How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
mattmurdock said:
I figured a silly question deserved a silly answer. It maybe be that the role is currently treated as symbolic, but as head of state the Queen or her representatives must provide royal assent before a bill can become law in all the Commonwealth countries with parliamentary democracies. That assent has not been withheld since 1707 anywhere does not preclude it happening in the future, regardless of the constitutional crisis that may trigger.
All this hyperbole about sovereignty is ridiculous, as we have been an independent nation with parliamentary sovereignty the entire time we have been members of the EU.
The Commonwealth realms yes, about a third of commonwealth countries.All this hyperbole about sovereignty is ridiculous, as we have been an independent nation with parliamentary sovereignty the entire time we have been members of the EU.
1936 in Alberta was the last time according to wiki.
But yes I quite agree with your last paragraph.
wc98 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who are "the real crazies" and who is going to elect them? You sound almost apoplectic about the current MPs so who are you going to vote for at the next election if Brexit is cancelled (I assume you mean cancelled rather than fudged in some way that you personally don't particularly like)? UKIP have had the sum total of one MP elected (in atypical circumstances) - are they the "real crazies"?
Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
take a look at some of the people being elected across various european parliaments . afd in germany for example,pvv in holland and lega nord in italy. do you really think there would be no new parties springing up in response to a uk government overturning the result of a democratic vote ,everyone will just go back to voting for a red or blue rosette ? if so i believe another forum member has a beach front property in birmingham you might be interested in.Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
djc206 said:
The Commonwealth realms yes, about a third of commonwealth countries.
1936 in Alberta was the last time according to wiki.
But yes I quite agree with your last paragraph.
Fair point, I should have been clearer that I meant Commonwealth countries without parliamentary republics (or different monarchs). That should teach me to stop being vague in my pedantry.1936 in Alberta was the last time according to wiki.
But yes I quite agree with your last paragraph.
Technically 1707 was the last time it was actually withheld, Alberta was a threat to withhold (with other options provided) and the government chose one of those options (review by Supreme Court) which led to the act being found unconstitutional.
But that is just nitpicking
.FiF said:
As earlier, I'm resigned to not being able to influence anything pretty much, seeing what happens, and then looking at faces when whatever hasn't gone the way whoever wanted it to. Then have a nice refreshing cup of Assam, and get on with getting on regardless, just like so on many other occasions over the decades. People may consider that defeatist and it consequently cheers them up. More fool them, British public very unforgiving generally if feeling they've been had for mugs.
Agree with all of this. You just have to be pragmatic about the whole thing. My natural pragmatism does not like the EU, but is prepared to accept that the weak an useless government we have may well be more minded to Remain than Leave.Starmer is a bit of a soppy muppet, but is, at least, consistent in his attempts to de-rail Brexit.
However, the last bit of FiF's post (my bold) is key; politics will no longer have the slightest shred of goodwill from anyone who voted leave and feel betrayed. Now personally, I am on the fence on that one - I never believed in politics or politicians too much anyway - but I'm realistic. Many are not and will be severely disenfranchised. There are worse places than UKIP waiting for their votes.
BBC literally using the phrase "despite Brexit"!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47399500
Proof imo that Brexit is a short term blip to long term success.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47399500
Proof imo that Brexit is a short term blip to long term success.
John145 said:
BBC literally using the phrase "despite Brexit"!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47399500
Proof imo that Brexit is a short term blip to long term success.
Brexit is terrible. Everyone who is clever knows this.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47399500
Proof imo that Brexit is a short term blip to long term success.
Money floods in from clearly very stupid Norwegian billionaire plonkers.
So, is that "despite Brexit' or "because Brexit"?
FiF said:
Murph7355 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
So if in a second referendum the electorate vote to remain the Conservatives will align themselves with the minority position in the next GE campaign? (A) Why campaign on something that has just been settled? (B) When the majority of Conservative MPs are pro-Remain why would they be going to a pro-Remain electorate with a Leave manifesto?
In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
You assume a remain win would be decisive. As does everyone else wanting a second vote and/or for the original result to be overturmed. In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
Look to 1992/3 for what will happen.
There will be no properly decisive win. The chances of it are tiny in the circumstances - and by decisive I mean bigger turn out than last time and a remain %age of 75%+
The Tories will be dead as a party if the result is overturned. But my view would be that a reincarnation of UKIP will happen from what was the ERG and others.
Labour are already the walking dead IMO. But its heartland voters are unlikely to thank them for where Labour are currently landing, and the Momentum NUS wing will not carry them.
So we have shattered traditional parties and, I would guess, a lot more independent tickets. Parliament would look very different, but the ERG would be in the bin in name only IMO. Controlling the house might need a much smaller number of seats than ever before...
People like Starmer must either think a huge remain majority is possible/inevitable from the masses, or that the smallest majority would be OK and that there would be no fallout from that. I also think he continues to find it impossible to imagine leave would win again. In many areas he strikes me as intelligent. On this, I think he's a blinkered fool.
As earlier, I'm resigned to not being able to influence anything pretty much, seeing what happens, and then looking at faces when whatever hasn't gone the way whoever wanted it to. Then have a nice refreshing cup of Assam, and get on with getting on regardless, just like so on many other occasions over the decades. People may consider that defeatist and it consequently cheers them up. More fool them, British public very unforgiving generally if feeling they've been had for mugs.
The Remain cause was based around terrible economic consequences, and that was effective to a reasonable degree.
The experience since then has been mainly positive, in some major cases extremely positive (employment) - so how many 'heart says leave, but head says remain' voters from 2016 are going to remain convinced by those threats of doom now they've largely dissolved?
The fairly evenly balanced set of considerations from 2016 has tipped Leave's way, IMO, now that the economic case has not been shown at all accurate. And Leave II campaigning on that angle will be easily digested and persuasive.
And that's before the 'they took us for mugs once, don't let them do it again' argument is made. Fair-play Britain, the Britain who likes standing in queues, will see straight through the 'extra democracy' argument.
Even if I was a Remainer, I'd rather be arguing the Leave case the second time round, it's got a lot of powerful campaign notes to hit now.
Murph7355 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
So if in a second referendum the electorate vote to remain the Conservatives will align themselves with the minority position in the next GE campaign? (A) Why campaign on something that has just been settled? (B) When the majority of Conservative MPs are pro-Remain why would they be going to a pro-Remain electorate with a Leave manifesto?
In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
You assume a remain win would be decisive. As does everyone else wanting a second vote and/or for the original result to be overturmed. In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
Look to 1992/3 for what will happen.
There will be no properly decisive win. The chances of it are tiny in the circumstances - and by decisive I mean bigger turn out than last time and a remain %age of 75%+
The Tories will be dead as a party if the result is overturned. But my view would be that a reincarnation of UKIP will happen from what was the ERG and others.
Labour are already the walking dead IMO. But its heartland voters are unlikely to thank them for where Labour are currently landing, and the Momentum NUS wing will not carry them.
So we have shattered traditional parties and, I would guess, a lot more independent tickets. Parliament would look very different, but the ERG would be in the bin in name only IMO. Controlling the house might need a much smaller number of seats than ever before...
People like Starmer must either think a huge remain majority is possible/inevitable from the masses, or that the smallest majority would be OK and that there would be no fallout from that. I also think he continues to find it impossible to imagine leave would win again. In many areas he strikes me as intelligent. On this, I think he's a blinkered fool.
Your opinion that there needs to be at least 3 times as many Remain voters as Leave voters for the result to be called decisive is nonsense.
Roman Rhodes said:
Just to be clear, I don’t have a view whether Leave or Remain would win a second referendum, I was merely questioning the strategy of a party consisting of mainly Remain MPs campaigning against a Remain electorate at a GE.
Your opinion that there needs to be at least 3 times as many Remain voters as Leave voters for the result to be called decisive is nonsense.
There's no realistic number you can give, which might actually happen, which wouldn't make the first result look similarly conclusive.Your opinion that there needs to be at least 3 times as many Remain voters as Leave voters for the result to be called decisive is nonsense.
My honest opinion is a move to Leave of 2-3% from the first referendum. So, would you say 55:45 is conclusive, where 52:48 wasn't? Hard to make that argument, IMO.
I don't think there's any chance that either side can get to a nice round 60%. Not that '60' means anything apart from being a round number.
50% +1 works. That's what the Remain campaign set it at, after all.
Roman Rhodes said:
Murph7355 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
So if in a second referendum the electorate vote to remain the Conservatives will align themselves with the minority position in the next GE campaign? (A) Why campaign on something that has just been settled? (B) When the majority of Conservative MPs are pro-Remain why would they be going to a pro-Remain electorate with a Leave manifesto?
In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
You assume a remain win would be decisive. As does everyone else wanting a second vote and/or for the original result to be overturmed. In the event of a second referendum and a Remain win there would be a purge in the Conservative party with the ERG consigned to the dustbin of history.
Look to 1992/3 for what will happen.
There will be no properly decisive win. The chances of it are tiny in the circumstances - and by decisive I mean bigger turn out than last time and a remain %age of 75%+
The Tories will be dead as a party if the result is overturned. But my view would be that a reincarnation of UKIP will happen from what was the ERG and others.
Labour are already the walking dead IMO. But its heartland voters are unlikely to thank them for where Labour are currently landing, and the Momentum NUS wing will not carry them.
So we have shattered traditional parties and, I would guess, a lot more independent tickets. Parliament would look very different, but the ERG would be in the bin in name only IMO. Controlling the house might need a much smaller number of seats than ever before...
People like Starmer must either think a huge remain majority is possible/inevitable from the masses, or that the smallest majority would be OK and that there would be no fallout from that. I also think he continues to find it impossible to imagine leave would win again. In many areas he strikes me as intelligent. On this, I think he's a blinkered fool.
Your opinion that there needs to be at least 3 times as many Remain voters as Leave voters for the result to be called decisive is nonsense.
A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
SpeckledJim said:
Remain's confidence in a win is odd.
The Remain cause was based around terrible economic consequences, and that was effective to a reasonable degree.
The experience since then has been mainly positive, in some major cases extremely positive (employment) - so how many 'heart says leave, but head says remain' voters from 2016 are going to remain convinced by those threats of doom now they've largely dissolved?
The fairly evenly balanced set of considerations from 2016 has tipped Leave's way, IMO, now that the economic case has not been shown at all accurate. And Leave II campaigning on that angle will be easily digested and persuasive.
And that's before the 'they took us for mugs once, don't let them do it again' argument is made. Fair-play Britain, the Britain who likes standing in queues, will see straight through the 'extra democracy' argument.
Even if I was a Remainer, I'd rather be arguing the Leave case the second time round, it's got a lot of powerful campaign notes to hit now.
The Remain campaign was run on the basis of negativity (the potential dire consequences). The Remain cause was not. If Remain had sold remaining rather than running down leaving with wild projections then maybe the result would have been different, maybe not.The Remain cause was based around terrible economic consequences, and that was effective to a reasonable degree.
The experience since then has been mainly positive, in some major cases extremely positive (employment) - so how many 'heart says leave, but head says remain' voters from 2016 are going to remain convinced by those threats of doom now they've largely dissolved?
The fairly evenly balanced set of considerations from 2016 has tipped Leave's way, IMO, now that the economic case has not been shown at all accurate. And Leave II campaigning on that angle will be easily digested and persuasive.
And that's before the 'they took us for mugs once, don't let them do it again' argument is made. Fair-play Britain, the Britain who likes standing in queues, will see straight through the 'extra democracy' argument.
Even if I was a Remainer, I'd rather be arguing the Leave case the second time round, it's got a lot of powerful campaign notes to hit now.
Of all the people I know only one has changed their position on Brexit. If anything I see a second referendum (assuming the same question is asked) being so close to 50:50 that it invalidates itself.
In fairness you can’t look at rising employment and then declare that Brexit isn’t bad, firstly it hasn’t happened yet and secondly we have no idea where we would be if things had gone the other way. What we do know is the markets don’t view Brexit positively, hence why the hint of a delay saw the £ strengthen this week. It’s all a bit of a mystery until it actually happens. What we can be sure of is that the silly predictions of what would happen post vote but pre Brexit didn’t come to pass.
Assuming a second referendum is called what will each sides campaigning be. As a leaver I will put the leaver arguments.
1. We were told you if you voted to leave they would respect the decision you made. We have to tell them again.
2. They told you that unemployment would rise. The opposite has happened
3. They told you wages would fall. The opposite has happened.
4. They are still saying leaving would be catastrophic how can you believe a word they say.
5. The EU deliberately did not offer a good deal why would you possibly want to stay in their club.
6. Take back control vote leave don't let people who promised to follow your instructions get away with ignoring you a second time.
Over to you remainers what will the remain campaign say. Let's see all the positivity you will campaign for.
1. We were told you if you voted to leave they would respect the decision you made. We have to tell them again.
2. They told you that unemployment would rise. The opposite has happened
3. They told you wages would fall. The opposite has happened.
4. They are still saying leaving would be catastrophic how can you believe a word they say.
5. The EU deliberately did not offer a good deal why would you possibly want to stay in their club.
6. Take back control vote leave don't let people who promised to follow your instructions get away with ignoring you a second time.
Over to you remainers what will the remain campaign say. Let's see all the positivity you will campaign for.
Roman Rhodes said:
wc98 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who are "the real crazies" and who is going to elect them? You sound almost apoplectic about the current MPs so who are you going to vote for at the next election if Brexit is cancelled (I assume you mean cancelled rather than fudged in some way that you personally don't particularly like)? UKIP have had the sum total of one MP elected (in atypical circumstances) - are they the "real crazies"?
Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
take a look at some of the people being elected across various european parliaments . afd in germany for example,pvv in holland and lega nord in italy. do you really think there would be no new parties springing up in response to a uk government overturning the result of a democratic vote ,everyone will just go back to voting for a red or blue rosette ? if so i believe another forum member has a beach front property in birmingham you might be interested in.Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
I'd like to add another though, nobody spotted Macron, and why did he get there? Principally because he was up in a head to head vote against a completely toxic populist candidate. Quite a few had voted for her to get to that final face-off stage. Just saying, a warning if you like. Crazies be crazy.
Would UK allow someone or a group that toxic to gain traction? Would hope not but let's face it Momentum have got some traction , also the worse endbof SNP, and they're both pretty bloody toxic as can be.
FiF said:
Roman Rhodes said:
wc98 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who are "the real crazies" and who is going to elect them? You sound almost apoplectic about the current MPs so who are you going to vote for at the next election if Brexit is cancelled (I assume you mean cancelled rather than fudged in some way that you personally don't particularly like)? UKIP have had the sum total of one MP elected (in atypical circumstances) - are they the "real crazies"?
Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
take a look at some of the people being elected across various european parliaments . afd in germany for example,pvv in holland and lega nord in italy. do you really think there would be no new parties springing up in response to a uk government overturning the result of a democratic vote ,everyone will just go back to voting for a red or blue rosette ? if so i believe another forum member has a beach front property in birmingham you might be interested in.Remember, 48% of those that voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit - so you are almost exclusively expecting this turmoil to come from the 52% who did (I appreciate a very few remainers my take a principled stance on the subject and NOT support Brexit being cancelled).
What, on a practical level, would you expect to happen?
I'd like to add another though, nobody spotted Macron, and why did he get there? Principally because he was up in a head to head vote against a completely toxic populist candidate. Quite a few had voted for her to get to that final face-off stage. Just saying, a warning if you like. Crazies be crazy.
Would UK allow someone or a group that toxic to gain traction? Would hope not but let's face it Momentum have got some traction , also the worse endbof SNP, and they're both pretty bloody toxic as can be.
Le Pen obviously isn't completely toxic, or she couldn't have got to the final two. Macron was also a 'change' candidate. The French usually elect 'change' candidates, and then refuse to let them change anything.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Thursday 28th February 12:26
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
The aim of the crafty remainiacs (Kier Starmer et al.) is to not even have leave on the ballot paper.We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
They want Remain or May's deal. They know Remain cannot beat Leave anymore and therefore do not want to ask that question.
Pan Pan Pan said:
But this would then require a third vote, since one win for leave, and one for remain would certainly not settle the issue, especially if the margins were the same for the second vote as they were for the first.
A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
You're veering into 'making stuff up' territory. I'm not commenting on the merits of a second referendum let alone a third. How you can claim "would then require a third vote" I don't know - unless you're trivialising referenda to the level of coin-flipping.A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
Your point about "what the EU does" is rubbish - and I hope you know it. You do buy into fake news somewhat though (Ford/EU/Turkey).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff