dcsimg
Page 1 of 18 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 684

Thread: No Deal

  1. #1

    Thread Starter
    Super Moderator dday9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Posts
    9,544

    No Deal

    It has been nearly a year since a thread was posted in here, so why not make one?

    It looks like Prime Minister May's "Brexit" failed to pass the House of Commons and not only is Brexit unlikely to happen but it also looks like there will be a no-confidence vote. I am personally not a believer in direct democracies when it comes to national level governments, in fact America's founding fathers spoke against it frequently, but when there is a 72% voter turnout and the public decides on a piece of legislation (or in this case a "referendum") then it is incumbent on the elected politicians to make it happen.

    Keep in mind that I'm not advocating for a deal or no deal on the "Brexit" referendum, I personally don't know enough on how this would affect U.K.'s domestic and foreign interests, but what I am suggesting is that the 432 politicians who voted against the legislation are essentially thumbing their nose to their constituents.

    So all my peeps across the pond... what are y'all's thoughts on this?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    I would say that people who voted on the referendum weren't entirely clear as to what it would mean. Now that the EU has set the terms, those who want to leave are understandably unhappy with those terms. The terms would mean letting go of any ability to influence the course of the car, yet still going along for the ride. It certainly isn't the deal that any leavers wanted.

    As to what happens next..that'll be interesting. Corbyn doesn't seem to have an answer, though he may just be hoping to see May take the fall. I'd say that the best remaining option is a new referendum...or actually two. Of course, that's pretty much telling people that they got it wrong the first time. It's not a great answer, it just seems like the rest are all worse.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  3. #3
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    103,490

    Re: No Deal

    Yeah, the issue is that the people voted that they wanted to leave the EU but doing so is not just a case of opening the door and walking out. The details of HOW Britain leaves the EU are what's being determined now and it was those specific details that were just rejected by parliament. They're not saying "we're not leaving" but rather "we're not leaving under these terms". That said, I'm sure there are many who are hoping that, if things stall long enough, the decision to actually leave will somehow get reversed. That may actually happen too, although much fecal matter will have hit many fans in the process if that is so. I think that many who voted to leave realise now that, if the "Leave" campaign didn't openly lie to them, they certainly omitted many relevant details. I wonder how many people voted to leave because they thought that it would mean no more immigrants while everything else would stay just as it is.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    what I am suggesting is that the 432 politicians who voted against the legislation are essentially thumbing their nose to their constituents
    They didn't vote against leaving, they voted against the deal Theresa May arrived at with the EU. Leave supporters were voting against the deal as well as Remain supporters because many of them didn't see it as really "Leaving".

    I am personally not a believer in direct democracies
    Me neither. It's a terrible way to run a country and the UK is currently an object lesson of that. I get why some folks are currently agitating for a second referendum and why it's attractive to large sections of the public but I think it's a horrible idea. There is no outcome a second referendum could produce that could not be produced by a properly functioning government and it will merely sow further division in the country. I see it as an abrogation of responsibility by our MPs.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  5. #5
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    Me neither. It's a terrible way to run a country and the UK is currently an object lesson of that. I get why some folks are currently agitating for a second referendum and why it's attractive to large sections of the public but I think it's a horrible idea. There is no outcome a second referendum could produce that could not be produced by a properly functioning government and it will merely sow further division in the country. I see it as an abrogation of responsibility by our MPs.
    We dont have a properly functioning government though, it doesn't have a majority which is the problem.

    I disagree that is an abrogation (big word that FD ) of responsibility in that each MP represents there individual constituents whose interests are varying.

    If anyone is to blame as to our current predicament then it is the Prime Minister. The current Government lost its majority at the last election, which the Prime Minister called 3 years early by the way to get a new mandate as information had changed. (amusingly the same argument could be used for a second referendum)

    After that happened they did not reach across to the other parties and try to build bridges and reach a consensus deal that could get support and get through parliament, instead they stubbornly stuck to doing this by themselves and tried to strike a deal based only on what the Prime Minister wanted.

    This as everyone expected has been resoundingly rejected as it was a bad deal from the start.

    The Second Referendum idea may not be a good one, but it may be the only option left as there is little time left now (and little good will) to rally around another option.

    I dont think Referendums are a great way to do democracy but we opened that genie in the bottle with the last one which has led us to this point and if it takes a second one to unlock the political gridlock then so be it.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  6. #6
    Frenzied Member PlausiblyDamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Newport, UK
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: No Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by dday9 View Post
    It has been nearly a year since a thread was posted in here, so why not make one?

    It looks like Prime Minister May's "Brexit" failed to pass the House of Commons and not only is Brexit unlikely to happen but it also looks like there will be a no-confidence vote. I am personally not a believer in direct democracies when it comes to national level governments, in fact America's founding fathers spoke against it frequently, but when there is a 72% voter turnout and the public decides on a piece of legislation (or in this case a "referendum") then it is incumbent on the elected politicians to make it happen.
    I think part of the problem is how the original referendum was handled, the choice was a binary "in" or "out", they never bothered to set a Supermajority, there was proven fraud, the campaign to leave promised the impossible and by UK law a referendum is only an advisory thing anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by dday9 View Post
    Keep in mind that I'm not advocating for a deal or no deal on the "Brexit" referendum, I personally don't know enough on how this would affect U.K.'s domestic and foreign interests, but what I am suggesting is that the 432 politicians who voted against the legislation are essentially thumbing their nose to their constituents.

    So all my peeps across the pond... what are y'all's thoughts on this?
    Personally I think the original referendum was called for the wrong reasons, mainly political infighting in the Conservative party, and without proper planning. This lead to a lot of votes which voting against the current political status quo rather than against the EU, however the UK has a long history of blaming the EU for everything and was an easy target for the various media factions to vilify. As soon as the result was in the PM calling it quit, the replacement changed her opinion overnight to get the PM's job, set out a bunch of arbitrary requirements and then triggered the process with absolutely no planning whatsoever. She then threw her parliamentary majority away, effectively bribed another political party, the DUP, with approx 1bn to support her.

    The government then proceeded to handle this in a hopeless fashion as well, David Davis hardly bothering to attend meetings with the EU, showing up unprepared and without notes, refusing to release impact statements that actually didn't exist anyway. He was replaced by a man who seemed quite shocked that the UK was an island and that the closest port we have to Europe was important.

    Something as complex as this should never have been left to the public to decide, the vast majority of voters (myself included) don't understand the issues to do with tariffs, border checks, residency status, financial passporting, freedom of movement, visas, health insurance, WTO rules, Euratom memberships, security implications, food standards, pensions, subsidies and related rebates, workers rights, etc and even if we did this is far to complex to be expressed as yes or no.

    Leaving an institution we have been part of for 40 years and is fundamentally part of daily life in the UK, so much of our daily business is tied into the EU in terms of quality control, tax, standards, finance, etc. that it could never have been as easy to depart as was originally promised. We have large swathes of our industry that rely on the EU, large parts of the health and hospitality sectors rely on EU workers, most of the worker rights' protections are from the EU, nearly all our current trade deals are with the EU or as the UK being part of the EU.

    Ultimately though our politicians are not there to do what we ask, they are there to do what they think is right for the country (which admittedly this lot aren't doing either....), if we had a referendum on abolishing all taxation I am fairly sure the result would be predictable but ultimately only advisory and therefore it would be ignored as it wouldn't be in the nations interest.

    The entire process has been driven by promises that were impossible to keep by politicians fighting for their own reasons, it has nothing to do with benefiting the UK, nothing to do with the common people and more to do with clinging onto power, pandering to the far right and quite possibly avoiding the EU Tax Avoidance Directive as it will hit a lot of the politicians pushing for a hard brexit.....

    Anyway, ranting done for now

  7. #7
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    For context it's probably worth describing my position on the whole thing before I comment too extensively. I'm a pro-immigration, euro-federalist who thinks the EU is a deeply flawed and thoroughly undemocratic body which I'd rather not be part of, who voted remain because I thought actually leaving it is bloody stupid but now thinks we really have to leave, even though it's bloody stupid, because not leaving now would be an even more bloody stupid. Ha! Unpick that! I'm nuanced. Or possibly just confused

    We dont have a properly functioning government though
    True dat.

    I disagree that is an abrogation
    Oh it so is. Immediately after the referendum pretty much all the MPs in both major parties panicked and loudly declared that they'd "respect the will of the people" even though they universally thought it was a bloody stupid idea. Then the doubled down on it and both ran election campaigns that promised they'd do it in their manifestos... even though they thought it was a bloody stupid idea. and they're all still right there saying "well, there was a referendum and we need to respect the will of the people"... even though they still thing it is a bloody stupid idea.

    They've tied their colours to a mast they don't believe in because they lacked the courage of their convictions and now they are hoping against hope that the general public will give them permission to execute a tremendous volte-face. And the worst of it is that the public probably won't. If a referendum were held tomorrow the most likely outcome is exactly the same as the last one. Most of the credible polls show that nobody has changed their opinion one jot. We've all just entrenched. It's possible it might swing to remain... just... but it'll only be a percent or two max and all we'll have done is handed a martyr card to half the population who WILL cash it in at the next general election.

    What this is is an attempt to reverse their original position and give it a cloak of legitimacy that they hope will mean they can retain their seats next time round. What they should be doing is standing up and saying "This is a bloody stupid idea, I'm not going to support it and I'm willing to sacrifice my seat before I sacrifice your future".

    If anyone is to blame as to our current predicament then it is the Prime Minister. The current Government lost its majority at the last election, which the Prime Minister called 3 years early by the way to get a new mandate as information had changed. (amusingly the same argument could be used for a second referendum)

    After that happened they did not reach across to the other parties and try to build bridges and reach a consensus deal that could get support and get through parliament, instead they stubbornly stuck to doing this by themselves and tried to strike a deal based only on what the Prime Minister wanted.
    I agree with all of that but I'd spread the blame much wider. Cameron's got to be in there for calling the thing in the first place. The Daily Mail and their ilk for 4 decade of hate mongering against ferners. Corbyn for lacking the nuts to either stand up and actually admit he's a leaver or lead his party as a pro-remainer opposition. And Farage for... well, just for being Farage in general.


    Other than that, this guy:-
    Name:  Doomed.jpg
Views: 297
Size:  35.1 KB
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  8. #8

    Thread Starter
    Super Moderator dday9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Posts
    9,544

    Re: No Deal

    The little bit that I've read on the European Union troubles me. Keep in mind that I'm a Libertarian and I quite like a lot of the concepts that it brings such as the free flow of movement and how it basically creates a single market within all the countries. What I don't like on the other hand is how it can (seemingly) arbitrarily overturn country's laws; some of them seem to be good decisions but a lot of them seem like they do it just to show that they have the authority to push their own narrative.

    At the same time, like I stated in my earlier post, I don't know enough about how the U.K. would be impacted should "Brexit" actually go through. After all, as y'all stated, y'all've been in it for a long time now.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    What I don't like on the other hand is how it can (seemingly) arbitrarily overturn country's laws;
    Yeah, you're touching on one of the big things I don't like about the EU there. I don't have a problem with them having those sports of powers as such (as I said, I'm a federalist) but I'm troubled by the way those powers are sometimes used. The two stand out examples recently was the impositions they put on Greece and their overturning of the Italian budget.

    I think it's also debatable what level of power they should have over the member states. I guess this is similar to the debates you guys have over state vs federal jurisdiction.

    A lot of people look at the EU and see it as some sort of Liberal utopia. I don't. Mostly I see a ruthless capitalist's wet dream. Some examples:-

    I really like the principle of freedom of movement but, if the EU is so wonderfully liberal, why is it not applied to non-Europeans. There are children drowning in the Mediterranean right now and the EU folds it's arms and does nothing. Hell, Hungary even started building fences (though I don't think they ever claimed the Syrian's would pay for it). Free movement in Europe is mainly a tool to supress wages in the richer countries with little care for the unfortunate side effect of brain draining the poorer nations.

    Take a look at how much of the third world's debt the EU promised to right off. Then take a look at how much it actually off. There are similar disparities between promised and delivered foreign aid.

    I really like the principles of free trade but the EU places some pretty punitive (though not Trump level) tariffs on any imports from outside the EU. That's not Pro-Free Trade, it's protectionist.

    Ask the EU to side with democracy or big business and it'll choose the latter every time it comes to the crunch. Sapator will probably drop by in a bit to talk about the Greek crisis and how they were treated - despite the fact that large portions of the Greek debt were created because they lent a shed ton of money to bail out Iceland at the EU's behest.



    I really am a pro-immigration, liberal, federalist. If there was a European federal body that reflected my views I'd be shouting it from the roof tops. Sadly I do not see that institution at present.

    I don't know enough about how the U.K. would be impacted should "Brexit" actually go through
    Don't worry. None of us have a clue either and we're living in it.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 16th, 2019 at 10:38 AM.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  10. #10
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    The little bit that I've read on the European Union troubles me. Keep in mind that I'm a Libertarian and I quite like a lot of the concepts that it brings such as the free flow of movement and how it basically creates a single market within all the countries. What I don't like on the other hand is how it can (seemingly) arbitrarily overturn country's laws; some of them seem to be good decisions but a lot of them seem like they do it just to show that they have the authority to push their own narrative.
    In Reality there are very few countries laws that the EU actually overturn also what you have to keep in mind is yes the EU has its own parliament but it consists of representatives of each country. The richer countries (Germany, France, UK in particular) pay in more but also have much more political power and representation.

    There haven't been many major laws or motions made at the EU level in recent years that these at least 2 of these 3 countries have been behind.

    Many of the EU wide type laws tend to be around things like consumer protection, monopoly & mergers company law, standards in the production of goods that type of thing and many of them ensure a level playing field between member states which is generally a good thing.

    Yes the EU is not perfect but which political system is, and i would argue that not only is the system changeable, we are one of 3 countries that have the greatest ability to enact change but you cant change the system if you are outside of it.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  11. #11
    PowerPoster ChrisE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Frankfurt
    Posts
    2,136

    Re: No Deal

    well Switzerland isn't in the EU and are doing fine, that's my first point

    the other point is EU Law goes before German Law
    over the years this has become IMO a problem.
    I live in my Country but it doesn't feel like I live in Germay any more
    to hunt a species to extinction is not logical !
    since 2010 the number of Tigers are rising again in 2016 - 3900 were counted. with Baby Callas it's 3901, my wife and I had 2-3 months the privilege of raising a Baby Tiger.

  12. #12
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    Oh it so is. Immediately after the referendum pretty much all the MPs in both major parties panicked and loudly declared that they'd "respect the will of the people" even though they universally thought it was a bloody stupid idea. Then the doubled down on it and both ran election campaigns that promised they'd do it in their manifestos... even though they thought it was a bloody stupid idea. and they're all still right there saying "well, there was a referendum and we need to respect the will of the people"... even though they still thing it is a bloody stupid idea.
    To be fair they didn't have a lot of choice once the vote was lost but to back the result, but i would argue that what people voted for or what they thought they voted for is fundamentally different to what they are being presented with now and as such going back to the public with the actual choice is in no way undemocratic and in fact may end up being the only option remaining.

    If a referendum were held tomorrow the most likely outcome is exactly the same as the last one. Most of the credible polls show that nobody has changed their opinion one jot.
    I wouldn't be so sure but either way if parliament cant come up with a solution (and this is looking increasing likely from what we have heard today) it may come down to another public vote. You make the question clear in that you either vote to leave on the presented terms or you vote to stay and the result is then enacted upon then i think its viable. Not everyone will be happy but then there is no option that makes everyone happy !

    It is possible that some cross party coalition could form around another deal but considering today the PM has re-iterated she wont move on her red lines of no customs union and no single market then i dont see how there is any majority for anything!


    The two stand out examples recently was the impositions they put on Greece and their overturning of the Italian budget.
    I am in two minds on this, i dont like how Greece was handled i feel that they were overly punished. Yes there was financial mismanagement by Greece but they were not alone and it was all exacerbated by the great market crash of 2008, and i feel in the process of rescuing it as a country should have included debt relief at a much earlier stage which would have meant they could have avoided much of the worst of the austerity which came afterwards.

    Italy's recent budget being overturned is a slightly different thing, all EU countries have agreed in the treaties the have signed not to increase national debt past certain unsustainable levels and the current Italian Government ignored them and tried to enact policies which would have vastly increase its national debt.

    The EU just enforced the agreement that everyone signed up to, and really if countries want to change those rules and there is some evidence at least that some of them do, they can look to bring that to the EU parliament. There is a democratic process that came up with these treaties in the first place and there is also a process in which they could be changed if they get enough support.

    A lot of people look at the EU and see it as some sort of Liberal utopia. I don't. Mostly I see a ruthless capitalist's wet dream.
    I would say that it general it reflects the politics in the member countries in the EU in recent times. I wouldn't go as far as that, its an imperfect system but most political systems are there are good things the EU does as well as bad and at times those good things get ignored and we only focus on the bad.

    I really like the principle of freedom of movement but, if the EU is so wonderfully liberal, why is it not applied to non-Europeans.
    Free movement as a principle has made nearly every country in the EU better off and is really unparalleled anywhere else in the world. No country in the world has open boarders, and having free movement across so many countries should be seen as a great thing.

    The way the EU dealt with the migrant crisis is a different thing and really the EU started of with a policy of taking in migrants but it was the individual countries governments (of which Hungary are one of the worst offenders) which changed the policy. We in the UK are complicit in this with our immigration obsession.

    I really like the principles of free trade but the EU places some pretty punitive (though not Trump level) tariffs on any imports from outside the EU.
    Every Country does this, the way round them is to strike trade deals and the EU has struck a lot of trade deals with 3rd party countries over the years. In an ideal world we would have no tariffs anywhere but you cant just unilaterally open up your markets without reciprocal access that would be trade suicide.
    Last edited by NeedSomeAnswers; Jan 17th, 2019 at 04:11 AM.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  13. #13
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I see it as an abrogation of responsibility by our MPs.
    It would be an abrogation, but not of Brobdingnagian proportions (I see your sesquipedalianism and raise you a few syllables). You will create martyrs no matter what is done at this point. A hard Brexit or no Brexit are both going to define the battle lines for years to come, and there doesn't appear to be an alternative that the EU will accept. They don't seem willing to even consider the deal that leavers seem to want (they hold the leavers of power, you might say), which is, "we'll take the good parts, and not the rest." And, now that the MPs have rejected what May has negotiated, it's pretty unlikely that a happier result can be negotiated in the few weeks remaining. The best hope is that the EU doesn't really mean it, but I don't think that's even possible.

    I've heard a two vote referendum mooted. The idea would be that the first vote would be "this deal or no deal", with the second being "the choice of the first vote or not leaving." The problem is that a two vote referendum (with a week, or so, between) has never been tried. People figure that it would be too mentally taxing for the citizens...which is actually pretty funny, if you think about it...even though it might be correct. However, I kind of feel that you are rapidly reaching the point of a single vote referendum, which would be "no deal, or stay in the EU." If people really would vote the same as before....I guess everybody is going to get to see what a no deal Brexit really means.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  14. #14
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    I am pretty certain at this point that no deal wont happen, there is just to much opposition to it across all parties, and MP's are already looking to put in mechanisms to rule it out before they even come up with an alternative.

    If there is a second referendum at all it will be between some form of deal and not leaving.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  15. #15
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    well Switzerland isn't in the EU and are doing fine, that's my first point
    Switzerland only a year or two ago voted via a referendum to change there immigration laws to limit EU immigration.

    not long afterwards they had another referendum (Switzerland have a lot of referendums and i mean a lot they vote in them all the time) which reversed that decision when they realised that it would break there treaties with the EU and they would lose the single market access that they currently have.

    Switzerland realised that they had made a mistake which was going to make the whole country poorer and so went back to the people and basically said now you know exactly what that choice means, are you sure ?

    the other point is EU Law goes before German Law
    over the years this has become IMO a problem.
    I live in my Country but it doesn't feel like I live in Germany any more
    I have heard this argument made before but yet i have in very few cases had someone point to a particular legal ruling which they are unhappy with. There is reasoning behind the supremacy of EU laws and it is meant to give all EU citizens the same level of legal protection no matter which country they live in.

    Also i really would be interested in hearing in what way do you feel you dont live in Germany anymore? are there specific changes you dont like? or is it more of a feeling?
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  16. #16
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers View Post
    I am pretty certain at this point that no deal wont happen, there is just to much opposition to it across all parties, and MP's are already looking to put in mechanisms to rule it out before they even come up with an alternative.

    If there is a second referendum at all it will be between some form of deal and not leaving.
    Didn't you folks pioneer "Deal, No Deal"? Wasn't that some kind of game show?

    What I haven't understood is what happens when the deadline is reached and no deal has been agreed upon. What is the "no action taken" default? It seems to me that it can't be remain, so wouldn't that mean crashing out of the EU? In other words, doesn't no action mean no deal?
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  17. #17
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    Didn't you folks pioneer "Deal, No Deal"? Wasn't that some kind of game show?
    Yep that was us, the kings of pointless skill-less game shows

    What I haven't understood is what happens when the deadline is reached and no deal has been agreed upon. What is the "no action taken" default? It seems to me that it can't be remain, so wouldn't that mean crashing out of the EU? In other words, doesn't no action mean no deal?
    Your right in that the default (no action) would mean crashing out of the EU with no deal, but there is a large majority of MP's against it. What that means in reality is that there is a large majority of those who are involved in the process who are actively working to remove no deal as an option, it hasn't happened yet so theoretically yes currently the default is to leave with no deal however i dont expect it to remain that way.

    The Prime Minister having lost the vote on her deal now has to fall back on the supremacy of parliament to break the deadlock so she has to work with all the other MP's to find another option which a majority support.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  18. #18
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    Italy's recent budget being overturned is a slightly different thing, all EU countries have agreed in the treaties the have signed not to increase national debt past certain unsustainable levels and the current Italian Government ignored them and tried to enact policies which would have vastly increase its national debt.
    That's actually not correct. The agreed maximum deficit was 3%. Italy's budget was projected to produce a deficit of 2.4%. The EUs panic was actually around the total levels of Italian debt (which is certainly high, second only to Greece) but there's no agreed limit on that.

    I am pretty certain at this point that no deal wont happen
    I think you're right but I'm not so certain. There's no technical way of preventing it. The withdrawal agreement enshrined the 29 March in law - it's primary legislation so to avoid leaving on that date would require new primary legislation. I think it's going to be difficult to get that legislation passed in time - particularly as the hard core leavers will attempt to block it. Plus it would require the government to bring the legislation before the house which May is unlikely to do because she's built her whole career on being the last option available - she'll delay until it's too late so her deal is seen as the only option and hope that gets it passed.

    May now can't be removed (she survived a no confidence motion by her party which means she's safe for 2 years as per the party rules and the fixed term parliament act prevents a general election regardless of what the house agitates for) and there's no way she's going to stand down.

    My hunch is that parliament will apply enough soft pressure to get the withdrawal agreement amended to allow a delay but we shouldn't overlook the fact that there is no hard pressure they can apply at this point. If May decides to dig in (and let's face it, she's got form), then there's actually no technical mechanism left to overrule her.

    This is also one of the problems with the second referendum argument. It would be almost impossible to hold it in the time scales we've got left (apart from anything the Electoral Commission estimate that it takes 12 weeks just for them to scrutinise the question in a ref). So you'd need a delay to get through the house before a referendum could even be considered as an option.

    What I haven't understood is what happens when the deadline is reached and no deal has been agreed upon.
    The default is no deal. The hope is that we can find ways to avoid it. I think we can but it's far from certain and it's becoming less certain with every day that passes. We're on a tight clock and the vested parties are playing at brinksmanship. It's getting more and more likely we'll fall out by accident.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    0

    Re: No Deal

    Everything can be solved if team spirit is there.
    It is really nice to soo you people helping each other.


    **Links removed by Site Administrator so it doesn't look like you're spamming us. Please don't post them again.**

  20. #20
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    That's actually not correct. The agreed maximum deficit was 3%. Italy's budget was projected to produce a deficit of 2.4%. The EUs panic was actually around the total levels of Italian debt (which is certainly high, second only to Greece) but there's no agreed limit on that.
    Ok your right i got that one wrong .... but i have done some further reading on this and while your right in one sense that there is no agreed limit, as Italy is part of the Euro and shares a currency with 22 other members and it has the highest debt levels bar greece in europe, and rightly or wrongly the EU is trying to protect the other Euro countries as if Italy debt spirals to anything like Greece it could have ripple effects right across Europe. It is the one big downside and problem with the Euro currency but you could also say that it wasn't a problem until we were hit with the 2008 financial crisis which many countries have still not managed to fully recover properly from.

    I still see some sense in the decision making (while i also do understand why some people dont like it) where as after a while with Greece it felt more like punishment than policy.

    I think you're right but I'm not so certain. There's no technical way of preventing it. The withdrawal agreement enshrined the 29 March in law - it's primary legislation so to avoid leaving on that date would require new primary legislation. I think it's going to be difficult to get that legislation passed in time - particularly as the hard core leavers will attempt to block it. Plus it would require the government to bring the legislation before the house which May is unlikely to do because she's built her whole career on being the last option available - she'll delay until it's too late so her deal is seen as the only option and hope that gets it passed.
    If May decides to dig in (and let's face it, she's got form), then there's actually no technical mechanism left to overrule her.
    I think your missing something here, on what happened in the lead up to the Vote on Mays Brexit deal from a process point of view which have changed the parliamentary procedure as to what happens next.

    We had the Greive amendment which means that what ever plan B May brings forward next is amendable, this means that MP's can and will add there own amendments to what ever she proposes and they will be voted on in Parliament. Also it limits the ability of the PM to run down the clock.

    Before this amendment she could essentially take as long as she wanted - well actually i looked this up its 21 days plus a further 7 sitting days ( debating days) so a whole month which is a long time) to come back with a Plan B, and then even a Plan C if she wanted but this new amendment forces her to come back within 3 days of her Vote if is it is voted down, which it has been so she will be coming back (and May has confirmed this) with an alternative on Tuesday next week.

    The amendment in effect force a quick time table, and also allow votes on the other options. If another option either another form of a deal or a second referendum or something else gets a majority in Parliament then it is not just something the May can ignore she will have to go along with the will of parliament.

    Why does she have to do it? well although your right that it doesn't force her legally,and her own party cant remove her, Parliament still can. Further confidence motions in the Government are allowed if called by the opposition, and if she ignores a majority they can force her out and put someone in place who will pass what the majority wish.

    Yes it would get very messy and its unlikely to get that far but that fact is May cant just ignore parliament and run the clock down anymore.

    Also your right in that time is getting very tight, but if the UK asks for an extension of Article 50 in order to hold another vote it is highly unlikely that it would be refused.
    Last edited by NeedSomeAnswers; Jan 17th, 2019 at 08:52 AM.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  21. #21
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    I was reading the latest Economist, yesterday evening. Naturally, there are a few stories on Brexit (the magazine is a British publication, after all).

    At this point, I would put my money on a hard exit. Not because anybody wants it, but because everybody wants to avoid it in their own special way. With enough people all pulling in different directions, nothing will get accomplished, and the bus will go over the edge with everybody yelling and bickering all the way.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  22. #22
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    rightly or wrongly the EU is trying to protect the other Euro countries as if Italy debt spirals to anything like Greece it could have ripple effects right across Europe
    You're right but I object to the way the EU goes about that protection. It's all stick and no carrot. Where's the sense of camaraderie between the states. We're supposed to be "all in this together". To draw a metaphor, imagine if London refused to cross subsidise welfare in the regions unless they cancelled all bin collections because "those Mancs are a bunch of slovenly, work-shy neets who should get on their bikes and take their own refuse to the local tip". (Of course, us hard working southerners secretly know this to be true but we don't dwell on it because we're quite fond of you really... like a wastrel younger sibling)

    We had the Greive amendment which means that what ever plan B May brings forward next is amendable
    I don't think it does, does it? From my understanding the amendment amended Clause 9 and means that, whatever plan May wants to enact must now go through parliament. But the only thing parliament can do is vote her deal down. They can block her but that would just force us back onto the default no deal.

    Clause 9 originally read "A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day". The Grieve amendment adds "subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union." So parliament gets to approve (or disapprove) the final terms but they don't get to set them. At least, that's how I read it.

    Politically it was a huge move towards empowering parliament and probably does make No Deal a lot less likely but I'm not sure it has effect at all on the legal situation at all. Government still has supremacy and it's really just a re-assertion of parliament's power of scrutiny (which really should have been beyond question anyway if May hadn't dredged up some iffy legislation from the 15th century that a certain ginger giant enacted because he didn't want to keep his cock in his pocket)

    her own party cant remove her, Parliament still can. Further confidence motions in the Government are allowed if called by the opposition
    An opposition no confidence motion is a massive embarrassment but has had no legal weight since the fixed term parliament act came into force because it doesn't force a general election. She can simply ignore it if she wishes and if May's proved one thing it's that she can take a kicking keep going. Her resilience would actually be pretty admirable if it didn't come with monumental levels of intransigence.

    At this point, I would put my money on a hard exit. Not because anybody wants it, but because everybody wants to avoid it in their own special way
    I think there's a lot of truth in that but I still think hard Brexit is less than 50% likely. I think we'll get to the brink and then we'll rush through an extension of article 50. On it's own an extension would get a majority and the EU would almost certainly agree it because they don't want a hard Brexit either. And then we probably will get a second referendum (I think it's a bad idea but that's the way the momentum is headed). The worry is that there's no way to force May to take any of those actions and she's known to be as stubborn as a barnacle.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 18th, 2019 at 03:55 AM.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  23. #23
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    You're right but I object to the way the EU goes about that protection. It's all stick and no carrot. Where's the sense of camaraderie between the states.
    I kinda of agree with you here, they are just panicked by debt levels. I do think they could approach it better but also the Italian government knew the objections of the EU before they published there budget, and i feel that they almost wanted a confrontation politically.

    I don't think it does, does it? From my understanding the amendment amended Clause 9 and means that, whatever plan May wants to enact must now go through parliament. But the only thing parliament can do is vote her deal down. They can block her but that would just force us back onto the default no deal.
    Ah that was the initial deal, they do have the power to add amendments to what ever she brings back as Plan B next week, and these amendments if accepted (i think that the amendments themselves are voted on as to whether the are heard, debated on and go to an actual vote) are then voted on in parliament.

    The votes are not binding legally but it if a consensus emerged it would be almost impossible for the PM to ignore it

    At this point, I would put my money on a hard exit. Not because anybody wants it, but because everybody wants to avoid it in their own special way.
    Right now as all options are still in play including no deal, everyone is still trying to get exactly what they want through however unlikely. I still think we are weeks away from getting to a point where those choice are whittled down and a working majority forms around something.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  24. #24
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    they do have the power to add amendments to what ever she brings back as Plan B next week
    I believe they're allowed to table amendments but that's not the same as adding them. Generally, any MP can table a motion but it's the Government that gets to decide which tabled motions are debated and voted upon in parliament. They normally have no obligation to take any tabled motion forward if they don't want to. The Grieve amendment was significant because the Henry VIII powers were being used to prevent MPs from even tabling a motion. Grieve takes that power back but I don't believe it prevents May from simply sticking her fingers in her ears and ignoring them.

    What it does do is ratchet up the political pressure. When MPs can't even table a motion it's easy for May to present her deal as the only sensible option. Once amendments are tabled, they're public record so it's much harder for May to deny them as possible options.

    The 3 day plan B thing was particularly significant because it does stop May running the clock down which seems to have been her favoured tactic all along. More importantly, parliamentary rules say you can't table a motion (and May's plan B has to be tabled) that has already been voted down by the house. That means her plan B has to be substantially different from plan A. Just how different it has to be is subjective (I believe Bercow, as speaker, gets to decide whether a motion is different enough - that'll be a larf ) but it at least prevents her from coming back with "look, I added a comma" (although she could try that).

    I'm not clear what happens if Plan B gets voted down. Does she have to come back again in another 3 days with a plan C and so on? Are we going to be treated to the unedifying spectacle of May getting voted down twice a week for the next month before finally returning to the EU with some Frankenstein's monster of a plan which they promptly reject? They've already made it abundantly clear that they've not going to change their offer one iota so I struggle to see how any meaningful amendment that gets put in is going to get past the EU.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  25. #25
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    I believe they're allowed to table amendments but that's not the same as adding them. Generally, any MP can table a motion but it's the Government that gets to decide which tabled motions are debated and voted upon in parliament.
    I am pretty sure that any statement that follows a defeated vote is in itself amendable, either way it will become evidently clear next week, its actually Monday that May has to come back with her plan B, and Tuesday that they vote on it, so on Tuesday will see just what power parliament has and probably start to see the direction of travel.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  26. #26
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    Yeah, next week's going to be interesting times.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  27. #27
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    One of the things that had me briefly baffled is the fact that you folks use the term "tabled", just as we do, except that it means the exact opposite. When our legislative bodies table something, that essentially means that it is dead. Technically, it can be brought back up, but in reality, it won't be, so tabling something is basically saying, "we can't decide, so we'll ignore."

    I was going to say that I thought the hard Brexit had a likelihood of about 40%, by my estimation, with no other option having more than that (though all the other options adding up to the other 60%). On further consideration, I actually do believe that the hard Brexit is slightly more likely than all the rest, simply because people are so into their squabbling that they will squabble and fuss until it is too late. Getting an extension, though, may be even more likely. In fact, it could become a habit. I think there's a non-zero chance that there will just be perpetual extensions because the EU doesn't want Brexit, and the government can't get any kind of consensus around any kind of actual exit. It could go on for decades.

    In any case, next week will likely see a grievance over a Grieve-ance.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  28. #28
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    One of the things that had me briefly baffled is the fact that you folks use the term "tabled"
    Yeah, I noticed that in a lot of the arguments around Trump and the Government Closures you guys have got going on. We use it as "I'm putting this on the table, let's debate it", you seem to use it more as a "This is going no where, chuck it on that table over there so we can forget about it". Just goes to prove, you 'mericans are weird

    Anyway, I was manic yesterday and didn't get a chance to watch the return of the May but as far as I can tell she didn't change anything of any significance at all. I can't see how anything that happened yesterday can be interpreted as May returning to parliament with a Plan B. As far as I can tell she just came back and said, "I want to hear from all parties but my deal is the only option available". Despite what I've been posting about the Grieve Amendment's lack of legal weight I wasn't expecting it to be that toothless. Did I miss something?

    It had some political impact with ministers now threatening to resign but I was still expecting more than that.

    I don't JC played this particularly well either. I think I agree that I'd like to see No deal taken off the table but refusing to talk makes him look unreasonable. We all know May wouldn't be ruling it out but he'd have got much more political capital by engaging in talks then shrugging and saying "I tried".
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  29. #29
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    return of the May
    i can only hear Mark Morrison in my head now thanks FD !!

    as far as I can tell she didn't change anything of any significance at all. I can't see how anything that happened yesterday can be interpreted as May returning to parliament with a Plan B
    As far as everyone can tell thats exactly what she has done, return with exactly the same deal that was voted down by 230 votes. As we expected really her strategy is to try and push the time table so close that everyone can actually see the cliff edge of no deal and so they choose her deal instead.

    Despite what I've been posting about the Grieve Amendment's lack of legal weight I wasn't expecting it to be that toothless. Did I miss something?
    The real scrapping in Parliament has yet to happen, so far a bunch of Amendments have been put forward for debate, once they get round to debating them we will see exactly what power parliament can effect.

    Also Mays Plan B gets voted on next week, she has used procedure to push this vote back slightly so she can be seen to go back to Brussels with the same set of demands that failed last time, will fail this time, but in the mean time we get ever closer to 29 March and an automatic no deal. This seems to be her only strategy left running down the clock.
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  30. #30
    Frenzied Member PlausiblyDamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Newport, UK
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: No Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers View Post
    Also Mays Plan B gets voted on next week, she has used procedure to push this vote back slightly so she can be seen to go back to Brussels with the same set of demands that failed last time, will fail this time, but in the mean time we get ever closer to 29 March and an automatic no deal. This seems to be her only strategy left running down the clock.
    From her original "Red Lines" that were never going to be accepted her entire strategy seems to have been asking for the impossible and then acting disappointed that the impossible isn't actually possible, swiftly followed by asking for the same impossible things and being disappointed again.

    Quite frankly triggering Article 50 before she even really knew what it meant or how a brexit would work, or exactly what it would involve always meant there wasn't going to be enough time to properly organise and plan; May seems to have pushed this to an extreme and done virtually nothing until the last minute with no contingencies in place either.

  31. #31
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    May seems to have pushed this to an extreme and done virtually nothing until the last minute with no contingencies in place either.
    To be fair, that's the approach I took on my degree and I got a 2:1
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  32. #32
    Superbly Moderated NeedSomeAnswers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: No Deal

    From her original "Red Lines" that were never going to be accepted her entire strategy seems to have been asking for the impossible and then acting disappointed that the impossible isn't actually possible, swiftly followed by asking for the same impossible things and being disappointed again.
    What we really need is Tom Cruise to find some implausible way to make the impossible possible, breaking the deadlock. After all he managed to turn a much loved 80 TV show into terrible films without seemingly even trying!
    Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you



  33. #33
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    I'm still leaning towards no deal, and for the same reason: Panic is often warranted, but ineffectual.

    However, now that somebody has proposed pushing back the deadline, I'm leaning towards a perpetual delay.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  34. #34
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    Yeah, I think a last minute delay is the most likely outcome. Trouble is, I'm not convinced we'll be able to agree on something in 6 months or a year that we couldn't agree on now. It'll spin a few times but I have no idea at all where it'll end up.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  35. #35
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    34,326

    Re: No Deal

    If everybody would prefer ANYTHING to crashing out, then I could see extensions being granted again and again and again. I was working with a system like that about 20 years ago. There was an international agreement on how to mark salmon (seriously). We had to do something different, so we got an exemption. The agreement couldn't be changed, and nobody would make the exemption a rule, so every year we'd go back to ask for the same exemption, and every year it would be granted. This continued for over a decade. I think it eventually stopped because either the technology changed (making the old rule pointless), or because bigger players started needing the same exemption.

    If the problem is hard enough to solve, and you can put it off, putting it off can become the path of least resistance. Once that habit gets a hold of a person, or institution, it can last for a very long time.

    It's actually why our government is shut down. For a long time, this wasn't possible. If the government didn't pass the spending bills in time, it was just assumed that they meant to, and nothing shut down. Things kept on keeping on, assuming that eventually all would be resolved. Then, sometime in the 70s, or so, a ruling came out that keeping the government functioning without the spending bills was illegal. Since that time, various groups have been able to hold the government hostage as leverage in negotiations. And that leads to today.
    Last edited by Shaggy Hiker; Jan 23rd, 2019 at 03:17 PM.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  36. #36
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    If everybody would prefer ANYTHING to crashing out,
    That's kinda the problem, not everybody is opposed to that and those that aren't are vocal. Indeed, despite what a lot of the remainers say, I'm pretty sure almost all of the people who voted leave voted unequivocally for a hard Brexit. Perhaps they didn't know what the economic impacts would be but they were definitely voting against immigration, the customs union and the ECJ (many didn't know what the bodies were but they knew they wanted "sovereignty" back and that means being able to make your own trade deals and not being subject to a European court).

    So the hard leave politicians will peddle an extension as an "assault on democracy", a "betrayal of the people" and a variety of other emotive hyperbolae. There is fertile ground for that rhetoric and, over time, it's going to gain traction and breed increasing resentment.

    It's for this reason that I think we should leave now, despite being a remainer. If we leave the cost will be painful but it will be economic. If we don't it will be democratic and, I suspect, will ultimately be much, much worse. The right is on the rise and I think that's largely because there has been a liberal suppression of the voice of the moderate right for the last 20 years or so. Our intransigence has driven a significant number of moderates further toward the extreme and I think that the whole Brexit palaver is really just the most visible symptom of that (in the UK at least - in the US it's Trump). In another 10 years we will elect our own Trump but his name will probably be Nigel, Boris or Jacob.

    mark salmon
    Wasn't he the leader of the Scottish Nationals?
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  37. #37
    Fanatic Member 2kaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    643

    Re: No Deal

    That's kinda the problem, not everybody is opposed to that and those that aren't are vocal. Indeed, despite what a lot of the remainers say, I'm pretty sure almost all of the people who voted leave voted unequivocally for a hard Brexit. Perhaps they didn't know what the economic impacts would be but they were definitely voting against immigration, the customs union and the ECJ (many didn't know what the bodies were but they knew they wanted "sovereignty" back and that means being able to make your own trade deals and not being subject to a European court).
    Yes!!!

    It's for this reason that I think we should leave now, despite being a remainer. If we leave the cost will be painful but it will be economic. If we don't it will be democratic and, I suspect, will ultimately be much, much worse. The right is on the rise and I think that's largely because there has been a liberal suppression of the voice of the moderate right for the last 20 years or so.
    Yes!

    IMO if we don't have a 'real' exit from the EU then the march of the far-right will get much, much stronger here in the UK as it is becoming in Europe. Then Trump/Farage et al will be looked back on as the voice of reason! IMO the far-right (and the far-left) shouldn't be given any 'encouragement' at all - and thwarting the expressed will of the UK people will undoubtedly do that so IMO we must leave the EU - and anyone with any sense of democracy (whether a 'leaver' or a 'remainer') needs to understand that and support it.

    Consider Mrs May as the nurse with the nasty medicine. As the patient, you know it's going to taste horrible but you're been told that you'll feel better afterwards. So you trust Nurse, take your medicine, hate it but after a short while start to feel much better as you were told you would.
    All advice is offered in good faith only. You are ultimately responsible for the effects of your programs and the integrity of the machines they run on. Anything I post, code snippets, advice, etc is licensed as Public Domain https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

    C++17 Compiler: Microsoft VS2019 (16.4.0)

  38. #38
    Frenzied Member PlausiblyDamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Newport, UK
    Posts
    1,129

    Re: No Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by 2kaud View Post
    Yes!!!



    Yes!

    IMO if we don't have a 'real' exit from the EU then the march of the far-right will get much, much stronger here in the UK as it is becoming in Europe. Then Trump/Farage et al will be looked back on as the voice of reason! IMO the far-right (and the far-left) shouldn't be given any 'encouragement' at all - and thwarting the expressed will of the UK people will undoubtedly do that so IMO we must leave the EU - and anyone with any sense of democracy (whether a 'leaver' or a 'remainer') needs to understand that and support it.

    Consider Mrs May as the nurse with the nasty medicine. As the patient, you know it's going to taste horrible but you're been told that you'll feel better afterwards. So you trust Nurse, take your medicine, hate it but after a short while start to feel much better as you were told you would.
    The government however isn't there to do "the will of the people", they are there to do what is best for the country regardless of popular opinion. Simply because the public want to inflict serious financial and social harm on themselves doesn't mean the government should go ahead and do it.

    Democracy based on lies, slogans, financial irregularities and a general lack of information and consequence isn't real democracy - the entire Brexit process has been mishandled from the start. The original referendum was only advisory, it should have been taken as an instruction to evaluate and plan for leaving the EU and to properly understand the issues involved. Triggering Article 50 should never have happened until we had a plan and an understanding of timescales.

    The "take your medicine" analogy is only valid if the end result is an improvement over your current situation, if taking the medicine leaves you worse off and addicted to the medication then perhaps not taking it in the first place would have been a better option....

  39. #39
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,372

    Re: No Deal

    The government however isn't there to do "the will of the people", they are there to do what is best for the country regardless of popular opinion.
    Yes and No. In legal terms you're 100% right but the percentage of the population that thinks in those terms is diminishingly small. As far as the vast majority of the population was concerned the result of the referendum would be set in stone and delivered forthwith. Their disillusionment will not be lessened by legal niceties and it's that disillusionment that will come back to bite us.

    Democracy based on lies, slogans, financial irregularities and a general lack of information and consequence isn't real democracy - the entire Brexit process has been mishandled from the start.
    Again, I 100% agree but it misses the point. Lies and slogans is how all democracy is run and the referendum really wasn't any different, the stakes were just much higher.

    The banking crisis and years of austerity have left fertile ground for populist messages. "Your government is not your government" is probably the easiest sell of the lot and there are plenty of snake oil peddlers ready to tout it. I cited the likes of Farage and Mogg but they're actually pretty moderate. There are far worse and more extreme villains lurking in the wings and they are sharpening their knives.

    For the record, I actually think May's deal is pretty good and does offer us a way out if the back stop were removed. In principle it offers a path to a state where we are not subject to the ECJ, do not have to offer FOM, retain access to the common market and are allowed to negotiate our own trade deals. It's everything that both sides argued for. Unfortunately the backstop effectively reverses all of these until such a time as we can guarantee a border free Ireland - with no legal definition of what "border free" actually means, no time limit and no unilateral get out. We would be crazy to sign it while the backstop is in there but get that removed and it's a decent deal.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  40. #40
    Fanatic Member 2kaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    643

    Re: No Deal

    For the record, I actually think May's deal is pretty good and does offer us a way out if the back stop were removed. In principle it offers a path to a state where we are not subject to the ECJ, do not have to offer FOM, retain access to the common market and are allowed to negotiate our own trade deals. It's everything that both sides argued for. Unfortunately the backstop effectively reverses all of these until such a time as we can guarantee a border free Ireland - with no legal definition of what "border free" actually means, no time limit and no unilateral get out. We would be crazy to sign it while the backstop is in there but get that removed and it's a decent deal.
    Without the backstop there are still things 'wrong' with it, but I agree that it then would be the best deal we could negotiate and I agree that we should then accept it as honouring the referendum result. With the backstop, then again I agree that's it's a bad deal and should be rejected. The only way IMO is for the EU to treat/believe that no-deal as a serious option which will hurt the EU (and Ireland in particular) more than it hurts us - which they are beginning to recognise and hence becoming more flexible in their approach. In typical EU fashion, the final serious negotiations are only done seconds before absolute deadline and now is not the time to blink first.
    All advice is offered in good faith only. You are ultimately responsible for the effects of your programs and the integrity of the machines they run on. Anything I post, code snippets, advice, etc is licensed as Public Domain https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

    C++17 Compiler: Microsoft VS2019 (16.4.0)

Page 1 of 18 123411 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Featured


Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width