Which Tyler wrote:We won't be getting a say in the matter until May's deal has been voted down in Parliament - probably twice. So we can take that off the table.
It'll be straight "No Deal" or "No Brexit"; 50%+1
We really, really need some sort of consultation to actually address how we go about these things going forwards - any question that's important enough to require a referrendum is important enough to need more than just 50%+1 of those who can be bothered to vote.
Or can, Which, don't forget that.
I and countless other emigrants to Hungary did not get our voting papers on time to actually vote. I'm sure this was the case elsewhere, too. Considering the margin and the number of Brits who live abroad (1.3 million in the EU alone, pretty much equal to the difference in Remain and Leave) that could make a huge difference.
There's another 3 million of us living outside the EU, too. How many of them voted or were able to?
Which Tyler wrote:We won't be getting a say in the matter until May's deal has been voted down in Parliament - probably twice. So we can take that off the table.
It'll be straight "No Deal" or "No Brexit"; 50%+1
We really, really need some sort of consultation to actually address how we go about these things going forwards - any question that's important enough to require a referrendum is important enough to need more than just 50%+1 of those who can be bothered to vote.
It's not a bad plan, but it is the one Blair is backing so that'll wind some people up.
The plan I'd go for all things being equal would be to hold two votes, one for remain vs leave and then if leave win the second for deal vs no deal. of course not all things are equal
It looks like the legal advice provided to the government suggests that the U.K. could be indefinitely trapped in the transition deal. That will send many MPs, and not just the brexiteer, through the roof.
It’s lookimg increasingly likely that the May deal is dead.
Joinin*the EFTA as a stop gap seems the best compromise at the moment.
Sandydragon wrote:
Joinin*the EFTA as a stop gap seems the best compromise at the moment.
The EFTA countries would loathe the idea of Norway for Now, so we'd have the problem of no customs union which is a problem in itself and for Northern Ireland, and applying for stop gap membership would almost certainly be rejected anyway
Sandydragon wrote:
Joinin*the EFTA as a stop gap seems the best compromise at the moment.
The EFTA countries would loathe the idea of Norway for Now, so we'd have the problem of no customs union which is a problem in itself and for Northern Ireland, and applying for stop gap membership would almost certainly be rejected anyway
I think if that were the opposition to a hard Brexit it would be approved. It ain’t perfect, but perhaps the only option that broadly respects the referendum whilst not a full crash landing.
Sandydragon wrote:
Joinin*the EFTA as a stop gap seems the best compromise at the moment.
The EFTA countries would loathe the idea of Norway for Now, so we'd have the problem of no customs union which is a problem in itself and for Northern Ireland, and applying for stop gap membership would almost certainly be rejected anyway
I think if that were the opposition to a hard Brexit it would be approved. It ain’t perfect, but perhaps the only option that broadly respects the referendum whilst not a full crash landing.
How does us approving it help if Norway et al don't want us? And we'd still need a plan for Northern Ireland even if most UK citizens don't care about them beyond looking at the DUP and SF and thinking a plague on both their houses
I think we could get Norway to happily accept our joining, but not on the basis of a temporary fudge. They'd want a clearer and longer term process than say a two year fling
Digby wrote:I think we could get Norway to happily accept our joining, but not on the basis of a temporary fudge. They'd want a clearer and longer term process than say a two year fling
Apparently it cannot happen because May's red line is on free movement. Which firmly poses Brexit as bigotry.
If the only absolute red line in Brexit is freedom of movement, then we can call it for what it is and be done. Racism. End. Fuck it all off, let's go home.
By the way, if I was in the UK and had seen all this going on? I'd be fucking right off right about now. I do not want to be part of a country whose political status is founded on racism.
We live in a world defined by the economic, social and cultural interdependence of nation states. And those who promise that leaving the EU will deliver “control” are really promising something quite specific: a social and cultural reboot. As well as being morally contemptible, of course, this is also a complete impossibility. But those who pose as our leaders have allowed this absurd and horrible vision of Britain’s future to take root. Let us be honest about what this is all about. And then let those who are responsible take full ownership of whatever consequences lie ahead.
Unfortunately "immigration" is all the rage in the Free West. Somehow the public, armed with terabytes of social media memes and disinformation, feels that diversity is a creeping menace that will annihilate western values and way of life (read: "white English speaking"). Here in the USandA, people that lived through the civil rights movement are seeing the same flawed logic used against immigration. Those parallels are not coincidental, unfortunately, and just obscure the real drivers of economic inequality, namely, corporate welfare, the persistence of trickle down economic theory (astoundingly), and the savaging of public services and infrastructure by enabled predatory private sector practices. Same shit, different day. Brexit looks to be a monstrous cluster fuck borne of the same logical fallacy that when stripped down is just good old fashioned racism.
Digby wrote:I think we could get Norway to happily accept our joining, but not on the basis of a temporary fudge. They'd want a clearer and longer term process than say a two year fling
Apparently it cannot happen because May's red line is on free movement. Which firmly poses Brexit as bigotry.
If the only absolute red line in Brexit is freedom of movement, then we can call it for what it is and be done. Racism. End. Fuck it all off, let's go home.
Not sure it's racism, we're increasing the numbers from the middle east, India, China and so on, it seems according to May we just don't like white people from Europe, and who could blame us when one considers what white people from Europe are responsible for
Though actually on point I think Sandy is looking at a solution after May's deal is defeated that isn't no deal, so May's red lines can be erased, it'll all be about green lines
Stom wrote:By the way, if I was in the UK and had seen all this going on? I'd be fucking right off right about now. I do not want to be part of a country whose political status is founded on racism.
Stom wrote:By the way, if I was in the UK and had seen all this going on? I'd be fucking right off right about now. I do not want to be part of a country whose political status is founded on racism.
When are you leaving Hungary?
Yeah, 2 things about that.
1) it's not actually based on racism, even though racism of course plays a part.
2) we were discussing this. If there was a better option we would. But the best we could come up with is Austria... Which isn't much of an upgrade... Especially for the kids.
It's just a shame all the English speaking countries are now either backwards, hypocrites or prohibitively wet.
We have issues but we're far more integrated and with less racism than Hungary
Moving onto contempt of parliament proceedings for myself I'm largely on the fence, both the government and those who want the legal advice published have made some valid points and I'm glad it's not for me to decide. That said whilst I can see why wavering Tory MPs might want the advice published the SNP, Labour the Lib Dems et al are playing stupid buggers, they can't possibly need the advice when they're already saying come what may they're voting against the deal
ECJ Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona recommends court should find UK CAN unilaterally revoke Article 50
Its only advice at this stage. About 80% of recommendations are followed through by the Court (ECJ).
What is really surprising is that the Govt didnt explore this possibility BEFORE triggering A50. Though given the utterly useless Govt that has overseen this mess perhaps its not that surprising.
Just outstanding work from brexiters losing their rag over the latest court ruling on article 50. Essentially they're complaining the EU is respecting our sovereign decisions which is by any measure brazenly hypocritical
Full legal advice to be published,the item of interest being did the attorney general advise the government they could negotiate the backstop agreement and then down the line unilaterally withdraw from it under the Vienna convention. If so how much harder does that make future agreements on any deal with anyone if we're publishing a possibility the UK would seek to undermine agreements it enters into?
I wonder what the Plan B is? Frankly, May's chances of getting her plan through parliament are looking extremely low, unless the Brexiteers suddenly realise that her plan gives them more of what they want than some of the alternatives.
I asked my wife what she thought the chances are of May surviving much longer. She surprised me a bit as she doesn't get into politics, but she thought May was doing a reasonable job in very difficult circumstances. And the missus isn't the first person Ive heard say that. I don't think a leadership challenge would go down well across the country nd would destroy the Tories for a generation.
But before the Labour voters on here start celebrating, its not clear that Labour would look to reverse the referendum decision and could still take us out of the EU, in some format. Since they don't have a plan, or at least aren't sharing one, then if the aim is to avoid a disaster then that isn't a great option either.
I'm hoping that May has floated this plan as the best that could be negotiated (which is probably true), knowing that it would fail and then Plan B is something less dramatic. I'd be surprised if she suddenly lurched towards hard Brexit as the numbers aren't there for that either and she was never a Brexiteer. Maybe plan B is EFTA with special arrangements for Northern Ireland? There might be numbers in the house for that if MPs don 't see any other alternative. Or perhaps another referendum with a different set f options (does it really have to be just 2?).
Digby wrote:Full legal advice to be published,the item of interest being did the attorney general advise the government they could negotiate the backstop agreement and then down the line unilaterally withdraw from it under the Vienna convention. If so how much harder does that make future agreements on any deal with anyone if we're publishing a possibility the UK would seek to undermine agreements it enters into?
Isn't that what already happened with the original backstop from this time last year?
Digby wrote:Full legal advice to be published,the item of interest being did the attorney general advise the government they could negotiate the backstop agreement and then down the line unilaterally withdraw from it under the Vienna convention. If so how much harder does that make future agreements on any deal with anyone if we're publishing a possibility the UK would seek to undermine agreements it enters into?
Isn't that what already happened with the original backstop from this time last year?
We were a little more upfront about not being trustworthy in that scenario, and actually two sides taking different meanings from a common statement isn't that unusual
