BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ja fine, but with all the chat about softer and harder brexits, which are words and terms which are by definition not binary and allude to a scale, why are you calling it binary?

You've already said earlier in the thread that being part of single market and/or customs union isn't really leaving, and went silent when I explained that that was the Brexit the prominent leave campaigners campaigned on.

On an internet forum someone having better things to do that spend 24/7 monitoring the forum is again not particularly good proof that they could not present a counter case to your logic and were so dumb founded by your amazing argument they had to go silent. I was probably riding my bike or any number of other things.

That's fine, glad you had the time to share that for us in your busy schedule. Here's hoping you find even better things to do than the forum in the future.

This is another opportunity to answer it, however, in the mean time.

If you want to follow the middle road then go for it. However this needs to be sold to the British public. This is where you have a problem as there are consequences to entering into a CU/SM arrangement for reasons that have been discussed relentlessly. For sure you can say that paying into a CU/SM arrangement is a good idea but then you have to sell the reality that this has a lot of issues that could not be considered taking back control. You could have no issue with immigration and agree to the current arrangements with the EU to make the negotiation easier as well but unfortunately you would be less than 50% of the voting public which again might cause you issues. You could ask what the EU would like to receive in monetary terms for entry to the single market and pay the money but again the public might well question this logic. The original point is valid in the sense that the above is not likely to be palatable to the UK public as remain is actually better than this option. If you want to leave the really the only answer is to go without a deal as any deal with the EU was always going to be pretty bad to the current point that remain is a serious contender. This is not an accident on the part of the EU. This is the real choice the UK public face and it is pretty binary as all your middle of the road plans have failed and will continue to fail.

To take a hypothetical situation where the current government said, what the hell and let Labour run the country with the current parliamentary numbers. Labour could go as they have said and enter into a customs union, definitely lose the ability to control trade deals with non EU countries. Probably have to allow freedom of movement, pay into the EU at similar or higher levels to current levels. Have no say on the rules of the block we are required to follow. I think that even if they found enough SNP votes to go along with this the UK population would see this as an epic failure from both the remainers and leavers and punish them accordingly. So whilst it might not look so peachy for the conservatives is it going to look any better for Labour post general election whenever that arrives?

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

I was probably riding my bike or any number of other things.

Do please let us know what other things you might have been riding ;-)


- or alternatively, don't give the old "I would have a devastaing riposte but I'm too busy doing more important things" line.

I would expand further on this but, of course, I'm too busy doing more important things.

I doubt my riposte would have been devastating given the rather dry topic. That is unless we are using the internet definition of devastating where anything self claimed to be so is taken at face value.

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ja fine, but with all the chat about softer and harder brexits, which are words and terms which are by definition not binary and allude to a scale, why are you calling it binary?

You've already said earlier in the thread that being part of single market and/or customs union isn't really leaving, and went silent when I explained that that was the Brexit the prominent leave campaigners campaigned on.

On an internet forum someone having better things to do that spend 24/7 monitoring the forum is again not particularly good proof that they could not present a counter case to your logic and were so dumb founded by your amazing argument they had to go silent. I was probably riding my bike or any number of other things.

That's fine, glad you had the time to share that for us in your busy schedule. Here's hoping you find even better things to do than the forum in the future.

This is another opportunity to answer it, however, in the mean time.

If you want to follow the middle road then go for it. However this needs to be sold to the British public. This is where you have a problem as there are consequences to entering into a CU/SM arrangement for reasons that have been discussed relentlessly. For sure you can say that paying into a CU/SM arrangement is a good idea but then you have to sell the reality that this has a lot of issues that could not be considered taking back control. You could have no issue with immigration and agree to the current arrangements with the EU to make the negotiation easier as well but unfortunately you would be less than 50% of the voting public which again might cause you issues. You could ask what the EU would like to receive in monetary terms for entry to the single market and pay the money but again the public might well question this logic. The original point is valid in the sense that the above is not likely to be palatable to the UK public as remain is actually better than this option. If you want to leave the really the only answer is to go without a deal as any deal with the EU was always going to be pretty bad to the current point that remain is a serious contender. This is not an accident on the part of the EU. This is the real choice the UK public face and it is pretty binary as all your middle of the road plans have failed and will continue to fail.

To take a hypothetical situation where the current government said, what the hell and let Labour run the country with the current parliamentary numbers. Labour could go as they have said and enter into a customs union, definitely lose the ability to control trade deals with non EU countries. Probably have to allow freedom of movement, pay into the EU at similar or higher levels to current levels. Have no say on the rules of the block we are required to follow. I think that even if they found enough SNP votes to go along with this the UK population would see this as an epic failure from both the remainers and leavers and punish them accordingly. So whilst it might not look so peachy for the conservatives is it going to look any better for Labour post general election whenever that arrives?

But I thought it was binary? surely you are either in or out? Now you are introducing acceptable levels of outness.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ja fine, but with all the chat about softer and harder brexits, which are words and terms which are by definition not binary and allude to a scale, why are you calling it binary?

You've already said earlier in the thread that being part of single market and/or customs union isn't really leaving, and went silent when I explained that that was the Brexit the prominent leave campaigners campaigned on.

On an internet forum someone having better things to do that spend 24/7 monitoring the forum is again not particularly good proof that they could not present a counter case to your logic and were so dumb founded by your amazing argument they had to go silent. I was probably riding my bike or any number of other things.

That's fine, glad you had the time to share that for us in your busy schedule. Here's hoping you find even better things to do than the forum in the future.

This is another opportunity to answer it, however, in the mean time.

If you want to follow the middle road then go for it. However this needs to be sold to the British public. This is where you have a problem as there are consequences to entering into a CU/SM arrangement for reasons that have been discussed relentlessly. For sure you can say that paying into a CU/SM arrangement is a good idea but then you have to sell the reality that this has a lot of issues that could not be considered taking back control. You could have no issue with immigration and agree to the current arrangements with the EU to make the negotiation easier as well but unfortunately you would be less than 50% of the voting public which again might cause you issues. You could ask what the EU would like to receive in monetary terms for entry to the single market and pay the money but again the public might well question this logic. The original point is valid in the sense that the above is not likely to be palatable to the UK public as remain is actually better than this option. If you want to leave the really the only answer is to go without a deal as any deal with the EU was always going to be pretty bad to the current point that remain is a serious contender. This is not an accident on the part of the EU. This is the real choice the UK public face and it is pretty binary as all your middle of the road plans have failed and will continue to fail.

To take a hypothetical situation where the current government said, what the hell and let Labour run the country with the current parliamentary numbers. Labour could go as they have said and enter into a customs union, definitely lose the ability to control trade deals with non EU countries. Probably have to allow freedom of movement, pay into the EU at similar or higher levels to current levels. Have no say on the rules of the block we are required to follow. I think that even if they found enough SNP votes to go along with this the UK population would see this as an epic failure from both the remainers and leavers and punish them accordingly. So whilst it might not look so peachy for the conservatives is it going to look any better for Labour post general election whenever that arrives?

This is all fine only it doesn’t really address the point that a) the SM/CU Brexit was the one campaigned on and so has the most obvious legitimacy with the public b) would also reflect a Brexit that was voted on with a marginal win and c) is also (in the CU instance) the closest option to having a parliamentary consensus. It is the most representative Brexit on multiple levels.

If the leave people campaigned on it why is it such a problem now but not then? The problems you highlight were highlighted in the campaign very clearly and Brexit still won so plainly the voters have considered them and figured it was fine.

If the Brexiteers complain about no say but rule taking you can point them to the blanket coverage Cameron and Osbourne got saying that.

If they say that’s not Brexit you can point to BoJo, Gove, Farage, Hannan all discussing Brexit in single market terms or Norway / Swiss terms.

It’s so easy to win legitimacy for that position.

drhaggis

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

I was probably riding my bike or any number of other things.

Do please let us know what other things you might have been riding ;-)


- or alternatively, don't give the old "I would have a devastaing riposte but I'm too busy doing more important things" line.

I would expand further on this but, of course, I'm too busy doing more important things.

I doubt my riposte would have been devastating given the rather dry topic. That is unless we are using the internet definition of devastating where anything self claimed to be so is taken at face value.

It's a pretty crappy way to defend Brexit as a binary choice, yes.

john80

Ok I get it you guys think there is some middle road that will be good for the UK. The withdrawal agreement set out to achieve this and nobody wanted it.

When remainers were warning of a financial meltdown the minute we voted to leave did you believe them. When the brexiteers said it will be the easiest deal in history did you believe them. I knew then that if we voted for brexit it would become a binary choice as I had a basic understanding of the negotiating position the EU would take and it would be deliberately punitive to Britain. A customs union or good access to the single market was never going to come without unpalatable conditions for the faith largest economy in the world. Sure for Luxemburg or Poland they probably see it differently. All this leads to a binary choice. Sometimes compromise is a good thing and in your long term interests and sometimes it is not.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

I knew then that if we voted for brexit it would become a binary choice as I had a basic understanding of the negotiating position the EU would take and it would be deliberately punitive to Britain.

Sorry, deliberately punitive in what way? Can you please explain. I missed that bit.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

I knew then that if we voted for brexit it would become a binary choice as I had a basic understanding of the negotiating position the EU would take and it would be deliberately punitive to Britain.

Sorry, deliberately punitive in what way? Can you please explain. I missed that bit.

In simple terms, you can’t receive member benefits without being a member and paying for the membership.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Ok I get it you guys think there is some middle road that will be good for the UK. The withdrawal agreement set out to achieve this and nobody wanted it.

When remainers were warning of a financial meltdown the minute we voted to leave did you believe them. When the brexiteers said it will be the easiest deal in history did you believe them. I knew then that if we voted for brexit it would become a binary choice as I had a basic understanding of the negotiating position the EU would take and it would be deliberately punitive to Britain. A customs union or good access to the single market was never going to come without unpalatable conditions for the faith largest economy in the world. Sure for Luxemburg or Poland they probably see it differently. All this leads to a binary choice. Sometimes compromise is a good thing and in your long term interests and sometimes it is not.

Look i'm quite clear that only remaining is a good thing and the rest is a sliding scale of bad.

The warnings of financial meltdown weren't that and most warnings from mainstream economics have, as I've posted multiple time on here, found to be pretty accurate.

The argument of "we didn't believe any of the campaigning in the referendum so why should we be beholden to what was said" is hardly credible, and should be self evidently so. It's a crying shame that the £350m a week for the NHS hasn't been pressed harder by politicians.

Out of interest, in what way is the EU deal punitive as opposed to practical?

If anything, I've been surprised by how restrained they have been given the leverage they had. This is why i'm no politician but I'd have stuck the knife in good and proper just to make sure.

bobmcstuff

FT this morning suggesting a 2nd ref has become more likely, for the following reasons:

- No-deal likely to be blocked by Parliament
- Revoke isn't possible given the current mandate
- New PM unlikely to be able to renegotiate anything meaningful
- Holding a general election in the current climate would be suicide for both Cons and Lab

Nobody wants a referendum either, but it's starting to be seen as the "least worst" option, i.e., the only way out that's left.

Like Chasey I'm a bit annoyed with all the Brexiters effectively retconning what happened in the leave campaign to suit the current debate. The argument "I'm so smart I knew it needed to be no deal therefore no deal is what the public wants" doesn't translate into a mandate for no deal. Even if only a very small number of Leave voters voted on the basis of the prominent campaigners talking about CU/SM etc. then there is still patently no majority for a no deal exit (personally I think it's unlikely to be a small number, but that's just my opinion - no-one really knows, but it seems logical that a majority of Leave voters did so on the basis of what the Leave campaigners were actually saying...).

For me that's one of the reasons Leave succeeded, they were able to promise all things to all people - there were even 2 Leave campaigns saying different things. It's also particularly galling that most of them have completely changed their tune and now insist that No Deal is the only "true Brexit"

bobmcstuff

Also given how close the referendum was and how divided the country still is then you would have thought a compromise exit was the obvious way forwards (no majority for either extreme), but apparently compromise is a dirty word these days.

tailwindhome

Daniel Hannan@DanielJHannan

Replying to @RogerHelmerMEP
During the referendum campaign itself, Nigel Farage regularly praised the Norwegian deal. Banks’s outfit cited it as their preferred model. No one suggested that it wasn’t really leaving.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecol ... ction.html

rick_chasey

I mean, I’m agreeing with Hannan wtf is happening

drhaggis

john80 wrote:

Ok I get it you guys think there is some middle road that will be good for the UK. The withdrawal agreement set out to achieve this and nobody wanted it.

The WA is a farkton harder than the hardest of brexits proposed during the campaing. And still it wasn't voted because these friendly compromising brexiteers voted it down three times. Three. The denial of Peter reenacted, FFS. And then we got the complaints there wasn't going to be a fourth voting.

Parilaiment is so remainy that only one tory, one (Ken Clarke) voted against triggering A50 before any due preparation had happened. Labour _wipped_ for it.

The one truly binary thing here is FPTP, and is the reason why Lab and Con are paralysed by doubt, in a modern version of parlamentary Hamlet

tailwindhome

Hans von der Burchard@vonderburchard

BREAKING: @WeyandSabine will take over as director-general of @EU_Commission trade department on June 1. By @maiadelabaume @POLITICOEurope

This makes @WeyandSabine — the previous #Brexit deputy negotiator — the chief for overseeing future trade talks with the U.K.

rick_chasey

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Hans von der Burchard@vonderburchard

BREAKING: @WeyandSabine will take over as director-general of @EU_Commission trade department on June 1. By @maiadelabaume @POLITICOEurope

This makes @WeyandSabine — the previous #Brexit deputy negotiator — the chief for overseeing future trade talks with the U.K.

She's quite the anglophile so this is quite a positive development all round - at least those hoping for a civil conclusion.

imposter2.0

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

....for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment..

shirley_basso

I see this case going nowhere. Good waste of Johnson's resources though.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, I’m agreeing with Hannan wtf is happening

Not sure I agree on his point about the backstop, but otherwise I think it is an accurate analysis, particularly the ridiculous idea that Farage can be negotiated with.

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

FT this morning suggesting a 2nd ref has become more likely, for the following reasons:

- No-deal likely to be blocked by Parliament
- Revoke isn't possible given the current mandate
- New PM unlikely to be able to renegotiate anything meaningful
- Holding a general election in the current climate would be suicide for both Cons and Lab

Nobody wants a referendum either, but it's starting to be seen as the "least worst" option, i.e., the only way out that's left.

I would add to that another extension is also looking reasonably likely IMO.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

That seems to be the consensus - makes him a bit of a martyr although Ladbrokes have him at 2/1 to withdraw from the race, so who knows?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

It's not a great precedent to set.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

The prosecution was initiated back in February - long before the leadership election was announced. I don't see the issue in him being held legally accountable..

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

The prosecution was initiated back in February - long before the leadership election was announced. I don't see the issue in him being held legally accountable..

Prosecuting political leaders for what they say campaigning is a very slippery slope and is fraught with problems.

drhaggis

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm pretty convinced trying to privately prosecute BoJo for the fib on the bus is a bad development.

As in it will bolster support for him with those who have a say in electing the next party leader?

No as in using private prosecutions as a political weapon isn't on.

The prosecution was initiated back in February - long before the leadership election was announced. I don't see the issue in him being held legally accountable..

Prosecuting political leaders for what they say campaigning is a very slippery slope and is fraught with problems.

On one hand, I agree. On the other, campaigning in obvious, verifiable lies, is disgusting.

rick_chasey

So we'll just leave it to those with enough money to try which ever politician they see fit for lying?

This is nonesense and should be thrown out. Lying unless you are in court or being questioned is not a crime, nor should it be. We all lie all the time.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prosecuting political leaders for what they say campaigning is a very slippery slope and is fraught with problems.

I take a completely opposite view. If everyone during the referendum campaign had been legally responsible/accountable for what they said, we would not be in this mess now. I'd like to see Johnson successfully prosecuted so that a precedent can be set.