us leaving the union, but getting to keep a number of the advantages of EU membership for the good of free trade and freedom of movement. And a hard Brexit I've always viewed as us leaving the union fully and reverting to WTO rules - which is the default no deal situation.

I think the vote before yesterdays was even more of a reason to hold a second referendum. The government essentially asked MPs to change their mind on the vote of a few months ago - if it's reasonable to expect that MPs can change their mind after a few months, why is it not reasonable to believe the voting public can change their mind after a few years? Especially as many who voted leave did not vote for a hard Brexit, and many leave campaigners explicitly stated that there would not be a hard Brexit.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

A lot of articles seem to use them as synonyms tbh - here's just one example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/17/france-triggers-hard-brexit-plan-warns-no-deal-less-less-unlikely/

I've always considered a soft-Brexit to be something along the lines of us leaving the union, but getting to keep a number of the advantages of EU membership for the good of free trade and freedom of movement. And a hard Brexit I've always viewed as us leaving the union fully and reverting to WTO rules - which is the default no deal situation.

I think the vote before yesterdays was even more of a reason to hold a second referendum. The government essentially asked MPs to change their mind on the vote of a few months ago - if it's reasonable to expect that MPs can change their mind after a few months, why is it not reasonable to believe the voting public can change their mind after a few years? Especially as many who voted leave did not vote for a hard Brexit, and many leave campaigners explicitly stated that there would not be a hard Brexit.

I have a similar view. It passed by 1 a half percent. Shorty at least some of them wanted a soft brexit. When you take into account the remain voters a soft brexit probably keeps the most people happy. I think a second referendum is fair though as not sure how many people voted for this

[Guest]

@Dr. Gonzo @Harvsky what I don't get is why have the brexiteers snubbed no deal? Aren't they getting what they want? 

[Stan]

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

 

 

Stan can you send me a link so I can post that on my Facebook.

Was watching Sunday politics today and there was an MP for Wiltshire who seems to have changed his mind on brexit or at least Mays deal. To be fair he was more honest than most MPs. Personally I don't see a second vote as un-democratic. I think doing something that probably isn't supported now would be more undemocratic

[Stan]

9 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Stan can you send me a link so I can post that on my Facebook.

Was watching Sunday politics today and there was an MP for Wiltshire who seems to have changed his mind on brexit or at least Mays deal. To be fair he was more honest than most MPs. Personally I don't see a second vote as un-democratic. I think doing something that probably isn't supported now would be more undemocratic

https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1107036923938435078?s=20

 

Regarding the 2nd point - I find it ridiculously hypocritical (but in no way surprising of a politician) she's having vote after vote after vote even though it gets rejected each time yet won't allow the people to have another vote.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Regarding the 2nd point - I find it ridiculously hypocritical (but in no way surprising of a politician) she's having vote after vote after vote even though it gets rejected each time yet won't allow the people to have another vote.

You say that but as @RandoEFC and a couple of others have mentioned before, you start to tread a very fine line for not just that vote but any other votes in the future. 

Imagine that the people's vote did happen and the same majority (52/48) occurred in favour of remain or whatever the question is that time around. What then? 

As you may be aware back in 1997, Wales voted for devolution. Though this is from Wikipedia (the majority is correct though), note the majority and the turnout. 

This was much closer than the EU referendum, yet devolution went through, no one complained and Labour have fucked things ever since. If we tried another vote, it'd get shot down immediately. I dread the time a Welsh independence vote is made. 

I'm not saying that Welsh devolution is as important as the EU referendum, but hopefully you get where I'm going in regards to votes etc. 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Bluebird Hewitt

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Imagine that the people's vote did happen and the same majority (52/48) occurred in favour of remain or whatever the question is that time around. What then? 

 

Well we'd be in the same position as we were in before the referendum, still in the EU, not needing to leave and not needing to prepare for anything within 2 years.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1107036923938435078?s=20

 

Regarding the 2nd point - I find it ridiculously hypocritical (but in no way surprising of a politician) she's having vote after vote after vote even though it gets rejected each time yet won't allow the people to have another vote.

I can see why they are worried about having a second vote. It may cause riots and absolute mayhem. But at the same time the leave campaign lied and people now know that. People may have voted for brexit. But they can't agree on what kind of brexit.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Guest

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Just now, Stan said:

Well we'd be in the same position as we were in before the referendum, still in the EU, not needing to leave and not needing to prepare for anything within 2 years.

Except that this would fall under sheer hypocrisy and pretty much set the tone for future votes (ie. If you don't like the original vote, just keep protesting and giving the middle finger to everyone that doesn't agree with you until you get the result you want). 

[Stan]

15 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Except that this would fall under sheer hypocrisy and pretty much set the tone for future votes (ie. If you don't like the original vote, just keep protesting and giving the middle finger to everyone that doesn't agree with you until you get the result you want). 

Not to the level of what we see today, I don't think. 

Obviously no one can tell for sure what would have happened but my point was more the fact if it was Remain that won the vote, we're not in a different position than before. 

[The Artful Dodger]

We are, simply because everyone agreed to be bound by the result of the referendum. That's the only way a democracy can work, but we are no longer a functioning one. Referenda are a complete anathema to our system and we have now a dual legitimacy, is it the House of Commons or the 'people' that have the power? The genie is out of the bottle now.

Suggestions May is going to leave another vote till the 28th May, a complete disgrace and trying to blackmail her deal through. Word is Macron is going to demand there is no extension too. No Deal looks like the favourite now.

[Inverted]

I'm now coming to think No Deal is really going to happen. Quite hard to stomach.

[Pyfish+]

Right from the very start of this whole debacle, nobody has been sure of what was going to happen and now we still don't. No deal Brexit the most likely now unfortunately!

[Honey Honey]

I find those takes surprising. No deal can currently only happen by a clumsy move from EU leaders under the advice of Peter Mandelson types whereby they try to collapse the government to reverse the result and it goes to pot.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Harvsky said:

I find those takes surprising. No deal can currently only happen by a clumsy move from EU leaders under the advice of Peter Mandelson types whereby they try to collapse the government to reverse the result and it goes to pot.

I find that take surprising. The EU doesn’t have to make anymore moves for a No Deal to happen - they negotiated a deal with us and said those terms are final. Parliament rejected that deal twice. No ideal is the default position if there is no deal in place by the deadline. The deadline is just over a week away. If we have a no deal, it’s from the clumsiness of our leaders over the last 2 years.

They’ve got less than 9 days to sort it out, or to drive us over the edge. In the meantime we’ve got to hope the EU agrees to give us an extension to sort it out. The EU is now saying they’ll only agree to an extension if we agree to the deal that’s failed in parliament twice. So we only get an extension on the deadline if we agree to a Brexit that displeases most in the remain camp and most in the leave camp.

The government couldn’t sort anything out in 2 years, I doubt they get anything done in 8 days and a few hours (assuming there’s no extension that lets us renegotiate terms with the EU).