Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

British Politics Lounge

Post Reply

May should ...

Poll ended at June 7th, 2019, 6:31 pm

remain
0
No votes
leave
10
45%
seek psychiatric help
12
55%
 
Total votes: 22

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

Re: British Politics Lounge

#2121

Post by brokenface » September 9th, 2019, 9:01 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 4:58 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 8:32 pm
Cippenham wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 3:33 am
Boris is not going to resign and not going to ask for an extension we are leaving 31 October

The EU better offer a good deal if they don’t want no deal but they think the idiot opposition can stop us leaving
What would you consider to be a good deal? I think when questions like that are answered the picture becomes a little clearer. I want things like a good trading relationship with Europe, cooperation between police forces to prevent crime, intertwined cultural relations to prevent further war in Europe, global influence, cooperation on large scientific and infrastructure projects, human rights, labour rights. It's quite simple for me because we have all of these already with the EU. Which ones do you want to give away, and why? What are your hopes for the future, and how are you expecting Boris to deliver them?
All sounds fine. What is a bad deal is not allowing us to leave a customs union without EU permission, having to stay in the single market as those things are not leaving. I believe without tarrifs we can get cheaper food and clothes and footwear from any country. We can allow more skilled immigrants than now but eventually limited non skilled but recognise this takes some time. We can do trade deals with other countries.
We already have cheap clothes, cheap food from all round the world. Food prices are going up after Brexit. Most prices are going up after Brexit.
I am uncomfortable being in the EU as you follow rules of an organisation whose leaders are not directly elected and is remote so you cannot vote them out of office.
House of Lords says hi.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2122

Post by matthewscott8 » September 9th, 2019, 10:26 am

AdamH wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 10:06 pm
Was that in England only that it was banned in 1990? I know Scots law is independent. Just that I remember newspapers being used when I was a kid (in Scotland) in the 1990s. Not an important point, ridiculous to use that as reason to leave the EU and sums up some of the terrible reasons used for leaving but just curious.
So the Food Saftey Act did come into force for the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland yes, and it specifically replaced a piece of Scottish legislation dating from 1956. There was further more specific legislation in 2012, "The Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012", and a separate almost identical bill for Scotland, and then "The Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2018", "The Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Scotland) Regulations 2019."

It's been argued that using newspaper to wrap fish and chips was technically illegal under The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, but using newspaper after the above regulations became pretty impossible.

It is possible to have misleading memories of the use of newspapers to wrap fish and chips. After 1990, people may have placed the fish and chips in a tray, wrapped it in white paper, and then used newspaper as an additional layer to keep the heat in but without contacting the food. Also many people started to use fake newspaper to wrap the fish and chips in (still happening in some trendy shops). If you don't have memories of seeing actual newsprint displaced onto the food you were probably experiencing one of the latter phenomena.
Last edited by matthewscott8 on September 9th, 2019, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2123

Post by matthewscott8 » September 9th, 2019, 10:43 am

House of Lords says hi.
Yeah I find this one a frustrating argument as well in that it seems the EU is just about as democratic as the UK in regards the structures of its legislative bodies. I have more sympathy with Cipp using the word remote. For many people this has always been about identity and nothing to do with democracy. For those that don't feel European, Brussels and Strasbourg are too far away. Interestingly though the same people then get very angry when Scottish people start talking about London being too far away. London is actually much closer to Brussels than to Edinburgh.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2124

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 11:26 am

Matthew is correct about fish and chips😀

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2125

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 11:29 am

He is correct about House of Lords and Brussels is remote

Can Scotland be more independent outside EU as powers could go to them?

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2126

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 11:30 am

Food prices going down surely with no EU tarrifs to impose

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2127

Post by brokenface » September 9th, 2019, 1:15 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 11:30 am
Food prices going down surely with no EU tarrifs to impose
Surely :lol:

morrison-dylan-fan
Posts: 887
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#2128

Post by morrison-dylan-fan » September 9th, 2019, 3:54 pm

Bercow to stand down as Speaker:


matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2129

Post by matthewscott8 » September 9th, 2019, 4:13 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 11:30 am
Food prices going down surely with no EU tarrifs to impose
We get more of our imported food from the EU than we do the rest of the world combined. This food comes tariff free, now there will be tariffs. Also our currency has been deteriorated by this incident, so it's more expensive to buy food from elsewhere. If you are waiting for food prices to go down you will be waiting for a long time. This is the class schadefreude dynamic of 2019, the working class can laugh at the middle class because their foreign holidays are going up in price, but the middle classes that voted remain get the last (uncharitable) laugh as the working class are now less able to pay for food.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2130

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 7:28 pm

Ok now just wait and see. I am now hoping there is a deal so we can have some kind of reconciliation. I accept no deal if necessary but it does not have to be that way.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2131

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 8:42 pm

If you voted remain did you support ever closer union, one currency, one army. EU taxes to pay for EU policies . Our army being directed by the EU.
Did you accept fuller budgetary and political union and eventually adoption of the EUro. Regulations on social life including censorship and control of the internet and shutting down many private YouTube and related channels. If you want to watch an old film you pay for it. Did you vote to allow Italy to run up debts if 599 billion Euro to buy German goods but the actual debt is held against the ECB so if Italy defaulted debt is shared with EU so Germany pays 27 per cent . Did you vote to allow Germany to dominate so much that some former dictatorship would be proud. Oh yes some of them helped create the EU.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2132

Post by matthewscott8 » September 10th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:42 pm
If you voted remain did you support ever closer union, one currency, one army. EU taxes to pay for EU policies . Our army being directed by the EU.
Did you accept fuller budgetary and political union and eventually adoption of the EUro. Regulations on social life including censorship and control of the internet and shutting down many private YouTube and related channels. If you want to watch an old film you pay for it. Did you vote to allow Italy to run up debts if 599 billion Euro to buy German goods but the actual debt is held against the ECB so if Italy defaulted debt is shared with EU so Germany pays 27 per cent . Did you vote to allow Germany to dominate so much that some former dictatorship would be proud. Oh yes some of them helped create the EU.
No I don't believe in ever closer union. We are the member that has always kept the breaks on integrating too fast and too much.

Obviously with any state, there are richer and poorer areas, but you presumably wouldn't say we should get rid of Cornwall because it's not paying its way. The issue is identity, you don't begrudge poorer areas of the UK getting more out of the union of GB and NI than they're putting in because your identity is British. You've said you're European before I believe, but I really think you aren't.

Did you know that Germany is the biggest consumer of Italian goods? Yep it's Italy's largest export market. Their trade deficit with Germany is about 14 billion dollars, but then again their trading surplus with France is 14 billion dollars.

Of course, the result of Vote Leave is that the EU now probably will pursue ever closer union, and if we want to go back in again we have to have the euro. Brilliant :facepalm:

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2822
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2133

Post by Onderhond » September 10th, 2019, 5:26 pm

I wish you had the euro, makes travelling so much easier! Stupid pounds. Won't be that difficult to switch for you guys either, they're almost worth the same now :p

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2134

Post by matthewscott8 » September 10th, 2019, 9:30 pm

Onderhond wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 5:26 pm
I wish you had the euro, makes travelling so much easier! Stupid pounds. Won't be that difficult to switch for you guys either, they're almost worth the same now :p
the euro project was always set to be a disaster and was predicted to be such before it began. You cannot hitch together a bunch of diverse different speed economies with the same currency, interest rates and monetary policy. The Greece situation was the horrendously sad result.

Personally I think a northern and southern euro would make sense, but it'll never happen.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2135

Post by Cippenham » September 11th, 2019, 6:49 pm

David Starkey the historian has accused remainers acting against the constitution in that they are not respecting the result of the 2016 referendum. Ignore the legal and other points against the government as fundamentally the referendum result must be respected first or the remainers are the ones acting illegally. They perhaps should be considered traitors too but that is open to discussion. In fact it could be argued it was illegal to delay leaving the EU beyond March. The break with the EU can be compared to the break with Rome by Henry VIII and some of the same arguments are used. Why does Henry have to leave jurisdiction of Rome to get a divorce? Because The Church courts were superior to ours just as we must leave the EU for our laws to be supreme. The idea being pursued by remainers led by Bercow that parliament sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty is an absurd contradiction. Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense in an independent nation state. Otherwise it is meaningless verbiage. The crisis is due to not working out the relationship between an idea of popular sovereignty and what parliamentary sovereignty is.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2136

Post by Cippenham » September 11th, 2019, 6:57 pm

The idea too an opposition should vote against an election is fundamentally undemocratic. Maybe they think we abolish elections and let them continue this absurd farce for years like the Long Parliament . It took a Cromwell to deal with them.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2822
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2137

Post by Onderhond » September 11th, 2019, 8:57 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 6:49 pm
David Starkey the historian has accused remainers acting against the constitution in that they are not respecting the result of the 2016 referendum.
Then again, some votes were clearly based on outright lies, which probably isn't very constitutional either.
Also, if I remember correctly, the promise beforehand was that Brexit would only be initiated after a clear and obvious win, once the referendum was over suddenly the small margin proved to be enough.

I'm all for respecting the will of the people, but not when politicians are lying to the people. That's not what democracy by representation is.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2138

Post by xianjiro » September 11th, 2019, 10:43 pm

All this for a "non-legally binding" referendum.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2139

Post by Cippenham » September 12th, 2019, 3:16 am

Cameron said they would implement the result and we are still waiting

Many politicians tell lies in every election

Does that make Trump for example illegitimate as President, I think not. Does it make all elections unviable, maybe they should abolish elections and let the elite decide all

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2140

Post by Cippenham » September 12th, 2019, 3:25 am

That was the idea of Plato I believe

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2141

Post by matthewscott8 » September 12th, 2019, 11:00 am

I think the whole episode has thrown a light on democracy. I have always thought there were good cases for referenda. For example, if we wanted to have a look at whether the death penalty should be reinstated as punishment for certain crimes, that seems a very legitimate question for a referendum. It's something that people can get their head around. Age of consent would be another good one.

There are however a lot of problems with referenda:

(1) Technical issues are difficult for people to understand. What about if we set up voting panels on everyone's television and asked them to express which way they wanted interest rates to go. No doubt about it that is democratic but also insane.
(2) Irresponsible voting. People will approve any vote to decrease taxes and also approve most votes to increase spend. So if for example I came up with a referendum to bring back the Nurse's Bursary, it would undoubtedly be reinstated. And if I put a referendum forward for a reduction in national insurance that would also happen.
(3) Referenda when ripe. Run opinion polls and get through something unpopular via referendum when an event happens that distorts general sentiment. I.e. wait for a major terrorist attack before you put forward a referendum that gives law enforcement additional powers to invade privacy.
(4) Protest voting. People will often vote to spite the person asking the question instead of engaging with it.

I think a massive problem is that we've spent 3 years now pretending that none of those 4 things are an issue, and all that Vote Leave has to say is, "DEMOCRACY, F*** YEAH"

Another issue now is that representative democracy is coming under attack, that is literally what Boris Johnson is doing by proroguing parliament. So the point with representative democracy is to choose people who have a high level of understanding of our system of government to make decisions. It seems that it's eminently sensible to do this.

It became very unfashionable to say that Leavers often just didn't understand the issues, and maybe it's an unproductive truth. I flew to Dortmund earlier this year, at the passport control there was a sign pointing one way for EU passport holders and one for non-EU passport holders. There was a discussion in a queue and a lady pointed out to everyone that we had already left the EU, and people started piling into that queue. No-one is ever going to convince me that the British population had the faintest clue what they were voting for.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2142

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 11:07 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 6:49 pm
David Starkey the historian has accused remainers acting against the constitution in that they are not respecting the result of the 2016 referendum. Ignore the legal and other points against the government as fundamentally the referendum result must be respected first or the remainers are the ones acting illegally. They perhaps should be considered traitors too but that is open to discussion. In fact it could be argued it was illegal to delay leaving the EU beyond March. The break with the EU can be compared to the break with Rome by Henry VIII and some of the same arguments are used. Why does Henry have to leave jurisdiction of Rome to get a divorce? Because The Church courts were superior to ours just as we must leave the EU for our laws to be supreme. The idea being pursued by remainers led by Bercow that parliament sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty is an absurd contradiction. Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense in an independent nation state. Otherwise it is meaningless verbiage. The crisis is due to not working out the relationship between an idea of popular sovereignty and what parliamentary sovereignty is.
I like a lot of this, Cippenham. Very thoughtfully put.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2822
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2143

Post by Onderhond » September 12th, 2019, 11:18 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 3:16 am
Does it make all elections unviable, maybe they should abolish elections and let the elite decide all
Eh, no. They should make politicians accountable for telling lies.

If not, what's the point of listening to them. If Cameron said they would implement the result, the rebuttal would simply be "tough luck, he lied, move on". That's no way to govern a country.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2144

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 11:19 am

And then watch on as those people with a high level of understanding turn their back on election manifestos and become parliamentary obstructionists...

This is not my idea of democracy. It is ruling by elites who think they know best for the people.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2145

Post by brokenface » September 12th, 2019, 12:25 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 11:19 am
And then watch on as those people with a high level of understanding turn their back on election manifestos and become parliamentary obstructionists...

This is not my idea of democracy. It is ruling by elites who think they know best for the people.
Right, and next you'll be spinning the line that voting for the most establishment, elitist politicians in the country is a vote for 'the people' :lol:

The 48% who voted against this farce are also 'the people'. Everyone who went out on the streets to protest Boris Johnson's fraudulent shutdown of parliament are also 'the people'. You don't get a monopoly claim on 'the people' just because a slight majority in a single-issue referendum 3 years ago voted for a fantasy.

There was an election in 2017, 'the people' came back with a hung parliament, and certainly did not vote Boris Johnson as President, as he appears to think he now is. He may be PM now but he has to answer to the parliament that the people voted for. Instead he has shut it down and is hiding in a bunker doing stage-managed PMQs on Facebook to avoid any scrutiny by elected representatives. Is this really what you want?

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2146

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 12:48 pm

brokenface wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 12:25 pm
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 11:19 am
And then watch on as those people with a high level of understanding turn their back on election manifestos and become parliamentary obstructionists...

This is not my idea of democracy. It is ruling by elites who think they know best for the people.
Right, and next you'll be spinning the line that voting for the most establishment, elitist politicians in the country is a vote for 'the people' :lol:

The 48% who voted against this farce are also 'the people'. Everyone who went out on the streets to protest Boris Johnson's fraudulent shutdown of parliament are also 'the people'. You don't get a monopoly claim on 'the people' just because a slight majority in a single-issue referendum 3 years ago voted for a fantasy.

There was an election in 2017, 'the people' came back with a hung parliament, and certainly did not vote Boris Johnson as President, as he appears to think he now is. He may be PM now but he has to answer to the parliament that the people voted for. Instead he has shut it down and is hiding in a bunker doing stage-managed PMQs on Facebook to avoid any scrutiny by elected representatives. Is this really what you want?
I'm Irish, brokenface. My father's side of the family are English but I am not a British citizen myself. I'm just trying to call it as I see it.

At this stage, I do believe that a vote for the Conservatives could be seen as a vote for the people and their wishes, as long as they keep 'no deal' on the table. If they don't, they will lose countless votes to the Brexit Party. I think Cummings is wrong to rule out a partnership between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. I happen to agree with you that Johnson has been dishonest about his reasons for shutting down Parliament.

I am not at all sure that Johnson will not cave at the last minute but, at the time being and against tremendous pressures, he appears to be remaining steadfast to delivering on the democratically-indicated will of the British people.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2147

Post by brokenface » September 12th, 2019, 1:21 pm

No deal has never been presented to the British people as something to vote on. It was not put forward by the Leave campaign in 2016 and it was not on any of the major parties' manifestos in 2017. The Conservatives stood on a manifesto that said we would leave in an orderly fashion with a deal and in a 'comprehensive free trade and customs agreement' with EU countries.

If there's an election and Conservatives outright state that their policy is to leave without a deal and they win a majority, then you can say it is the democratic will of the people. As it is, you cannot. Parliament have been acting to prevent a no deal exit because nobody ever voted for that.

Johnson is not 'remaining steadfast' about delivering what was voted on, because he is doing little-to-nothing about making a deal. All he offered is substance-free bluster and excuses.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2148

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 2:16 pm

It strikes me as so condescending that Remain-supporters tell Brexit voters what their motivations, reasons and aims for voting to leave the EU were.

At the end of the day, it was a democratic vote of the people on a black and white issue of national sovereignty. Many Remainers, unfortunately, want to ignore that vote, move towards a second Referendum, and paint themselves as the saviours of democracy and the interests of the British people.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2149

Post by brokenface » September 12th, 2019, 2:58 pm

I don't seek to tell anyone what their motivations, reasons & aims for voting to leave were. But it's clear that people had a range of motivations, reasons & aims and that's precisely the problem. It's not a black and white issue of national sovereignty. If it was, please explain why did the ERG, Boris Johnson, etc. reject the withdrawal agreement Theresa May agreed with EU?

If they'd accepted that, we'd have left EU on the date agreed in Article 50 and we'd be in a transition period now, negotiating the exact terms of future trade deal with no turning back. But that wasn't a sufficiently hard Brexit for them. Since that proves that all leave voters do not want the same type of Brexit, it makes a very strong case that another referendum is required.

--

My view is that the most democratic way out of the impasse is Boris Johnson should come back from EU summit in October with the best deal he can get (probably a minor modification of May's deal) and Labour should say, okay we'll give you the votes to put it through parliament with condition of a confirmatory public referendum attached. Then people will get to vote: real Brexit deal vs revoke & remain. If the deal wins, we go ahead and leave on those terms. If remain wins, we revoke.

If Boris Johnson is unable to come back with any kind of deal or thinks No Deal is better than any deal he can make, we should ask for a delay (as now mandated by law) and either have referendum on No Deal vs Remain or an election where Johnson stands on a manifesto that explicitly says 'no deal'.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2150

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 3:41 pm

brokenface wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:58 pm
I don't seek to tell anyone what their motivations, reasons & aims for voting to leave were. But it's clear that people had a range of motivations, reasons & aims and that's precisely the problem. It's not a black and white issue of national sovereignty. If it was, please explain why did the ERG, Boris Johnson, etc. reject the withdrawal agreement Theresa May agreed with EU?
It undermined the integrity of the UK. I say that as an Irish nationalist who is in favour of a respectful re-unification in due course based around acceptance and reciprocity.

I am hearing talk of Johnson proposing an All-Ireland zone with checks on mainland Britain. I agree with you that Johnson probably will offer this modification of May's deal. I however do not envisage him offering the accompanying assurance to Corbyn of a vote to the people of this deal or Remain. Such an assurance would more than likely kill him politically and render him a political irrelevance.

However, we shall see...
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2151

Post by xianjiro » September 12th, 2019, 4:18 pm

brokenface wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:58 pm
I don't seek to tell anyone what their motivations, reasons & aims for voting to leave were. But it's clear that people had a range of motivations, reasons & aims and that's precisely the problem. It's not a black and white issue of national sovereignty. If it was, please explain why did the ERG, Boris Johnson, etc. reject the withdrawal agreement Theresa May agreed with EU?

If they'd accepted that, we'd have left EU on the date agreed in Article 50 and we'd be in a transition period now, negotiating the exact terms of future trade deal with no turning back. But that wasn't a sufficiently hard Brexit for them. Since that proves that all leave voters do not want the same type of Brexit, it makes a very strong case that another referendum is required.

--

My view is that the most democratic way out of the impasse is Boris Johnson should come back from EU summit in October with the best deal he can get (probably a minor modification of May's deal) and Labour should say, okay we'll give you the votes to put it through parliament with condition of a confirmatory public referendum attached. Then people will get to vote: real Brexit deal vs revoke & remain. If the deal wins, we go ahead and leave on those terms. If remain wins, we revoke.

If Boris Johnson is unable to come back with any kind of deal or thinks No Deal is better than any deal he can make, we should ask for a delay (as now mandated by law) and either have referendum on No Deal vs Remain or an election where Johnson stands on a manifesto that explicitly says 'no deal'.
Makes good sense, especially the second part. It's clear the 2016 question was vague and so it could be whatever leavers wanted from sweetheart-deal-pillow-soft-divorce but still best-of-pals to two-finger-salute-who-cares-about-a-deal. If there was a clear mandate from the electorate, then there should have been a unified, easy-to-support plan put forth by Tory governments that their own party's rank and file would willingly support.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6775
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#2152

Post by 3eyes » September 12th, 2019, 4:33 pm

Today while getting a tooth pulled I met an Irishwoman from just south of the border who thinks that if there's a no-deal Brexit the "Six Counties" will have a referendum about whether to join Ireland and likely will vote yes. Thoughts?
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2153

Post by brokenface » September 12th, 2019, 4:48 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 3:41 pm
brokenface wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:58 pm
I don't seek to tell anyone what their motivations, reasons & aims for voting to leave were. But it's clear that people had a range of motivations, reasons & aims and that's precisely the problem. It's not a black and white issue of national sovereignty. If it was, please explain why did the ERG, Boris Johnson, etc. reject the withdrawal agreement Theresa May agreed with EU?
It undermined the integrity of the UK. I say that as an Irish nationalist who is in favour of a respectful re-unification in due course based around acceptance and reciprocity.
You're just underlining my point. Some Leave voters accepted this deal as the best we can get. Hell, even Boris Johnson voted for it 3rd time round. At the other extreme they see it as a complete betrayal of what they voted for. Point is: you cannot resolve which group is correct using the 2016 referendum result because that referendum did not define Leave.
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 3:41 pm
I am hearing talk of Johnson proposing an All-Ireland zone with checks on mainland Britain. I agree with you that Johnson probably will offer this modification of May's deal. I however do not envisage him offering the accompanying assurance to Corbyn of a vote to the people of this deal or Remain. Such an assurance would more than likely kill him politically and render him a political irrelevance.
Well, yeah, that'd be an added bonus :)

But in all seriousness, he has to get whatever deal through parliament. And bear in mind he's currently around -30 and has lost 100% of his votes in the Commons since becoming leader so he doesn't have the power here. Some of the Conservatives who were kicked out would back a reheated May deal, but equally he would surely lose some of the hardcore ERGs who hate the deal + he might lose DUP if it involves NI being treated separately from GB. Maybe he could get SNP on board on the basis that they'll have a v.strong case for another independence vote if NI gets a separate deal to GB but that'd be high risk strategy by both. Most likely he'll need Labour votes and then it's a matter of them extracting a price.

Personally I think offering to back it with referendum attached would be Corbyn's smartest play if Johnson does come back with some kind of deal. Make it so Johnson has to be the one to reject the compromise.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2154

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 4:58 pm

3eyes wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 4:33 pm
Today while getting a tooth pulled I met an Irishwoman from just south of the border who thinks that if there's a no-deal Brexit the "Six Counties" will have a referendum about whether to join Ireland and likely will vote yes. Thoughts?
I am not at all sure. It's important to bear in mind that the DUP is not representative of all the people of the North. The Alliance party, which is the centre-ground party, is actually making up ground on the two extremes of Sinn Féin and the DUP.

Peter Robinson, the former DUP leader, over the last year has broached the topic of considering how the Unionist community would respond to such a re-unification poll. Leo Varadkar, leader of the centre right Fine Gael party has appeared (to me at least) to be in no rush to support such a poll, saying that re-unification would potentially require a new Irish constitution, new flag, new anthem - in essence a new understanding of Irishness. Sinn Féin is, of course, advocating that a no-deal scenario is the right moment for there to be a border poll.

I think that it is fair to say that Brexit has given a push to the starting of considerations around what Irish re-unification would entail across all communities, north and south. I do not expect a no-deal Brexit to result in an immediate referendum though. The delicate, multi-stranded discussions have started, but many groups are only beginning on the road to working out what their stance on the issue might be.

Sorry to hear about the tooth!
Last edited by RogerTheMovieManiac88 on September 12th, 2019, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2155

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 5:06 pm

I pretty much agree with the second part of your last response, brokenface. I think that is the path Corbyn will attempt to tread.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2156

Post by xianjiro » September 12th, 2019, 5:18 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 4:58 pm
3eyes wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 4:33 pm
Today while getting a tooth pulled I met an Irishwoman from just south of the border who thinks that if there's a no-deal Brexit the "Six Counties" will have a referendum about whether to join Ireland and likely will vote yes. Thoughts?
I am not at all sure. It's important to bear in mind that the DUP is not representative of all the people of the North. The Alliance party, which is the centre-ground party, is actually making up ground on the two extremes of Sinn Féin and the DUP.

Peter Robinson, the former DUP leader, over the last year has broached the topic of considering how the Unionist community would respond to such a re-unification poll. Leo Varadkar, leader of the centre right Fine Gael party has appeared (to me at least) to be in no rush to support such a poll, saying that re-unification would potentially require a new Irish constitution, new flag, new anthem - in essence a new understanding of Irishness. Sinn Féin is, of course, advocating that a no-deal scenario is the right moment for there to be border poll.

I think that it is fair to say that Brexit has given a push to the starting of considerations around what Irish re-unification would entail across all communities, north and south. I do not expect a no-deal Brexit to result in an immediate referendum though. The delicate, multi-stranded discussions have started, but many groups are only beginning on the road to working out what their stance on the issue might be.

Sorry to hear about the tooth!
Well, if anything, I hope the Irish and Scots have learned something put forward more concrete referenda than "Should Ireland be reunified?" and "Should Scotland leave the UK?"

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6775
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#2157

Post by 3eyes » September 12th, 2019, 5:28 pm

I just mentioned the tooth because it seemed symbolic.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2158

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 5:33 pm

xianjiro wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 5:18 pm
Well, if anything, I hope the Irish and Scots have learned something put forward more concrete referenda than "Should Ireland be reunified?" and "Should Scotland leave the UK?"
A referendum has to present a dichotomy. One can criticise the pre-referendum planning and arrangements (or lack thereof!) but voters have to be asked rather a stark and simplistic overview that can be fleshed out. I don't think that's ever going to really change.
That's all, folks!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2159

Post by Cippenham » September 12th, 2019, 5:52 pm

3eyes wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 4:33 pm
Today while getting a tooth pulled I met an Irishwoman from just south of the border who thinks that if there's a no-deal Brexit the "Six Counties" will have a referendum about whether to join Ireland and likely will vote yes. Thoughts?
No

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12345
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2160

Post by Cippenham » September 12th, 2019, 5:53 pm

I think EU and Boris will do a deal but let’s see.

Post Reply