|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 07 2018 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote:
Pretty much everyone still wants us to back out of Brexit
I highly doubt that, EU as a whole may be doing sad face and sent "sorry to see you go" cards, but separate countries are most likely counting additional revenue right now.
|
What does it matter, we aren't actually leaving now and all the major brexiteers have given up, depressing.
|
On June 07 2018 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 18:38 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2018 18:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 07 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote: This sort of thing is pretty inevitable. The government doesn't have a 'right' solution to the problem they've put themselves in. Davis hasn't done an especially good job and his credibility is now badly damaged, despite his experience in the role and his obvious knowledge of how it all works. Too much cloak-and-dagger. I think the EU negotiators have done a really good job of humiliating Davis at every turn. The message we are getting from the EU is the the UK team has approached negotiations in a haphazard, unprepared and disorganized manner. I'm not sure whether we should take that with a pinch of salt though. I wouldn't expect the EU to outright lie about that, tho its possible. I more wonder how much of it would be because of Davis's mistakes and how much is simply not having the time or direction needed from the government about what he is trying to accomplish. I can see why they would lie about it. Pretty much everyone still wants us to back out of Brexit, and the political situation in the UK is 'fluid' to say the least. I'm not saying they are lying though. The tories do have a reputation for carrying out policy in a short sighted and disorganized manner, but then the EU would surely play that aspect up to turn the public against Brexit if they can.
I think the proof is in the pudding. Look at how muddled and disorganised the response is back home, how evasive the government is about even basic questions.
It's pretty obvious that the Tories weren't expecting the EU to actually be aggressive in the negotiations, and they have been.
The rhetoric coming out of much of the Tory side is still UKIP-y nonsense about how we have all the cards and the EU must give us what we want. If that's not clear evidence that negotiations are going poorly, I don't know what is.
On June 14 2018 05:37 Zaros wrote: What does it matter, we aren't actually leaving now and all the major brexiteers have given up, depressing.
What do you mean we aren't actually leaving? We still very much are.
|
It was pretty clear the EU would be aggressive in its negotiations, anything else would only embolden others to leave. It's in the EU's best interest to screw over the UK has hard as it can get away with as a deterrent.
|
On June 14 2018 07:12 Gorsameth wrote: It was pretty clear the EU would be aggressive in its negotiations, anything else would only embolden others to leave. It's in the EU's best interest to screw over the UK has hard as it can get away with as a deterrent.
It is not even that. You think US, China, Russia, Japan and so on, wouldnt be aggresive?
On the different note:
"The government won the seventh vote, removing a Lords amendment giving enhanced protection to EU law relating to employment rights, health and safety, consumer standards and the environment, by 318 votes to 301 - a majority of 17."
Will of the people - people seem quite masochistic .
|
Its not even the EU negotiators although their position on Northern Ireland I find a bit morally bankrupt. It is the constant sabotage from within constantly weakening the UK negotiating position, lack of any preparation for No deal and no positive or any vision really from the PM about where we are going as a country except BREXIT MEANS BREXIT and End free movement (which as a young liberal voter for Brexit I saw as one of the only positives of the EU, although it does lack any sort of democratic mandate.)
Andrew Lilico sums it up pretty well
|
United States40778 Posts
How can there be no doubt about the will of the people after a referendum went nearly 50/50?
|
On June 14 2018 22:16 KwarK wrote: How can there be no doubt about the will of the people after a referendum went nearly 50/50? Not to mention leave itself being in several different flavors between soft-hard exit.
|
"The will of the people" is almost always an inherently subjective and difficult to determine thing, even against the backdrop of rigorous public polling.
|
If the guy is so much into "the will of the people," why doesn't he suggest a second referendum about how to implement the Brexit? If people are divided about how to proceed, it's the simplest solution.
|
On June 14 2018 23:10 TheDwf wrote: If the guy is so much into "the will of the people," why doesn't he suggest a second referendum about how to implement the Brexit? If people are divided about how to proceed, it's the simplest solution. I used to support that, but I think a second referendum has two problems. The first is that constitutionally referendums are advisory, and the more often they happen the more often the parliamentary aspect of British democracy is undermined or confused. It becomes less clear how MPs actually play a part in a vague, uncodified cocktail of direct and representative democratic norms. The second problem is that the form the second referendum would have to take would almost inevitably lead to a third referendum on how to proceed, unless the deal presented in the second referendum is accepted (seems unlikely). I think the easiest way for Brexit to be 'stopped' or reversed is for it to actually happen first, though the conditions of British re-entry into the Eurozone would likely be even more popularly unacceptable than staying in the EU is now.
|
On June 14 2018 23:16 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2018 23:10 TheDwf wrote: If the guy is so much into "the will of the people," why doesn't he suggest a second referendum about how to implement the Brexit? If people are divided about how to proceed, it's the simplest solution. I used to support that, but I think a second referendum has two problems. The first is that constitutionally referendums are advisory, and the more often they happen the more often the parliamentary aspect of British democracy is undermined or confused. It becomes less clear how MPs actually play a part in a vague, uncodified cocktail of direct and representative democratic norms. The second problem is that the form the second referendum would have to take would almost inevitably lead to a third referendum on how to proceed, unless the deal presented in the second referendum is accepted (seems unlikely). I think the easiest way for Brexit to be 'stopped' or reversed is for it to actually happen first, though the conditions of British re-entry into the Eurozone would likely be even more popularly unacceptable than staying in the EU is now. The counter-argument about the Parliament is valid, but is it really more democratic to leave the method of the Brexit to the internal struggles and power games of the majority?
You meant re-entry in the EU? Because UK was not part of the eurozone
|
On June 14 2018 23:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2018 23:16 kollin wrote:On June 14 2018 23:10 TheDwf wrote: If the guy is so much into "the will of the people," why doesn't he suggest a second referendum about how to implement the Brexit? If people are divided about how to proceed, it's the simplest solution. I used to support that, but I think a second referendum has two problems. The first is that constitutionally referendums are advisory, and the more often they happen the more often the parliamentary aspect of British democracy is undermined or confused. It becomes less clear how MPs actually play a part in a vague, uncodified cocktail of direct and representative democratic norms. The second problem is that the form the second referendum would have to take would almost inevitably lead to a third referendum on how to proceed, unless the deal presented in the second referendum is accepted (seems unlikely). I think the easiest way for Brexit to be 'stopped' or reversed is for it to actually happen first, though the conditions of British re-entry into the Eurozone would likely be even more popularly unacceptable than staying in the EU is now. The counter-argument about the Parliament is valid, but is it really more democratic to leave the method of the Brexit to the internal struggles and power games of the majority? You meant re-entry in the EU? Because UK was not part of the eurozone Sorry I meant re-entry into the EU - I think (though I'm not certain) that re-entry would entail eurozone membership for the UK, which domestically politically is almost impossible which is why I made the slip-up.
And ultimately I don't think it is more democratic, but I think that deficit comes from deeper constitutional problems that Brexit has really raised the need to address. A second (and further) referendums don't address these problems, they just kick the can down the road.
|
I think its safe to say now that Brexit is the worst thing to happen to British politics in years. Its not the act of leaving the EU itself, but the divisions it has created in the two major parties. People who should be allies are enemies based on the pot luck of the constituency they happen to represent, there's mini rebellions all over the place, and nothing but confusion and second guessing for leadership, on both sides. I can't see how anything good will come from the chaos.
|
On June 15 2018 06:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I think its safe to say now that Brexit is the worst thing to happen to British politics in years. Its not the act of leaving the EU itself, but the divisions it has created in the two major parties. People who should be allies are enemies based on the pot luck of the constituency they happen to represent, there's mini rebellions all over the place, and nothing but confusion and second guessing for leadership, on both sides. I can't see how anything good will come from the chaos. The division and backstabbery in itself is not the main issue I think. Its that no one actually wants to take charge because to do so means your the party that gets blamed for the inevitable issues of the Brexit. The usual outlet of this chaos, someone winning and taking control, doesn't exist and likely won't until after the exit so it just keeps on festering.
|
On June 15 2018 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2018 06:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I think its safe to say now that Brexit is the worst thing to happen to British politics in years. Its not the act of leaving the EU itself, but the divisions it has created in the two major parties. People who should be allies are enemies based on the pot luck of the constituency they happen to represent, there's mini rebellions all over the place, and nothing but confusion and second guessing for leadership, on both sides. I can't see how anything good will come from the chaos. The division and backstabbery in itself is not the main issue I think. Its that no one actually wants to take charge because to do so means your the party that gets blamed for the inevitable issues of the Brexit. The usual outlet of this chaos, someone winning and taking control, doesn't exist and likely won't until after the exit so it just keeps on festering. There's also no clear popular consent for literally any outcome, and the fact we have FPTP and what is essentially a minority Parliament means May can be bullied around by both the soft leave and hard leave camps in her party, while the remain camp exerts more and more pressure on Corbyn while still supporting Labour cos it's dumb fuck FPTP where there's no real alternative choice
|
United States40778 Posts
It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway.
|
On June 15 2018 10:09 KwarK wrote: It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway.
May would lose it, I think another Candidate could beat Corbyn for a majority but every day that passes with May in charge reduces that chance and the conservatives seem to scared to do anything.
Only way I see any Brexit not in name only(leave single market, customs union and ECJ) happening is a mini constitutional crisis with May's deal being rejected by Parliament, EU not offering anything else and a new election/confidence vote in May unwilling to be called/won. In that scenario Parliament just gets stuck on Brexit with nowhere to move and the clock ticks down to no deal. The only other possibility is the Cons get rid of May, a brexiteer wins the leadership and goes to the country for another early election and gets a majority which is probably very unlikely
|
On June 15 2018 15:26 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2018 10:09 KwarK wrote: It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway. May would lose it, I think another Candidate could beat Corbyn for a majority but every day that passes with May in charge reduces that chance and the conservatives seem to scared to do anything. Only way I see any Brexit not in name only(leave single market, customs union and ECJ) happening is a mini constitutional crisis with May's deal being rejected by Parliament, EU not offering anything else and a new election/confidence vote in May unwilling to be called/won. In that scenario Parliament just gets stuck on Brexit with nowhere to move and the clock ticks down to no deal. The only other possibility is the Cons get rid of May, a brexiteer wins the leadership and goes to the country for another early election and gets a majority which is probably very unlikely
The only Tories who could realistically replace May are Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Of them, maybe Rees-Mogg could pull it off, but he'd be a disastrous PM, going by the things he's said in interviews. Seems very much a politician from 20 years ago.
And regardless, all of them are smart enough to know full well what will happen to the person in charge when it all goes down.
Meanwhile, Labour is still recovering from trying to stab Corbyn in the back and discovering that actually, their voters do actually want Corbyn in charge for now, so all they got from months of bullshit was making Labour the weakest its been in over a decade at a time when Labour needs to be stronger than ever.
A non-functional Labour, a barely functional Tory party, and a weak government lead by a Remainer who has no idea how to navigate through a mess she almost certainly thought was an impossibility.
|
On June 15 2018 18:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2018 15:26 Zaros wrote:On June 15 2018 10:09 KwarK wrote: It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway. May would lose it, I think another Candidate could beat Corbyn for a majority but every day that passes with May in charge reduces that chance and the conservatives seem to scared to do anything. Only way I see any Brexit not in name only(leave single market, customs union and ECJ) happening is a mini constitutional crisis with May's deal being rejected by Parliament, EU not offering anything else and a new election/confidence vote in May unwilling to be called/won. In that scenario Parliament just gets stuck on Brexit with nowhere to move and the clock ticks down to no deal. The only other possibility is the Cons get rid of May, a brexiteer wins the leadership and goes to the country for another early election and gets a majority which is probably very unlikely The only Tories who could realistically replace May are Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Of them, maybe Rees-Mogg could pull it off, but he'd be a disastrous PM, going by the things he's said in interviews. Seems very much a politician from 20 years ago. And regardless, all of them are smart enough to know full well what will happen to the person in charge when it all goes down. Meanwhile, Labour is still recovering from trying to stab Corbyn in the back and discovering that actually, their voters do actually want Corbyn in charge for now, so all they got from months of bullshit was making Labour the weakest its been in over a decade at a time when Labour needs to be stronger than ever. A non-functional Labour, a barely functional Tory party, and a weak government lead by a Remainer who has no idea how to navigate through a mess she almost certainly thought was an impossibility.
I wonder, as far as politics go, is this a particularly messy cluster fuck? Or has politics always been like this, with incompetence and indecision at every level and no clear way out? Was it like this for our parents' and grandparents generations? Or is this particular unique to now.
|
|
|
|