Brexit

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Brexit

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Thu May 09, 2019 12:15 pm

Not very much like Communism in the 90s, though. Unless I've missed it we've not had tanks rolling across Westminster Palace Park and shelling the Commons :p. Elsewhere in Europe you could point to rioting in France, but that's true of every year in living memory. Go back really not very far in time and half of Europe is a communist hell and the likes of Spain and Greece are military dictatorships. We're not at a low water mark in post war Europe's democracy by any stretch of the imagination. We've had a relatively quiet spell for a decade or two that convinced people that quiet was normal. It's like in the UK when it doesn't snow for a couple of years and convinces Councils they don't need to stockpile grit anymore.

Re: Brexit

by Smokey Gem » Wed May 08, 2019 11:48 pm

Looking at Brexit and the broader political landscape. The confusion and inability of any political party to function in a coherent and effective manner must have been exactly how the communist world felt at the end of the 90's. Maybe its simply that democracy as we knew it is now foundering and evolving into something new.

Re: Brexit

by orathaic » Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:35 pm

Re: Brexit

by orathaic » Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:28 pm

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:49 am

That's a fun little conspiracy theory.

Here's another. The entire Brexit horlicks was created by the deep rooted need in the heart of every Brit to have something to complain about.

As observed by Gilbert and Sullivan over a century ago:

Oh, don't the days seem lank and long
When all goes right and nothing goes wrong,
And isn't your life extremely flat
With nothing whatever to grumble at!

Re: Brexit

by orathaic » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:11 pm

Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:31 pm
<snip>
There has to be a point where Britain returns to business as usual after this 3 year fiasco & if May & Corbyn can’t make that happen now by some compromise with a “customs union” (or whatever they can agree upon) I suspect it will result in more than just political problems. Whatever is done can be dressed up as a victory for both Brexit & Remain, so the people can get over the ridiculous division that’s appeared in society.
I have to say, the theory that super-wealth threw money at the leave campaign to cause just this kind of paralysis (so nobody can focus on where they are hiding all the money) leaves you with no returning to normal, if they can possibly avoid it.

This is exactly what they want, a distracted EU squabbling over brexit, a public who have gotten themselves into a huge fight with each other and can't even see the funders who poured millions into leave - and broke laws to do it.

You could argue it is Russia, or super wealthy westerners, or whoever, but if paralysis was the goal, then it must have exceeded their wildest dreams.

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:57 pm

Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:43 pm
Equally no side can be seen to have “won” this fight, to avoid the losers resentment.
If there were two sides I might agree, but there are not. Those who voted for Brexit with trade deals and an end to freedom of movement in mind won't be any less resentful because Remainers are pissed off two. To them it is clear cut. Brexit in name only is a betrayal just as much as rescinding article 50 would be. Those on the Remain side, who now believe themselves to be the majority and victims of a swindle, will see any Brexit as a perversion of democracy. The various sides in the middle might accept it, but they are far from the majority. Any action without a confirmatory vote will be met with a vast amount of resentment. Such a vote can't make the resentment go away, but it may pour some cold water over it.
Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:43 pm
For me this should be removed from the hands of the people
It's been removed from the hands of the people for three years and the politicians have failed utterly. It is time we put it back in the hands of the people so they can guide the politicians on a way forward.
Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:43 pm
It always was a stupid exercise in direct democracy & needs to be stopped now.
It was a necessary consultation with the public that met a growing need to be heard on a vital issue. The problem was in the poor execution of the idea rather than the idea itself.

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:43 pm

Octavious wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:51 pm
Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:31 pm
Whatever is done can be dressed up as a victory for both Brexit & Remain,
No it can't. That's just a political fantasy. A customs union fudge will be seen as a betrayal by most Brexit voters and a disaster by Remain voters. Both sides will be united by anger against the politicians.

There is no option that can command majority public support. We need a referendum as it's the only way to find a way forward that can satisfy the public need to feel they've been listened to.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. They will never risk a second referendum & shouldn’t in my opinion. It’s even more ridiculous than the first & potentially dangerous.
Equally no side can be seen to have “won” this fight, to avoid the losers resentment. So if both sides end up complaining bitterly they didn’t get what they wanted then that’s probably “job well done” as far as the politicians are concerned.
For me this should be removed from the hands of the people until we can get back to normal political manifestos, covering intentions for EU membership, voted on as usual in a General Election. “Normal” representative democracy through party politics needs to be resumed as soon as possible.
It always was a stupid exercise in direct democracy & needs to be stopped now.

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:51 pm

Senlac wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:31 pm
Whatever is done can be dressed up as a victory for both Brexit & Remain,
No it can't. That's just a political fantasy. A customs union fudge will be seen as a betrayal by most Brexit voters and a disaster by Remain voters. Both sides will be united by anger against the politicians.

There is no option that can command majority public support. We need a referendum as it's the only way to find a way forward that can satisfy the public need to feel they've been listened to.

Re: Brexit

by peterlund » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:14 pm

UK politics is so infantile and boring to follow. Let them go and let's instead get on with real life without these kids.

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:31 pm

Octavious wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:51 pm
Seniac, moving on is not an option. Even if May's deal is passed that merely signals the start of Tory leadership elections and the start of the main phase of negotiations that will last years. The idea that Corbyn and May sign a piece of paper and we can put all this behind us is not one that matches any possible reality.
I’m not suggesting it would be over for either the Westminster or EU politicians, but it would hopefully be over for the electorate.
Tory leadership contests, trade negotiations with the EU & dog fighting in Westminster can proceed as usual, without need for a referendum or early election.

There has to be a point where Britain returns to business as usual after this 3 year fiasco & if May & Corbyn can’t make that happen now by some compromise with a “customs union” (or whatever they can agree upon) I suspect it will result in more than just political problems. Whatever is done can be dressed up as a victory for both Brexit & Remain, so the people can get over the ridiculous division that’s appeared in society.

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:51 pm

Seniac, moving on is not an option. Even if May's deal is passed that merely signals the start of Tory leadership elections and the start of the main phase of negotiations that will last years. The idea that Corbyn and May sign a piece of paper and we can put all this behind us is not one that matches any possible reality.

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:51 am

Don’t know if you folks have noticed but a second referendum of any variety stands next to zero chance. I think the politicians realise today’s problems were caused by the decision to hold the first one. If there is one point of total agreement between May & Corbyn it’s “let’s not do that again!”
They will fudge this now & try to move on. The real question is will the British people move on, or still be bitching about flavours of Brexit years from now?

Re: Brexit

by Octavious » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:07 am

I agree with your solution, Dippy, but couldn't disagree more on the likely outcome. I don't think that there's much support at all for a customs union Brexit, and I don't know who will campaign for it. May's deal only stands a hope if May stays in power long enough to promote it. Remain and WTO will be the favourites.

The fly in the ointment for that plan is that May could pass her deal through Parliament tomorrow if it was subject to a confirmatory vote. From May's point of view, why allow a four way referendum when you can push for an option with only remain as the competition?

Re: Brexit

by Deeply_Dippy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:24 am

What would be sensible (i.e. in th national interest) would be to either delay Brexit until after the EU Elections or revoke Art 50.

I'm not sayoing 'no' to Brexit, but either of these options would allow for a second referendum, which is the only way of sorting out the situation in a non-toxic way.

The Referendum should be non-binary and operate on a transferable voting system, allowing the public to choose from three or four options, ranked in order of preference. I would suggest that those options would be along the lines of 1) Hard No Deal, 2) No Brexit, 3) Theresa's Deal or 4) Brexit with Full Customs Union.

Persoanly, I would vote for 2, 4, 3, 1 but others might say 1, 3, 4, 2 etc.

After the first count, based on first choices, in the event of no absolute majority, the leat popular option removed and the second choices from those ballts added in. That process repeats until an absolute majority is reached.

If I were to speculate on the outcome, it would be either 3 or 4.

Re: Brexit

by orathaic » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:22 am

I don't know about the UK vs Brussels side of thing, but I don't feel the EU has forced any socially liberal regulations down our throats... There are countries across Europe with bans on things like abortion. Poland being an example, with Ireland having made its own mind up last year. I can't think of other liberal policies which the EU has pushed... However, I do think the EU has been driven by neo-liberal economic ideas. The forced austerity was an example of EU wide decisions (or at least eurozone wide), Greece voted for socialism and ended up bullied into towing the EU line.

Perhaps British politicians haven't pushed for things to be different because Tony and Cameron have been happy with this state of affairs... If I'm not mistaken the EU budget is still tiny compared to the sum total of national budgets... Most power still resides in member states.

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:11 am

I did say, the British would be OK, “in the end”. Crop harvesting problems & shortage of cheap labour would be fixed second time around. Farmers are resourceful buggers, I know, I worked for one for 8 years as a youngster:-)
My use of the term ”liberal” was I think how you would use social liberal. The contrast I had in mind was the dominance of “Our Maggie” throughout the 80’s transitioning to “Dear John” & then in the later 90’s “Tony & his cronies” took over. I’d say the period from late 90’s to now, contrasted sharply with the 20 years before. You may disagree?
Anyway my statement above is based on the matter that “Our Maggie” had an agenda & it was gonna happen come hell or high water & screw Brussels.
Since that era, no British politician has wielded power as effectively. That may be considered good by many, but not an aspiring British politician, like Maggie was 40 years ago.

Re: Brexit

by orathaic » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:57 pm

@Senlac: two things

Regarding "any outcome will probably turn out OK" see: https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... ck-2716754

Crops already left to rot. No local workers willing to do the work. What are they going to do without migrants coming over and doing those jobs?

And regarding: "If you have a liberal tendency & been doing pretty well over the last 20 years, no change is perfect" - what do you mean by Liberal? I'm aware of far too much how that word has been used. Traditionally in Europe it meant what in the US they call Libertarian, or freedom of businesses to do what they want without govt regulation. But in modern parlance it means social Liberal, ie freedom of individuals to do what they want without govt interference (like gay marriage, safe legal abortion, smoking weed etc).

I think the EU has been far more classical Liberal (ie libertarian, or neo-Liberal) than it has socially Liberal... But I'm not sure that is what you meant.

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:07 pm

Quick addendum. Although the politicians seem to be cobbling together one of their compromises that will certainly go under the title of “Brexit”. It’s what happens to Brexit after this “Brexit” that determines who “wins”.
If a pro-Brexit party gains traction & finally wins to achieve a “real” Brexit then Brussels supporters lost. If the British population get Brexit “fatigue” & the whole subject is not significant to the next election then Brussels supporters won. Let’s see, any bets?

Re: Brexit

by Senlac » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:27 pm

A further post here, because I’ve been thinking about why Brexit was ever raised as a serious question, meriting a public referendum. Let’s see if you folks feel my train of thought has merit:-)

I’ve posted previously that personally I feel it was a bad subject on which to have a referendum, but clearly the political class felt otherwise. Why?
For me it’s about political power & where potential allies were to be found. Think Diplomacy. I start from the Maastricht treaty that was controversial in UK & transferred power & some would say sovereignty, away from member states.

Some British politicians probably got to the point where power to implement their beliefs was becoming next to impossible. If power transfers to Brussels any Westminster victory is of little benefit. For them the adversary became only Brussels, not necessarily the opposition party, but very possibly some within there own party. Equally these politicians were only likely to find political allies & support in UK as even now anti-Brussels sentiment in Europe is fledgling. 20 years ago insignificant.

For the British people it probably doesn’t matter which batch of politicians wields real power. The Brussels or the Westminster crowds appear equally incompetent to me, but for politicians it matters deeply. Especially if you’re ambitious & on the outside.

So, my view is this entire Brexit battle started with & as we can see is ending with British political factions juggling for power, desperately trying to make their agenda that which commands “popular” support so as to have a mandate to forward their view. It has nothing to do with what may or may not be good for Britain &/or it’s people. It’s about the British ruling class.

If you have a liberal tendency & been doing pretty well over the last 20 years, no change is perfect. Plenty of allies in Brussels available to implement exactly what you would prefer for England. If you’re not, then the only intelligent political objective is to wrestle power from Brussels in the hope you could implement a different agenda that you believe is better.

My conclusion is this was started by politicians, for politicians. It is a classic power struggle like the War of the Roses, the English Civil War & any other historical mishap you want to use as a comparison. Each side recruits it’s supporters for Lancashire, Yorkshire, Parliamentarians or believers in The King. They claim to be patriotically fighting for “right” for “England” or any other virtuous cause. But none of them are. One side wants to maintain it’s current advantage via Brussels, the other side wants to take it away.

The good news is that any outcome will probably turn out OK in the end for the British , except for the losing politicians, who’ll probably need a new job. At least they won’t lose their head like Charles 1st:-)

Top