How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)

[Elysium]

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.

Well, given that every post you've made in these threads is on the basis that regardless of the question the answer is a Second Referendum, your response comes as no surprise.

I note that your unchanging call for a second referendum never depended on a deal being available, but is now upgraded to a 'confirmatory vote'. Hmmm...

Rather than go through your response disagreeing with your assertions (you blandly proclaim that Remain vs. Boris Deal is an acceptable question despite the many arguments from many different factions over what question can be taken to the public), I'll just say your opinion is yours, not mine

And the core problem with your final statement (above) is that you're asking the 'ignorant', 'xenophobic', 'biased' public to make a technical decision - not on an actual final trade agreement with the EU, but on the terms under which that trade agreement will be made. Most people can't even understand that this is not 'the deal' - it's not even heads of terms for a trade agreement - and you want people to vote on it? How is that meaningful?

The first part of your response is untrue and unfair.

I argued some months ago for a three way referendum between remain, no deal and Mays deal. I favoured that because it included all the leave options available and the option for the electorate to decide that neither of these were Brexit.

I still think that was a fair and open way of letting the voters decide what to do in response to the 2016 vote. It also seemed to me that it was the only way to give no deal a real chance as it is a step into the unknown, which a responsible parliament should not countenance, but which the electorate could specifically mandate.

Those leave options have fallen away and the only realistic way to exit is now the Johnson deal.

That is why that must be the question. I don’t like it, but that is where we are.

To your final point, we trusted the electorate with the decision that got us into this situation and we should trust them to get us out of it. They may not understand all of the issues, but that is how democracy works and it is no different to the way people decide their vote in an election.

[Murph7355]

Elysium said:

...
Those leave options have fallen away and the only realistic way to exit is now the Johnson deal....

No they haven't.

"No deal" has only "fallen away" because of Parliamentary idiocy. It remains the default in law. The likes of Benn and Grieve are keen for people to forget this despite Parliament having had plenty of opportunity to change that position.

If there is ever to be a second referendum, there is no reason whatsoever why it should not be given as a choice. There's far more logic to its inclusion than including remain on any paper.

You also still fail to explain why it would solve anything, and what you expect to happen in terms of each possible outcome.

[Digga]

Elysium said:

we trusted the electorate with the decision that got us into this situation and we should trust them to get us out of it...

By a very long measure, that is the most mental thing you have ever said on here.

It's got to be right up there with being the most mental thing on the thread, full stop. You cannot possibly believe that, not matter how much you want to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum.

[Tuna]

Elysium said:

The first part of your response is untrue and unfair.

Genuinely, I'm sorry if it came across badly. Up late at night with family stuff, so my writing was somewhat abrupt.

Elysium said:

I argued some months ago for a three way referendum between remain, no deal and Mays deal. I favoured that because it included all the leave options available and the option for the electorate to decide that neither of these were Brexit.

I still think that was a fair and open way of letting the voters decide what to do in response to the 2016 vote. It also seemed to me that it was the only way to give no deal a real chance as it is a step into the unknown, which a responsible parliament should not countenance, but which the electorate could specifically mandate.

Those leave options have fallen away and the only realistic way to exit is now the Johnson deal.

I don't think that's true. The only reason No Deal was 'off the table' was that the Benn bill specifically stopped it from being 'accidentally' forced through by the tight schedule the government chose.

If we commit to a Second Ref, there would be plenty of time to prepare and agree a No Deal exit, so why remove it from the options?

Elysium said:

That is why that must be the question. I don’t like it, but that is where we are.

To your final point, we trusted the electorate with the decision that got us into this situation and we should trust them to get us out of it. They may not understand all of the issues, but that is how democracy works and it is no different to the way people decide their vote in an election.

The point is simple - if you want a Second Referendum on what is effectively an implementation detail of getting our final relationship with the EU, then you are surely going to require a Third Referendum when any/part of the final trade agreement is negotiated. Why didn't we have a Referendum over the Benn act forcing an extension? If the trade arrangement is agreed in parts (reasonably likely) surely we need a Referendum on each part?

You are asking people to vote without knowing what the final agreement will be. Deliberately or otherwise, you've chosen a point where it's hardest to articulate a Leave case (we can't even guarantee what government will end up negotiating the final agreement). And then you suggest that this specific point is the 'fairest' to force the public to make a decision. That doesn't hold water.

The confusion point is not about the incapability of the electorate - it's about the lack of meaning of a vote at this stage - we might as well have a vote on what biscuits they have at the negotiating table.

Edited by Tuna on Wednesday 23 October 08:13

[ChevyChase77]

majordad said:

The UK made a mistake three years ago, now needs to correct it with a second referendum.

Agreed. We should have just left as quickly as possible with no deal. Disagreed on the 2nd ref though.

[ClaphamGT3]

OzzyR1 said:

Who thinks that Boris has secured enough votes for a Tory majority in the event of an election?

He has to persuade a load of Brexit Party voters to get behind him rather than Farage, and perhaps more difficult, persuade people who would normally vote for a dog if it had a red rosette on to vote Conservative rather than the Brexit Party.

Interesting times ahead.

CCO predictions have run at a fairly consistent 280-310 Tory seats at the next election, with them as the largest party. The only scenario that has pushed them comfortably into majority territory has been leaving with a deal on 31.10. This has been used to massively strong-arm Tory MPs and the former Tory rebels into supporting the bill. It clearly wasn’t enough to persuade them to endorse Rees-Mogg’s idiotic timetable for scrutiny of it. That was the logic behind Ken Clarke’s points of order after the timetable vote last night

[CrutyRammers]

bhstewie said:

Would you commit not to amend something you haven't read and don't yet fully understand?
.

I remember well the then minister for Europe admitting during the debate on the Lisbon treaty that she hadn't read it.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

Would you commit not to amend something you haven't read and don't yet fully understand?

Agree that in some cases there's clearly no intention of voting for it through and presumably those people didn't vote for it.

I'm "the electorate" just as much as people who voted to leave are and I don't want what may be a poor piece of legislation passed in a rush just to meet Boris's self-imposed deadlines.

That damages us all.

It's 100 pages, no? And the bulk of it is the May deal which had plenty of reading time already.

Getting it read and raising constructive points should be a piece of piss in 3 days. They have nothing else that should be a higher priority...

...IF the intent was to want to actually get this phase done with.

But now it seems Corbyn and his cronies seem to want something written down that binds future governments. Which is an interesting angle.

Boris has stood in the Commons and told MPs that this is not May's deal, it's a brand new and different deal.

But they should read it in 3 days because it's mostly May's deal?

Let me be clear, I agree entirely that there's a large element of "delay" in there.

But doing things to delay and also pointing out that 3 days really isn't being long enough for them to do their due diligence aren't mutually exclusive.

This bill shapes our country for decades.

[psi310398]

CrutyRammers said:

bhstewie said:

Would you commit not to amend something you haven't read and don't yet fully understand?
.

I remember well the then minister for Europe admitting during the debate on the Lisbon treaty that she hadn't read it.

Didn't Ken Clarke say exactly this about the Maastricht Treaty?

[NoNeed]

bhstewie said:

This bill shapes our country for decades.

I thought it only shaped the country temporarily until a new arrangement is in place.

[Blackpuddin]

exelero said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

A busy evening for you guys.

How much has the Government wasted on it's 31st October adverts though?

And they won’t give up, they’re still everywhere

They couldn't not do them though, when you think about it.

[bitchstewie]

NoNeed said:

bhstewie said:

This bill shapes our country for decades.

I thought it only shaped the country temporarily until a new arrangement is in place.

Yes that's true, but in so much as it's the start of "get Brexit done".

[CambsBill]

psi310398 said:

CrutyRammers said:

bhstewie said:

Would you commit not to amend something you haven't read and don't yet fully understand?
.

I remember well the then minister for Europe admitting during the debate on the Lisbon treaty that she hadn't read it.

Didn't Ken Clarke say exactly this about the Maastricht Treaty?

And of course Corbyn rejected the latest document before he'd even seen it, never mind read or, perish the thought, understood it

[page3]

mx5nut said:

page3 said:

mx5nut said:

Has Boris managed to deliver on any of his threats without being utterly humiliated first?

Is he really the best you could do, Brexiters?

Some of us are remainers who simply want to see democracy abided by - that's leave in case of any doubt.

Putting somebody so incompetent in charge is a strange way to get anything done.

If he hadn't sabotaged "his" deal when TM brought it to the HOC, we might be out already.

it is a different deal.

[anonymous-user]

Its pretty obvious the delay will be used to apply wrecking amendments which will make the WA invalid.

[Tankrizzo]

jsf said:

Its pretty obvious the delay will be used to apply wrecking amendments which will make the WA invalid.

That's my thinking, although whether Starmer would get enough votes for his stupid confirmatory vote amendment remains to be seen.

[Mrr T]

NoNeed said:

bhstewie said:

This bill shapes our country for decades.

I thought it only shaped the country temporarily until a new arrangement is in place.

The bill contains significant clauses related to those new arrangement. So yes this bill is likely the most important for the future direction of the UK for decades.

[Blackpuddin]

You do wonder if Starmer and Corbyn have really thought any of this through, and in particular the 'confirmatory vote'.

[DeepEnd]

Elysium said:

The first part of your response is untrue and unfair.

I argued some months ago for a three way referendum between remain, no deal and Mays deal. I favoured that because it included all the leave options available and the option for the electorate to decide that neither of these were Brexit.

I still think that was a fair and open way of letting the voters decide what to do in response to the 2016 vote. It also seemed to me that it was the only way to give no deal a real chance as it is a step into the unknown, which a responsible parliament should not countenance, but which the electorate could specifically mandate.

Those leave options have fallen away and the only realistic way to exit is now the Johnson deal.

That is why that must be the question. I don’t like it, but that is where we are.

To your final point, we trusted the electorate with the decision that got us into this situation and we should trust them to get us out of it. They may not understand all of the issues, but that is how democracy works and it is no different to the way people decide their vote in an election.

It’s interesting to note that the basis of a 2nd ref is much clearer now than it was in March.

Now we have full fat brexiter excellent deal to set against remain.

The MPs were right not to push for a peoples vote too early.

Agree the people have to get us out of this. How can anyone saying the vote must be respected argue against this?

Amusing ti see the argument that we don’t understand brexit as well as we did in 2016 or as we will do in 2022 when we get a deal (?) and hence not fair to ask now.

[Digga]

Just a consideration; delays to Brexit are hitting UK GDP to the tune of £525m per week.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/17/ec...

Given we have decided, in a referendum, in 2016, to leave the EU and that we now have a (transition) deal, delay is foolish and destructive.