Hard Brexit

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

14 hours ago, Cade said:

The conservative and UNIONIST party would never willingly let NI leave.

 

DailyMail loons are demanding that Ireland also leave the EU to solve the border problem

 

Dreams of Empire 2.0 abound.

 

 

Pretty sure Churchill was willing to ditch NI to get the Republic on our side before WW2.

[Cade]

7 hours ago, Lee_Mellon said:

 

 

 

As for the Irish border issue, it was always clear to me that the EU were not going to compromise on their "four freedoms", and the UK could never allow a border in the Irish Sea, so the outcome was always going to be a hard border. I don't know why neither side was willing to recognise this from the outset. Politicial expediency, I suppose.

 

 

Aye, it was obvious.

But having a hard border contravenes the legally binding international peace treaty we call the Good Friday Agreement.

 

So we can't do that either.

 

That's the corner the Brexit loons have painted themselves into.

They want to be able to shut the borders but not break the GFI.

It can't be done. 

[Francis Albert]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Aye, it was obvious.

But having a hard border contravenes the legally binding international peace treaty we call the Good Friday Agreement.

 

So we can't do that either.

 

That's the corner the Brexit loons have painted themselves into.

They want to be able to shut the borders but not break the GFI.

It can't be done. 

Does it? (Depending on how you define "hard border") Some authors of the agreement seem not to think so. One or two former Irish Prime Ministers seemed not to think so.

The main issue as I see it is that the gunmen and bombers would return to prevent it. A quite justified fear.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

12 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Is it the same as the uk sun? I can't open the link but noticed the .ie in the address.

 

Same ownership. Operates under a different editor. Like the one in Scotland.

Edited September 22, 2018 by JamboX2

[pablo]

 

I was quite interested to hear about the suggestion of technology providing a solution. I work for a company with a global supply chain,  and we are quite close to moving towards a "blockchain" system for moving our goods around the world. 

 

When it would be ready to be scaled up to manage entire cross border trade, I've no idea. 

 

But as I've always suspected, the solutions will come from Business and Technology. Not from some political pantomime.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Pretty sure Churchill was willing to ditch NI to get the Republic on our side before WW2.

Disappointed he failed on that one.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Does it? (Depending on how you define "hard border") Some authors of the agreement seem not to think so. One or two former Irish Prime Ministers seemed not to think so.

The main issue as I see it is that the gunmen and bombers would return to prevent it. A quite justified fear.

And answer there was none.

That is to my question to Cade of whether "having a hard border contravenes the legally binding international peace treaty we call the Good Firiday Agreement"  as he stated was the case.

I googled a bit and (as I have found before) it was strangely difficult to find an answer to what exactly the Good Friday Agreement said about border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland. (for reasons that became apparent when I read it!) There was some waffle about how textual analysis didn't help (but how exactly do you interpret a legally binding international treaty without reference to the text?).

So, especially since this issue  seems to dictate the whole future of the UK's relationship  with the rest of Europe and indeed the world, I printed off the text of the Good Friday Agreement (as available from the Irish PM's office).

in 32 pages I have as yet been unable to find the word "border" let alone any commitments to the absence of any controls at that border. There are few references to "cross-border" as in cooperation or alignment in various areas  but that is a different matter - nothing about the absence of any controls at the border. There is something about best endeavours to reduce security infrastructure but as far as I am aware no-one is suggesting reintroducing army check points on the border.

[Seymour M Hersh]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And answer there was none.

That is to my question to Cade of whether "having a hard border contravenes the legally binding international peace treaty we call the Good Firiday Agreement"  as he stated was the case.

I googled a bit and (as I have found before) it was strangely difficult to find an answer to what exactly the Good Friday Agreement said about border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland. (for reasons that became apparent when I read it!) There was some waffle about how textual analysis didn't help (but how exactly do you interpret a legally binding international treaty without reference to the text?).

So, especially since this issue  seems to dictate the whole future of the UK's relationship  with the rest of Europe and indeed the world, I printed off the text of the Good Friday Agreement (as available from the Irish PM's office).

in 32 pages I have as yet been unable to find the word "border" let alone any commitments to the absence of any controls at that border. There are few references to "cross-border" as in cooperation or alignment in various areas  but that is a different matter - nothing about the absence of any controls at the border. There is something about best endeavours to reduce security infrastructure but as far as I am aware no-one is suggesting reintroducing army check points on the border.

 

How does the EU manage the many borders (both land & sea) they have with non EU countries yet the paddy border problem is insurmountable it would appear? A load of 8ollox would be my bet.

[AlphonseCapone]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And answer there was none.

That is to my question to Cade of whether "having a hard border contravenes the legally binding international peace treaty we call the Good Firiday Agreement"  as he stated was the case.

I googled a bit and (as I have found before) it was strangely difficult to find an answer to what exactly the Good Friday Agreement said about border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland. (for reasons that became apparent when I read it!) There was some waffle about how textual analysis didn't help (but how exactly do you interpret a legally binding international treaty without reference to the text?).

So, especially since this issue  seems to dictate the whole future of the UK's relationship  with the rest of Europe and indeed the world, I printed off the text of the Good Friday Agreement (as available from the Irish PM's office).

in 32 pages I have as yet been unable to find the word "border" let alone any commitments to the absence of any controls at that border. There are few references to "cross-border" as in cooperation or alignment in various areas  but that is a different matter - nothing about the absence of any controls at the border. There is something about best endeavours to reduce security infrastructure but as far as I am aware no-one is suggesting reintroducing army check points on the border.

 

Even ignoring the the legality or not around the GFA, the biggest worry is the return of violence around the border area if we go back to border checks and controls. 

[AlphonseCapone]

10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

How does the EU manage the many borders (both land & sea) they have with non EU countries yet the paddy border problem is insurmountable it would appear? A load of 8ollox would be my bet.

 

Just as easy to type Irish

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Just as easy to type Irish

 

 

Why? Out of respect? Just like the respect they are showing us? 

[AlphonseCapone]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Why? Out of respect? Just like the respect they are showing us? 

 

In what way are they not showing us respect? 

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

In what way are they not showing us respect? 

 

The EU of which Eire is a member have been nothing but disrespectful to the UK. 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Even ignoring the the legality or not around the GFA, the biggest worry is the return of violence around the border area if we go back to border checks and controls. 

Correct. We are being held hostage by the threat of renewed terrorism. Not the terms of the GFA. And EU and Remainers are exploiting that threat.

[Pans Jambo]

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The EU of which Eire is a member have been nothing but disrespectful to the UK. 

 

I think you're being a bit sensitive. They're being tough and sticking to their guns, as are the UK. The only disrespectful thing was Tusk's Instagram stunt which I thought lacked the proper decorum of a leader. 

[Francis Albert]

Our resident expert on Irish constitutional issues is not only ignoring me but advising other posters to ignore me.

 

But surely someone even if not Cade himself who made the claim can point out to where the Good Friday Agreement would be contravened by border controls on the Irish border. A bit of a Remainer mantra even before Cade's post.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

How does the EU manage the many borders (both land & sea) they have with non EU countries yet the paddy border problem is insurmountable it would appear? A load of 8ollox would be my bet.

By "moonbeams" according to those who ridicule the idea that any such management of borders is possible.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

12 hours ago, pablo said:

 

I was quite interested to hear about the suggestion of technology providing a solution. I work for a company with a global supply chain,  and we are quite close to moving towards a "blockchain" system for moving our goods around the world. 

 

When it would be ready to be scaled up to manage entire cross border trade, I've no idea. 

 

But as I've always suspected, the solutions will come from Business and Technology. Not from some political pantomime.

 

As far as the Irish border post-Brexit goes we are talking (in worst case scenarios) about the movement of goods not people. The movement of goods I believe (though you may know better than me) throughout the world is managed by "technical solutions". The great container ports and the major frontiers are not managed by physical barriers and inspections of individual lorries or containers, but by a combination of internet based documentation and the law of probabilities (very infrequent physical inspection).

 

Or "moonbeams" as the Remainers would say.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

How does the EU manage the many borders (both land & sea) they have with non EU countries yet the paddy border problem is insurmountable it would appear? A load of 8ollox would be my bet.

 

There are two primary differences.

 

First, the EU doesn't have to contend with a separate legally binding international treaty with any of its eastern neighbours that depends on an invisible border to be successful.  You can argue against that point if you wish, but the British government has already conceded the point, which is why it committed to producing a plan for a "soft" border by the October Summit - the commitment that it said this week it would not be meeting.

 

Secondly, there are twice as many border crossings on the island of Ireland as there are between the entire EU and its entire eastern flank.  Put simply, the EU manages its eastern borders by making life painfully difficult for people and goods to get through them.  So do the EU's neighbours in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and other countries.  The extent of that work, effort and inconvenience would have to triple.

 

To emphasise the point, the land frontier on this island is 499 kilometres long (310 miles).  It has 275 land crossings.  By comparison, the Poland-Ukraine land frontier is slightly longer (about another 20 miles).  It has 11 crossings, depending on how you count.  Meanwhile, the Finland-Russia border is 1,340 kilometres long (833 miles).  It has 26 crossings.  See the link below for more details.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40949424

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think you're being a bit sensitive. They're being tough and sticking to their guns, as are the UK. The only disrespectful thing was Tusk's Instagram stunt which I thought lacked the proper decorum of a leader. 

 

I thought Tusk's post was a bit daft.  I also think he did it not realising what was going to happen later, but that could be speculation.

 

It seems that the way we are not showing the UK respect is by getting a bit pissed off at the British government making a commitment to do something by the October summit, and then telling the Irish at a bilateral meeting this week - with no forewarning whatsover - that it wouldn't be doing this.

 

The British government has been disrespectful to Ireland, to the EU 27, and to a substantial number of its own citizens in NI.  If those people get a bit irritated in response that isn't really such a big surprise.

[The Mighty Thor]

13 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The EU of which Eire is a member have been nothing but disrespectful to the UK. 

 

Oh my god. How rude. We should tell them to ram their club and leave.

 

12 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Correct. We are being held hostage by the threat of renewed terrorism. Not the terms of the GFA. And EU and Remainers are exploiting that threat.

 

Correct. We are holding the revolver to our own temple and if someone else can't come up with a plan to sort out our own mess then we'll pull the trigger.

 

You pair a double act?

[Cade]

Was it respectful to invoke Article 50 without having an exit plan?

Has it been respectful to leave the EU27 hanging for 18 months without a negotiating strategy in place?

Has it been respectful to attempt to lobby individual EU members instead of dealing with the Brexit negotiators?
Has it been respectful to blame Ireland for the mess we've made?

Has it been respectful to come up with a series of contradictory red lines and refuse to budge a single inch, no matter how insane and impossible those red lines are, due to them contradicting each other?

Has it been respectful to threaten to withhold  legally binding future payments to EU projects in a ridiculous attempt at petty blackmail?

Has it been respectful to use EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips?

 

The UK is an international laughing stock.

Nobody else did that.

We did that to ourselves.

[Francis Albert]

The irony is that the core of the  Good Friday Agreement is a commitment to a binding referendum. If (demographically it is really a question of when) the people of Northern Ireland vote in a referendum to leave the UK the UK Government is obliged forthwith to enact legislation in Westminster to deliver Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. No ifs buts or maybes. No argument that say 52% isn't a big enough majority for such an important decision.  No argument people were lied to during the campaign or didn't know what they were voting for, no option for a second "peoples vote", or claim that  that they were voting for a  "soft Leave".

Yet this agreement is portrayed as the major obstacle to implementing the result of the Brexit referendum.

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

28 minutes ago, Cade said:

Was it respectful to invoke Article 50 without having an exit plan?

Has it been respectful to leave the EU27 hanging for 18 months without a negotiating strategy in place?

Has it been respectful to attempt to lobby individual EU members instead of dealing with the Brexit negotiators?
Has it been respectful to blame Ireland for the mess we've made?

Has it been respectful to come up with a series of contradictory red lines and refuse to budge a single inch, no matter how insane and impossible those red lines are, due to them contradicting each other?

Has it been respectful to threaten to withhold  legally binding future payments to EU projects in a ridiculous attempt at petty blackmail?

Has it been respectful to use EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips?

 

The UK is an international laughing stock.

Nobody else did that.

We did that to ourselves.

Cade. Can you help me out by telling us what provisions of the Good Friday Agreement mean (as you stated unequivocally) that controls on the Irish border would contravene this "leally binding international peace treaty".

[frankblack]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Was it respectful to invoke Article 50 without having an exit plan?

Has it been respectful to leave the EU27 hanging for 18 months without a negotiating strategy in place?

Has it been respectful to attempt to lobby individual EU members instead of dealing with the Brexit negotiators?
Has it been respectful to blame Ireland for the mess we've made?

Has it been respectful to come up with a series of contradictory red lines and refuse to budge a single inch, no matter how insane and impossible those red lines are, due to them contradicting each other?

Has it been respectful to threaten to withhold  legally binding future payments to EU projects in a ridiculous attempt at petty blackmail?

Has it been respectful to use EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips?

 

The UK is an international laughing stock.

Nobody else did that.

We did that to ourselves.

 

Despite your long list you only make a couple of points worth debating while losing your shit completely.

 

It would have been disrespectful to the UK electorate not to start the leave process.  Everything else is subject to negotiatiion so you need numerous plans to cover all outcomes.

 

Who is blaming Ireland or NI? Other than randoms on internet forums.

 

You really don't get what negotiations mean, do you? Business deals involve both sides pushing for the best deal for their interests until common ground is found.

 

As for legally-binding future payments - was this not subject to a deal being concluded?  If not, why could the EU not provide a complete figure from their fully audited accounts?

 

Your point about the use of EU citizens in the UK as bargaining chips is flawed and fails to consider the reverse situation.

 

Next time try not to lose your shit as you have lost any perspective here.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Was it respectful to invoke Article 50 without having an exit plan?

Has it been respectful to leave the EU27 hanging for 18 months without a negotiating strategy in place?

Has it been respectful to attempt to lobby individual EU members instead of dealing with the Brexit negotiators?
Has it been respectful to blame Ireland for the mess we've made?

Has it been respectful to come up with a series of contradictory red lines and refuse to budge a single inch, no matter how insane and impossible those red lines are, due to them contradicting each other?

Has it been respectful to threaten to withhold  legally binding future payments to EU projects in a ridiculous attempt at petty blackmail?

Has it been respectful to use EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips?

 

The UK is an international laughing stock.

Nobody else did that.

We did that to ourselves.

Good post.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Good post.

 

It's a crock of shit as pointed out by frank black. 

[maroonlegions]

The hard right say Labour under Corbyn will drag us back to the 1970s.

 

Well the Tories will drag us back to the 1800s . NO welfare and no NHS.

 

This is the  man Theresa May has put in charge of handling your/our  Brexit, he  literally thinks workhouses should return to the UK and the NHS should be sold off to billionaires.
 

Brexit is a stitch up, sold on lies and promises , promises that never would come to fruition . Brexit is for one class of people and one class only the very wealthy  May and her reptiles want to turn the UK into a private  sweat shop , were the EU workers protections of working conditions , pay and contracts that are protected  by being IN the EU can be ripped up. This to me is why May is so determined  to try and flog her Brexit dead horse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

13 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It's a crock of shit as pointed out by frank black. 

Tory???

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

The hard right say Labour under Corbyn will drag us back to the 1970s.

 

Well the Tories will drag us back to the 1800s . NO welfare and no NHS.

 

This is the  man Theresa May has put in charge of handling your/our  Brexit, he  literally thinks workhouses should return to the UK and the NHS should be sold off to billionaires.
 

Brexit is a stitch up, sold on lies and promises that never were. Brexit is for one class of people and one class only the very wealthy  May and her reptiles want to turn the UK into a private  sweat shop , were the EU workers protections of working conditions , pay and contracts that are protected  by being IN the EU can be ripped up. This to me is why May is so determined  to try and flog her Brexit dead horse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did May support Remain in the referendum campaign?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Tory???

 

If that pathetic attempt at a put down was aimed at me, it backfired as I'm not a "Tory".

 

Please stay away from this thread as we could do without your irrelevant copy and paste spamming from socialist social media sites.

[Seymour M Hersh]

10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If that pathetic attempt at a put down was aimed at me, it backfired as I'm not a "Tory".

 

Please stay away from this thread as we could do without your irrelevant copy and paste spamming from socialist social media sites.

 

Booom!! 

[Francis Albert]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

There are two primary differences.

 

First, the EU doesn't have to contend with a separate legally binding international treaty with any of its eastern neighbours that depends on an invisible border to be successful.  You can argue against that point if you wish, but the British government has already conceded the point, which is why it committed to producing a plan for a "soft" border by the October Summit - the commitment that it said this week it would not be meeting.

 

Secondly, there are twice as many border crossings on the island of Ireland as there are between the entire EU and its entire eastern flank.  Put simply, the EU manages its eastern borders by making life painfully difficult for people and goods to get through them.  So do the EU's neighbours in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and other countries.  The extent of that work, effort and inconvenience would have to triple.

 

To emphasise the point, the land frontier on this island is 499 kilometres long (310 miles).  It has 275 land crossings.  By comparison, the Poland-Ukraine land frontier is slightly longer (about another 20 miles).  It has 11 crossings, depending on how you count.  Meanwhile, the Finland-Russia border is 1,340 kilometres long (833 miles).  It has 26 crossings.  See the link below for more details.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40949424

The sweet and reasonable voice of Uly is always welcome.

But not all he says is unchallengable. First the contention that the GFA depends on an invisible border. It is odd in that case that agreement doesn't mention the border, especially since it was not long (20 years or so) since that the UK had a referendum on its EU membership.

Then he says it doesn't matter becausethe UK has accepted the need for the border to be invisible. It hasn't. It simply and stupidly accepted the EU precondition of even beginning the discussing the terms of Brexit of the fall back of dismembering the UK. The EU has shown no sign of moving from that position. After all how better to "decourager les autres"

And of course there would be no need to monitor anything like all 275 land crossings to monitor in a not very visible way the flow of goods across the border.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It's a crock of shit as pointed out by frank black. 

Your reply is a crock of shit.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

[edited so as not to repeat inaccuracy]

 

 

I've told you before, and I'll tell you again.

 

You are not worth taking seriously, which is why I don't, and I am pleased to see that some others are seeing right through you as well.  By the way, I wasn't the first, more's the pity, so I'm not claiming any special insights in that regard.

 

The reason you are beneath taking seriously is because of your incapacity for honest debate.  When you've had your sorry pathetic arse handed to you on a plate as often as you have on this forum, the only way you can hope to keep an argument going is by misrepresenting yourself, misrepresenting the facts or misrepresenting what someone else has said.

 

The above post is another example of that.  If you can't or won't bother trying to engage with what's been said rather than what you want to pretend has been said, there is no good reason for decent and rational people to respond to your witless dribbling guff. 

 

That's the last piece of nonsensical attention-seeking drivel of yours that I'm going to dignify with a response.

[Ulysses]

30 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Your reply is a crock of shit.

 

All our replies are crocks of shit, actually. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

All our replies are crocks of shit, actually. 

[Ulysses]

Corbyn says he would back a second referendum if supported by the Labour party conference.

 

John McDonnell says he fears a second referendum would stoke racial tensions and populism.

 

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0923/995516-corbyn-says-he-would-support-second-brexit-referendum/

 

 

Len McCluskey, Unite General Secretary, says that the union supports a vote on a Brexit deal, but does not support a referendum option to reverse the original decision to leave.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-options-choice-exclude-remain-eu-len-mccluskey-labour-a8551086.html

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

 

 

It's true, though. 

 

EU Leader Quits Following JKB No-Confidence Poll

 

said no media headline ever. 

 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Corbyn says he would back a second referendum if supported by the Labour party conference.

 

John McDonnell says he fears a second referendum would stoke racial tensions and populism.

 

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0923/995516-corbyn-says-he-would-support-second-brexit-referendum/

 

 

Len McCluskey, Unite General Secretary, says that the union supports a vote on a Brexit deal, but does not support a referendum option to reverse the original decision to leave.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-options-choice-exclude-remain-eu-len-mccluskey-labour-a8551086.html

In summary. Labour party all over the place re EU. No different from the Tories. Quelle surprise. Not.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

In summary. Labour party all over the place re EU. No different from the Tories. Quelle surprise. Not.

 

Yep.  Characterising this as a Tory issue might be entertaining or politically expedient (and I'd take my fair share of blame for finding it entertaining), but it's not an accurate reflection of the reality.

 

Brexit got the go-ahead from a lot of Labour supporters as well as Conservative voters.  I still maintain that putting a deal to a vote is a sensible idea (if a deal were to be agreed), but Brexit shouldn't be reversed. 

 

Britain's problem is that it knows what it doesn't want, but doesn't really know what it wants.  The UK should exit, thereby satisfying the democratic mandate to leave.  But the UK should exit with a closer relationship with the EU than any other non-EU country on the planet, thereby meeting the wishes of the almost half the voters who voted not to leave.  Squaring that circle is not easy for either the UK or the EU 27.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I've told you before, and I'll tell you again.

 

You are not worth taking seriously, which is why I don't, and I am pleased to see that some others are seeing right through you as well.  By the way, I wasn't the first, more's the pity, so I'm not claiming any special insights in that regard.

 

The reason you are beneath taking seriously is because of your incapacity for honest debate.  When you've had your sorry pathetic arse handed to you on a plate as often as you have on this forum, the only way you can hope to keep an argument going is by misrepresenting yourself, misrepresenting the facts or misrepresenting what someone else has said.

 

The above post is another example of that.  If you can't or won't bother trying to engage with what's been said rather than what you want to pretend has been said, there is no good reason for decent and rational people to respond to your witless dribbling guff. 

 

That's the last piece of nonsensical attention-seeking drivel of yours that I'm going to dignify with a response.

So you keep saying. I will continue to express my views while trying as far as I can to avoid personal abuse. Chrers.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[John Findlay]

36 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Yep.  Characterising this as a Tory issue might be entertaining or politically expedient (and I'd take my fair share of blame for finding it entertaining), but it's not an accurate reflection of the reality.

 

Brexit got the go-ahead from a lot of Labour supporters as well as Conservative voters.  I still maintain that putting a deal to a vote is a sensible idea (if a deal were to be agreed), but Brexit shouldn't be reversed. 

 

Britain's problem is that it knows what it doesn't want, but doesn't really know what it wants.  The UK should exit, thereby satisfying the democratic mandate to leave.  But the UK should exit with a closer relationship with the EU than any other non-EU country on the planet, thereby meeting the wishes of the almost half the voters who voted not to leave.  Squaring that circle is not easy for either the UK or the EU 27.

As I said from the start alot of horse trading to be done.

[Francis Albert]

Nearly 10 minutes into the BBC news about the possibilty of a second Brexit vote before the obvious issue of what exactly would be the question is mentioned. Quite bizarre.

 

[Dunks]

We should first hold a referendum on the question

 

[Ulysses]

22 minutes ago, Dunks said:

We should first hold a referendum on the question

 

 

To deal, or not to deal, that is the question. 

[Francis Albert]

Two "binary" questions have been mooted for another "Peoples Vote". They are very different questions with very different outcomes so it would be good if proponents of such a vote were clearer (dare I say more honest) about what they mean.

 

The wording of the (incidentally quite extraordinary) Labour Party Conference resolution agreed at last night's marathon session seems,  by firmly ruling out a no deal Brexit, to contemplate (as a fall back if they don't get a General Election) one question - a choice between accepting a deal  or retaining our EU membership as is ie on current terms This is I think the preferred question of Remainers, as argued for example by the Observer at length on the last weekend but one.

 

The alternative question would offer a choice been accepting a deal or leaving without a deal and is I think the preference (if a second referendum has to held)  of most Brexiteers who see it as being more consistent with and respectful of the first "Peoples Vote" to leave.

 

Without addressing what the question being talked about is, any discussion or banner waving demonstration is pretty meaningless.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Francis Albert

[frankblack]

50 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Two "binary" questions have been mooted for another "Peoples Vote". They are very different questions with very different outcomes so it would be good if proponents of such a vote were clearer (dare I say more honest) about what they mean.

 

The wording of the (incidentally quite extraordinary) Labour Party Conference resolution agreed at last night's marathon session seems,  by firmly ruling out a no deal Brexit, to contemplate (as a fall back if they don't get a General Election) one question - a choice between accepting a deal  or retaining our EU membership as is ie on current terms This is I think the preferred question of Remainers, as argued for example by the Observer at length on the last weekend but one.

 

The alternative question would offer a choice been accepting a deal or leaving without a deal and is I think the preference (if a second referendum has to held)  of most Brexiteers who see it as being more consistent with and respectful of the first "Peoples Vote" to leave.

 

Without addressing what the question being talked about is, any discussion or banner waving demonstration is pretty meaningless.

 

One of those proposed referendums I mentioned earlier had effectively two leave options and one remain option, which basically took the British public for mugs as the Leave vote would clearly be split letting Remain win comfortably.

 

I suspect if Labour do change their position and call for a new referendum with a Remain option then a sizeable chunk of their support will desert them at the next general election.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

51 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

One of those proposed referendums I mentioned earlier had effectively two leave options and one remain option, which basically took the British public for mugs as the Leave vote would clearly be split letting Remain win comfortably.

 

I suspect if Labour do change their position and call for a new referendum with a Remain option then a sizeable chunk of their support will desert them at the next general election.

 

Seen an excerpt on TV this morning of a speech David Lammy MP gave at a rally yesterday, in which he said that whatever the options on the ballot paper were, there had to be an option to stay in the EU, and he's not the only one saying this, as I've heard many MP's and campaigners say the same or similar things, yet this so called 'people's vote' nonsense started life supposing to be about voting for or rejecting the deal, not about staying in the EU, but there is little surprise that's it's morphed into more about staying in the EU, which was the intention of these campaigners all along.

 

Rachel Johnson (Boris' sister) who is as staunch pro-EU as you'll get, launched a 'Woman's People's Vote' campaign a month or so ago, and she was interviewed on Sky News by Adam Boulton about it and he asked her what would be the questions she'd want to see on the ballot paper, she replied thus.

 

1. To accept the deal on the table.

2. To reject the deal and go back and re-negotiate it.

3. Stay in the EU.

 

Boulton asked her about question 2, and what if you go back to the EU and they say, 'that's the deal on offer take it or leave it' he said what do you do then, she replied along the lines of 'well we'd just stay in the EU then if we couldn't renegotiate the deal', Boulton pointed out that that's not what is on the ballot paper and it's not what people would have voted for because people would have voted to go back and renegotiate, not stay in the EU, her reply to that, total silence, he then went on asked her about question 1 and if she'd accept the result if the British public voted to accept the deal and thus leave the EU anyway, her reply to that was to say something like 'It would depend upon the percentage that they won by', this time it was Boultion who just stared at her but the look on his face said it all.

 

As you say the remoaners want an option to stay in the EU on the ballot paper, well imo if there ever was a new vote about this it should be a straight yes or no to accept the deal (if there is a deal that is) and have nothing to do about staying in the EU, as the British public have been asked that question already, but if there was an option to stay in the EU there then has to also be an option to still leave the EU regardless, but then as I've said before this whole second referendum thing opens up one almightly can of worms.