BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

There are 2...

A border at the edge of the Customs Union

A border in the Irish Sea.

It's quite simple and has ever been thus, the choice has to be made one way or the other is all.

(Technically there is a third but we had a war about that quite recently...)

Except that those two are not viable solutions for the whole of the UK.
Has ever been thus. It is becoming an increasing possibility that the collateral will be N.I.
Which in turn won't be the end.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry - I thought you thought it was all an elaborate ruse to achieve no deal?

I've changed my mind for the moment. There are clearly a few who were hoping and still hope that's where we'll end up but I think Johnson himself actually wants to go through with it. I may have been sucked in as well, though.

morstar

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Imposter wrote:

john80 wrote:

I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.

If you could provide a link, that would be great..

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?

The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh

Could be true.
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.

I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?

No. Come up with a viable end game.
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.

It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?

Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.

The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.

Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.

From an earlier post

Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.

https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172

Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.

It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.

There you go. YouTube

This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.

Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.

Exactly, some absurd argument twisting here.

Cameron was warning that the realities of Brexit were not what leave was saying they were.
Leave campaigners dismissed such claims as project fear.
I also think it is more reasonable to say in any debate that if you opt to support a side, you believe that sides argument and not the opposite sides.
It's a bit of a stretch to say people voted leave on an informed basis because Camerons supposed fear mongering convinced them that is what was on offer whilst simultaneously ignoring that Leave consistently stated the opposite.

ddraver

PBlakeney wrote:

ddraver wrote:

There are 2...

A border at the edge of the Customs Union

A border in the Irish Sea.

It's quite simple and has ever been thus, the choice has to be made one way or the other is all.

(Technically there is a third but we had a war about that quite recently...)

Except that those two are not viable solutions for the whole of the UK.
Has ever been thus. It is becoming an increasing possibility that the collateral will be N.I.
Which in turn won't be the end.

Option 2 then...

I'm being playful, but actually that's what the underlying reality has always been.

If you want to be out of the CU, then the clear option for a border is in the sea between the 2 islands. There was just a bunch of pretending that there was an alternative.

If there was it would have been shouted from the rooftops for 3 years. Would have been called the Francois-Bridgen Border and would have been world famous. Except...

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ddraver wrote:

There are 2...

A border at the edge of the Customs Union

A border in the Irish Sea.

It's quite simple and has ever been thus, the choice has to be made one way or the other is all.

(Technically there is a third but we had a war about that quite recently...)

Except that those two are not viable solutions for the whole of the UK.
Has ever been thus. It is becoming an increasing possibility that the collateral will be N.I.
Which in turn won't be the end.

Option 2 then...

I'm being playful, but actually that's what the underlying reality has always been.

If you want to be out of the CU, then the clear option for a border is in the sea between the 2 islands. There was just a bunch of pretending that there was an alternative.

If there was it would have been shouted from the rooftops for 3 years. Would have been called the Francois-Bridgen Border and would have been world famous. Except...

Which is why I am still waiting on an answer.
There isn't one, wasn't one, and will never be one. Break up of the UK. Well done shiny Dave! :evil:

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Exactly, some absurd argument twisting here.

Cameron was warning that the realities of Brexit were not what leave was saying they were.
Leave campaigners dismissed such claims as project fear.
I also think it is more reasonable to say in any debate that if you opt to support a side, you believe that sides argument and not the opposite sides.
It's a bit of a stretch to say people voted leave on an informed basis because Camerons supposed fear mongering convinced them that is what was on offer whilst simultaneously ignoring that Leave consistently stated the opposite.

I didn't say that people voted Leave because of what Cameron said. They may have voted Leave despite what he said though.
I voted Remain, as I suspect a lot of people did, because I tended to agree with what he said, ie we would be out of SM.
Nothing has really changed to change my mind. So if, like me, you believed that to be the case in 2016, why do people feel it not to be the case now?
Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act so we will be leaving. That in reality means leaving the SM. Dreaming of anything else is the fabled Unicorn Brexit.

tailwindhome

Very informative thread as to what happened on Sat and what can happen this week

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 4281020418

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Exactly, some absurd argument twisting here.

Cameron was warning that the realities of Brexit were not what leave was saying they were.
Leave campaigners dismissed such claims as project fear.
I also think it is more reasonable to say in any debate that if you opt to support a side, you believe that sides argument and not the opposite sides.
It's a bit of a stretch to say people voted leave on an informed basis because Camerons supposed fear mongering convinced them that is what was on offer whilst simultaneously ignoring that Leave consistently stated the opposite.

I didn't say that people voted Leave because of what Cameron said. They may have voted Leave despite what he said though.
I voted Remain, as I suspect a lot of people did, because I tended to agree with what he said, ie we would be out of SM.
Nothing has really changed to change my mind. So if, like me, you believed that to be the case in 2016, why do people feel it not to be the case now?
Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act so we will be leaving. That in reality means leaving the SM. Dreaming of anything else is the fabled Unicorn Brexit.

My metal processes towards my vote are essentially the same as yours. However, it's a subjective viewpoint of people who voted remain explaining why (partly) we voted remain.
I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate that people who voted leave did so knowing that the opinion Cameron stated was in fact correct and therefore what he said justifies the Brexit we have now been offered.
That the Brexit we were offered cannot be delivered due to its unicorn nature is not for remain to explain.

Leave side keep telling us they knew what they were voting for. It seems the argument is that they did know what they were voting for because Cameron accurately predicted what Brexit meant despite Cameron spearheading project fear and predicting a very different outcome to what Leave campaigned for. That's a bit of selective revisionism.

Alejandrosdog

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Imposter wrote:

john80 wrote:

I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.

If you could provide a link, that would be great..

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?

The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh

Could be true.
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.

I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?

No. Come up with a viable end game.
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.

It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?

Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.

The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.

Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.

From an earlier post

Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.

https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172

Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.

It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.

There you go. YouTube

This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.

Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.

So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.

Well he has the same limitation as most of the MP’s and population. He’s as thick as pig shit

pinno

john80 wrote:

It is probably because they cant be bothered having to point out that they are not racists and xenophobes that you repeatedly claim. You best claim yet is to claim that leave only won because of people seemingly with the above views.

Pinno wrote:

...It only takes the vote of a small percentage of the above to swing it in the favour of an exit.
...I mean no offence to the more sentient leave voters, that's an aside...

Where did I repeatedly claim this?

I didn't even use the term 'racist'. Mfin did.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry - I thought you thought it was all an elaborate ruse to achieve no deal?

I've changed my mind for the moment. There are clearly a few who were hoping and still hope that's where we'll end up but I think Johnson himself actually wants to go through with it. I may have been sucked in as well, though.

You need to remember that the only priority Johnson has is furthering his career. He wants to do whatever achieves that and that changes.

kingstongraham

Johnson has previously used any technique on the boundary of legality (and beyond) to avoid proper scrutiny of anything Brexit related. I don't believe he wants a no deal this month, but the implications of what is in this agreement have to be properly understood before we say that this is fine for moving us into the next phase of negotiations. That being done in about a day was always not going to be possible.

The fact needs to be made clearer to those who say "I'm bored with Brexit, just get it done!" that this is just an agreement for the next 14 months of talking, at which point we will be in the situation of the same people trying to extend our transition period to avoid a no-deal scenario, and the same people saying that no-deal is the best option for Britain.

Politicians will not be talking about much else for the next few years.

TheBigBean

The extension needs to be done by June or July next year (from memory), but it comes at a cost. Parliament could argue now to increase the length of the transition period.

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum.

In what way?

The UK hasn't left the EU
GB has, but the UK hasn't.

Go on explain.

As far as I can see we will leave both the single market and the customs union under the terms of the current deal.

Short version - being subject to EU regulations, under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, complying with EU customs code and subject to EU vat rules wouldn't be defined as leaving the SM or CU if it were applying to England.

The institute for gov have good resources on what's in the deal

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... d-protocol

john80

Pinno wrote:

john80 wrote:

It is probably because they cant be bothered having to point out that they are not racists and xenophobes that you repeatedly claim. You best claim yet is to claim that leave only won because of people seemingly with the above views.

Pinno wrote:

...It only takes the vote of a small percentage of the above to swing it in the favour of an exit.
...I mean no offence to the more sentient leave voters, that's an aside...

Where did I repeatedly claim this?

I didn't even use the term 'racist'. Mfin did.

Below is the full quote from you agreeing with Mfin and then using the word xenophobe. Good bit of selective quoting to get you off the hook though. If I was to search your posts are you confident I would not find and example of you using the term Racist in this context?

mfin wrote:
The fact remains that 52/48 was the equivalent of two drinks one slightly fuller than the other, but one was fuller as it had a floating turd in it. That turd represented racists, xenophobes and those without the slightest bit of mental agility to match their own false attributions of why they feel the country is not in a state that they want.

Pinno wrote:
This, unfortunately, is true.

It only takes the vote of a small percentage of the above to swing it in the favour of an exit.
I would hate to leave the EU based on the fact that the xenophobes and the disillusioned voted to leave based on some misguided notion that a white, foreigner free Nirvana was in the offing.
I mean no offence to the more sentient leave voters, that's an aside but if you were on a desert island with 40 people of which 5 were just plain thick and there was a vote on something critical where all of the 40 were allowed to vote...

I notice that the usual leave protagonists have gone very quiet tonight.

kingstongraham

This is the Mark Francois/Will Self argument again.

A simple Venn diagram would help.

rick_chasey

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

haydenm

He won't have 'failed' if it doesn't happen by then, he will call a GE then blame parliament for trying to stop him. It'll probably serve him well.

ddraver

...or it could massively backfire if The Brexit Party (who, let's be honest, once this is done will disappear) decides that he doesn't back the deal as it "Splits the precious Union apart!!"

Boris wishes he had the ear of Brexit Voters like Nigel has

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

I agree with TBB. He can sell this as doing everything he can to get it done.

morstar

HaydenM wrote:

He won't have 'failed' if it doesn't happen by then, he will call a GE then blame parliament for trying to stop him. It'll probably serve him well.

It does and doesn't at the same time.

The plus for him is that it does fit the narrative. It works against him in that, the longer he is in the job, the more his incompetence and unsuitability for the job will become apparent.

But on balance, it benefits him more than it costs him at the moment as the one issue takes precedence over all else.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

I agree with TBB. He can sell this as doing everything he can to get it done.

I have already outlined this strategy multiple times.

But ultimately “man who got Brexit done” is worth more than “man who tried to get Brexit done but was undone by the remainer elite”

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

I agree with TBB. He can sell this as doing everything he can to get it done.

I have already outlined this strategy multiple times.

But ultimately “man who got Brexit done” is worth more than “man who tried to get Brexit done but was undone by the remainer elite”

Yes, but the strategy is sound either way. Either he's the conquering hero, or he needs a majority to get it done.

If he gets his deal through, I don't know what the strategy is for winning the election, to be honest. Does he pretend that Brexit is done and there's no more work to be done, or does he admit that he needs a majority to get Brexit done again.

rick_chasey

In a binary world delay is the worse option of the two.

I believe BB, along with the Labour leadership, overestimate punters’ appreciation of nuance.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

I agree with TBB. He can sell this as doing everything he can to get it done.

I have already outlined this strategy multiple times.

But ultimately “man who got Brexit done” is worth more than “man who tried to get Brexit done but was undone by the remainer elite”

And of course, the mantra of Johnson and many leavers is, repeatedly, "it's what the people want" - so the crap that follows Brexit can be firmly blamed on the people and not those who were merely doing as they were told.

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

...or it could massively backfire if The Brexit Party (who, let's be honest, once this is done will disappear) decides that he doesn't back the deal as it "Splits the precious Union apart!!"

Boris wishes he had the ear of Brexit Voters like Nigel has

As one of the few who represents the real world outside of this echo chamber and who the above could apply to, all TBP voters are voters who want to leave. This approach by Boris is strengthening his position.

However, some leavers will tactically vote for TBP to keep the Tories honest on leaving. I am in this camp as I live in a safe Tory seat and Greens\Lib Dems\Labour will nicely cannibilise each other for the remain vote thus making this a safe anti-remainers protest vote seat!

tailwindhome

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trying to bounce parliament in which you do not command a majority into a decision because it is politically and electorally expedient for your party is not necessarily the way to get an important piece of legislation through quickly....

Parliament trying to delay things is politically beneficial for BoJo.

I don’t think this is the case.

He has hung his hat on 31st October.

And in many people's eyes he is doing everything he can to achieve that.

I agree with TBB. He can sell this as doing everything he can to get it done.

I agree with TBB too.

The deal insulates him from criticism with regard to the extension and has split the Leavers who could have been stacked against him