Brexit

[orathaic]

No deal means the potential that every British citizen living in the EU will immediately have to return, and be pissed that they've just been kicked out of their homes because May couldn't agree any deal...

Not something that would be particularly good for social cohesion. It would be funny seeing Spain bring in rules banning non-EU citizens from owning property... Probably less likely, but they're still pretty pissed off about Gibraltar.

[Senlac]

No deal means the potential that every British citizen living in the EU will immediately have to return, and be pissed that they've just been kicked out of their homes because May couldn't agree any deal...

Not something that would be particularly good for social cohesion. It would be funny seeing Spain bring in rules banning non-EU citizens from owning property... Probably less likely, but they're still pretty pissed off about Gibraltar.

This is awful scaremongering & total crap. My British sister & husband live in France, without any intention of returning to England. They have a French residency application in progress & no reason to believe it won’t succeed. Admittedly it’s given them cause for a bit of extra paperwork but that’s all. Total bullshit.

[Octavious]

Yeah, the odds of the EU deporting everyone is nil. If I thought for a moment that this was at all likely I would be one of Brexit's most enthusiastic supporters, but I actually think the EU is mostly decent.

[flash2015]

The trouble is that it isn't particularly good for social cohesion. The original referendum question was fine if Remain had won, but it simply wasn't designed for a Brexit victory. A no deal Brexit will satisfy a fair number of people, but far from a majority. Combine economic hardship and a majority of people thinking it was a bad or awful idea and you have a potentially explosive mix.

There is no real deal other than "no deal" though. The EU pretty much laid this out:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1ED23R

At least if you get to the point where most people think Brexit worked or was a bad idea, the UK can put it behind it even if there is some short term pain. If the UK goes with some half-arsed deal where the UK leaves but effectively is still tied to the EU (now without representation), the political paralysis will continue, perhaps indefinitely.

[orathaic]

The difference between May's deal and No deal is a transition period where this free trade deal is negotiated.

Both end up in a similar place, but one guarantees citizen's rights. (ie EU citizens living in the UK and vica verse), it guarantees an economically stable transition period (the UK asked to remain in the customs Union, so no customs agents along the British border in Ireland), and it requires a payment towards the EU budget which the UK previously committed to paying (ie the 7 year budget period, which was what? 2013-2020... The UK paying an estimated 39 billion towards this budget).

And even in the case of a free trade deal, do you think the UK will have a choice of either applying EU regulations (on goods/service traded with the EU) across the whole country or just at the borders? Because border checks remain a threat to peace in Northern Ireland (which the UK has signed a legally binding international agreement to avoid doing).

So yesz both could result in the exact same 'free trade deal', it just happens one is a safer way of getting there.

Yeah, the odds of the EU deporting everyone is nil. If I thought for a moment that this was at all likely I would be one of Brexit's most enthusiastic supporters, but I actually think the EU is mostly decent.

It may be unlikely, but as above, May's deal offers citzes (of both the UK and EU) legal guarantees. If the UK home office suddenly decides to deport Bulgarian and Romanian workers, the EU is not likely to respond favourably... And as you saw with the Windrush generation, nobody trusts the British home office to actually treat people fairly (even British citizens in that case).

@Senlac, forcing people to apply for permission to stay, means those countries all have the option to refuse anyone. This isn't scaremongering. And even if it doesn't mean deporting everyone, many people don't have the money or have limited literacy/legal knowledge, which may affect their ability to even apply. At which point failure to apply for permission to stay may greatly increase the chances of deportation (of the least well off educationally and financially).

Not scaremongering to say: The worst case scenario is everyone gets kicked out; the Best case is the do not have any rights stripped away (as May's deal offers at least temporarily). The likely result is somewhere in the middle - not just you dismissing it completely as not an issue and only scaremongering. But you actually thinking through how this will affect people, and how badly they will be affected.

[Octavious]

At least if you get to the point where most people think Brexit worked or was a bad idea, the UK can put it behind it even if there is some short term pain. If the UK goes with some half-arsed deal where the UK leaves but effectively is still tied to the EU (now without representation), the political paralysis will continue, perhaps indefinitely.

I tend to agree. The deal favoured by Corbyn would be an utter farce and universally despised by Remainers and Brexiteers alike. It's the sort of notion that only looks realistic from Parliament, but will fail utterly in the real world.

That's why I believe we need another public vote. Remain, May's deal, or no deal only have a chance of being accepted by the public if the public are seen to actively favour one of them. If they are imposed by political class without the public giving the final say then they are certain to fail.

[Senlac]

“@Senlac, forcing people to apply for permission to stay, means those countries all have the option to refuse anyone. This isn't scaremongering. And even if it doesn't mean deporting everyone, many people don't have the money or have limited literacy/legal knowledge, which may affect their ability to even apply. At which point failure to apply for permission to stay may greatly increase the chances of deportation (of the least well off educationally and financially).

Not scaremongering to say: The worst case scenario is everyone gets kicked out; the Best case is the do not have any rights stripped away (as May's deal offers at least temporarily). The likely result is somewhere in the middle - not just you dismissing it completely as not an issue and only scaremongering. But you actually thinking through how this will affect people, and how badly they will be affected.”

This is true. I start from the premise that if you wish to live in someone else’s country, as I have done many times, you have the courtesy & ability to make an application!!! As long as you have some merit to the receiving nation they say yes, as I also know personally to be the case on multiple occasions.

Having the “right” to live somewhere else is unusual, something I never experienced & never considered necessary. However you’re correct, this has been the case in the EU & may not always be so. I still don’t consider it important, but that’s maybe just me.

I spoke elsewhere about how I believe the sudden explosion of peoples “rights” is counter productive. I see no reason why someone cannot have the decency to make an application & live by the answer.

[Senlac]

When I first saw this it was at 800 thousand...

https://odileeds.org/projects/petitions/?241584

Now it is up to 29% of the electorate in some places.

I think Brexit is now inevitable. Another referendum, unless won by remain with a massive majority (e.g. 60%+) is just going to lead to more social instability.

Honestly, May should just pull her finger out and do it with "no deal" now. Give the Brexit hardliners what they want. The world won't end and it is important for long term social cohesion irrespective of the potential economic repercussions. If it causes major economic pain Britain can always rejoin at some later point...and the question of Brexit will be closed for generations. If it doesn't cause major economic harm, then the Brexiteers were right...and we can re-assess the importance of other global institutions too.

This is a fascinating point touching on something I’ve thought a lot about.
The British people now feel their opinion on Brexit counts, because they were told it would by David Cameron. Parliament is in effect telling them now it doesn’t, by ignoring their directive not to remain in the EU, by voting “No”.
This issue is now greater than the Brexit outcome.

For almost 50 years everyone had an opinion on the EU. I had many interesting discussions on the subject, always friendly because it was just a talk about opinions. None of it mattered.
Now it is an adversarial fight by bigots on both sides unwilling to even listen to the other. Because foolishly they were told their opinion DID matter.

They can now cause traffic jams, hold marches, conduct riots, threaten violence all in the name of voicing their absolutely vital opinion & their rights as citizens.
It’s Pandora’s Box, or the Genie & the Lamp? Not sure which analogy is best.

Putting the matter to rest as to WHO is going to decide on Brexit (& not having decades of wrangling/dispute) is way more important than WHAT is done about Brexit. It should never have been up to the people. I guess now it is. At some point normality must be restored.
This is why representative parliamentary democracy works, as designed in Britain 400ish years ago. “Direct” democracy is invariably a disaster.

[Octavious]

They can now cause traffic jams, hold marches, conduct riots, threaten violence all in the name of voicing their absolutely vital opinion & their rights as citizens.
It’s Pandora’s Box, or the Genie & the Lamp? Not sure which analogy is best.

It was ever thus. It feels potentially worse than usual purely because we've lived through a remarkably quiet decade in terms of public action, especially considering austerity. But the fuel blockades and huge stop the war marches of the Blair era aren't that long ago, nor the death threats to Huntingdon Life Science researchers, nor the rampant destruction of GM test crops. The Genie has never been trapped.

In all honesty I don't know whether the referendum was a bad thing or not. Anti European feeling was getting increasingly high on the agenda, and without the release of the Brexit debates I think pressure would have kept growing until something else broke. At least people have been able to vent their spleen, and we have experienced for the first time in my memory the formation of a popular and vocal pro European movement.

[Senlac]

They can now cause traffic jams, hold marches, conduct riots, threaten violence all in the name of voicing their absolutely vital opinion & their rights as citizens.
It’s Pandora’s Box, or the Genie & the Lamp? Not sure which analogy is best.

It was ever thus. It feels potentially worse than usual purely because we've lived through a remarkably quiet decade in terms of public action, especially considering austerity. But the fuel blockades and huge stop the war marches of the Blair era aren't that long ago, nor the death threats to Huntingdon Life Science researchers, nor the rampant destruction of GM test crops. The Genie has never been trapped.

In all honesty I don't know whether the referendum was a bad thing or not. Anti European feeling was getting increasingly high on the agenda, and without the release of the Brexit debates I think pressure would have kept growing until something else broke. At least people have been able to vent their spleen, and we have experienced for the first time in my memory the formation of a popular and vocal pro European movement.

Yes, agreed. There always have been/will be people who take it upon themselves to thrust their opinion on some subject on the populace. That’s never going to change.

The difference here is they were invited to give a democratic opinion on a subject, with a majority answer that turned out to be inconvenient & will now be ignored. The resultant self righteous anger is understandable & inevitable, so non-democratic methods of expressing opinion are now certain to be utilised.

The divisiveness of what has happened will probably last decades. I remember as a schoolboy the 60’s “troubles” & what I perceived as minor sectarian disputes (oh, the naivety of youth). 30+ years of appalling conflict later some sort of peace was established. Being English I’m not as qualified as others on this site/thread to comment on what happened, but it was indisputably bad for all participants.

Unless the politicians get a grip I truly believe a similar division in society is possible regarding “Membership of the EU” as happened over the “Union with Britain.”

[orathaic]

The divisiveness of what has happened will probably last decades. I remember as a schoolboy the 60’s “troubles” & what I perceived as minor sectarian disputes (oh, the naivety of youth). 30+ years of appalling conflict later some sort of peace was established. Being English I’m not as qualified as others on this site/thread to comment on what happened, but it was indisputably bad for all participants.

Can I just correct one thing? Lates 60s was the time of the civil rights movement in the US (and apartheid in SA). In Northern Ireland there were no jobs for Catholics (at least in the civil service, but also a lot of businesses were protestant owned and some of the business owners would have discriminated aswell, also less educated Catholics would have lost out even if there was fair competition...) and there were no houses for Catholics (or at least Protestants got first preference for social housing and it would have been built in protestant areas by preference).

The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was completely dominated by Protestants and they were loyal to the system and government which enforced these discriminations. I mentioned South Africa for context, it was comparable, in that you can compare the two... It was not the same, it was much easier to spot the difference between blacks and whites in SA.

Anyway, the 'troubles' started out peacefully. It started out with civil rights protests, which were non-sectarian, peaceful and generally again tsystemic discrimination - so probsbly had a lot in common with the same in the US.

The violence started when the RUC cracked down heavily on the previously peaceful protesters. It got worse when the British Army was sent in to protect the Catholics. First just reflect on this much. The UK government decided that the Northern Irish Unionist govt was doing such a bad job they had to send in the army... (it is possible that the Irish govt had told them they would send in the Irish army to protect the Catholics if the UK didn't act...) Second, sending in an army to do policing is always a bad idea.

Things got worse and the civil rights movement lost the leadership they may have held. Those who wanted only peaceful protests (and who were non-sectarian) found a movement of angry Catholics swayed to support the terrorist IRA. And that was where the troubles became most troubling... But it didn't start with people jumping straight to terrorism. They tried peaceful matches first. (I'm not really getting in to the rights or wrongs of terrorist violence or the state violence from the police... I'm a pacifist and I never believe violence is justified, but the late 60s and early 70s were the most deadly of the 'troubles' with I think a majority of those who died have been killed by ~74... I will claim that the RUC failed to keep the peace. Better policing and a more compromising govt could have prevented the IRA from gaining supporters, and the end result is a much less discriminatory NI, without the RUC because the new PSNI was a necessary step in the peace process... You can also argue that the civil rights leaders failed to maintain control of a peaceful protest movement, but I guess it is hard to convince people to stay peaceful when soldiers start shooting at you... See: current soldier being brought up on murder charges)

[Senlac]

Thank you. I knew someone better informed could help with the “what happened “.
I now suggest repetition of a similar scenario is entirely possible. Firstly peaceful protest by the “losers” claiming they were disenfranchised because their vote was ignored, or alternatively they weren’t given a deserved second chance to vote. Policing in general in UK looks pretty dodgy, especially with reference to violent crime, so we have that ingredient repeated. Years of protest can be expected without achieving reconciliation, until a violent group takes over from the peaceful protesters. Any familiarity yet?

[orathaic]

OK, that became much more of a rant.

I do feel the start of the troubles have much more in common with the civil rights movement in the US or the SA apartheid situation than the current Brexit divisions.

Currently who is the group feeling unrepresented by Westminster? If only the Brits living in the EU lose rights (and therefore feel discriminated against) they are a tiny fraction of the population (and it doesn't matter if you personally feel it is the norm to have to apply to stay; because they feel the norm is what they have experienced... Look how whiney gamers get when a company removes a feature or thing they liked... It doesn't matter that other people grew up never having had any computer games... People hate losing something...)

The much worse issue will be people who suffered the worst under austerity, those who feel Labour isn't representing them... I still think there are peaceful solutions - even if marching and blocking all the major national roads actually does huge economic harm, it is peaceful...

I suspect the largest group of people who will be the most worst off, will be the low waged and unemployed. And I think Labour is already placing itself to stand at the front of this crowd (which we call leadership?). Don't know that they can win anything, but representing people is a thing... So yeah, Remainers? Will the contest the next election?

[orathaic]

Thank you. I knew someone better informed could help with the “what happened “.
I now suggest repetition of a similar scenario is entirely possible. Firstly peaceful protest by the “losers” claiming they were disenfranchised because their vote was ignored, or alternatively they weren’t given a deserved second chance to vote. Policing in general in UK looks pretty dodgy, especially with reference to violent crime, so we have that ingredient repeated. Years of protest can be expected without achieving reconciliation, until a violent group takes over from the peaceful protesters. Any familiarity yet?

Actually, when you put it that way... (posted my previous post without having seen this one)

[ksako8]

And after no, no, no, no yesterday, today the UK continues to negotiate with itself. Cross party this time, but still negotiating with itself.

[Octavious]

And after no, no, no, no yesterday, today the UK continues to negotiate with itself. Cross party this time, but still negotiating with itself.

I don't follow your point. All of Brexit can be accurately described as the EU negotiating with itself if you really wanted to. Is this a criticism? If so could you explain why?

[Octavious]

So the focus moves briefly to the House of Lords, and we get to enjoy a fun day of sniggering at the names. So, providing some much needed Brexit relief, who is your favourite member?

Lord Dear (listed as Dear, Lord on the Parliamentary website)
Lady Hayter, the friendly face of misogyny
Lady Garden
Lady Cox
Lord Pannick

[purevital]

It would be funny seeing Spain bring in rules banning non-EU citizens from owning property... Probably less likely, but they're still pretty pissed off about Gibraltar.

See, all I hear about Gibraltar is that Spain is determined to reclaim it. I get that geographically, it makes more sense to belong to them than the UK.

However, Spain owns 2 cities in Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla), and Morocco feels the same way about them as Spain does about Gibraltar, but Spain isn't budging, just like the UK isn't with Gibraltar.

[ksako8]

The criticism is that the EU27 are still waiting for the UK to come with a an.

[orathaic]

OK, how about this for an argument: the leave campaign broke the law and as a result the referendum result should be nullified and a new referendum called.

See aslo:https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/ ... are_btn_tw