European Union Referendum

[AFCB_Mark]

I have to agree with the point many Remain supporters have made this week around what the reason, the point, of this debate is. Presumably wanting to influence the public regarding the competence or otherwise of May's deal?

However that only makes sense if there was to be some metric of judging the outcome of that attempt to influence the public. Such as another vote at some point. Not that I particularly want there to be one. So instead let's say opinion polls move X points either in favour or against May's deal, which ever it is - What would the material outcome of that poll movement be? I'm just confused as to what the point is. Aside from creating memes of awkward facial expressions - obviously.

Still, it might be interesting (I use the word loosely) to see a) May actually partake for once. And b) to see Labour, Corbyn himself it looks like, have an open floor to actually express a fleshed out coherent view on Brexit, pro or anti. Their 2017 manifesto aside, which seems to have been chucked out, I have no idea where they stand on the issue these days.

However I suspect the only way to watch the debate will be to create some drinking game. A finger of beer for every robotic mantra should see me pleasantly shit-faced in no time.

 

[silkyman]

Agree completely.

Here’s Brexit being not at all ‘all about immigration’

https://twitter.com/x/status/1068190249719861248

 

[silkyman]

I have to agree with the point many Remain supporters have made this week around what the reason, the point, of this debate is. Presumably wanting to influence the public regarding the competence or otherwise of May's deal?

However that only makes sense if there was to be some metric of judging the outcome of that attempt to influence the public. Such as another vote at some point. Not that I particularly want there to be one. So instead let's say opinion polls move X points either in favour or against May's deal, which ever it is - What would the material outcome of that poll movement be? I'm just confused as to what the point is. Aside from creating memes of awkward facial expressions - obviously.

Still, it might be interesting (I use the word loosely) to see a) May actually partake for once. And b) to see Labour, Corbyn himself it looks like, have an open floor to actually express a fleshed out coherent view on Brexit, pro or anti. Their 2017 manifesto aside, which seems to have been chucked out, I have no idea where they stand on the issue these days.

However I suspect the only way to watch the debate will be to create some drinking game. A finger of beer for every robotic mantra should see me pleasantly shit-faced in no time.

Andrew Neil: Welcome to the big Brexit debate. Question one. Brexit is fucking lovely, yeah?

Theresa: Yeah.

Jeremy: Yeah, but I’d quite like the chance to spend two more years dicking about before coming back with something virtually identical, and painting it as a massive victory.

Andrew: Immigration?

Theresa and Jeremy in unison: Not a fan... *glance at each ofher* For different reasons.

Andrew: People’s Vote?

Theresa: No.

Jeremy: No. *is nudged from off stage* Erm... Noooooot off the table, is what Inwas going to say. Given a very unlikely sequence of events.

Andrew: General Election position?

Theresa and Jeremy in Unison: Will of the people.

Andrew: Thankyou both very much.

 

[Laker]

Here’s Brexit being not at all ‘all about immigration’

https://twitter.com/x/status/1068190249719861248

The one thing Theresa May’s deal achieves is restricting freedom of movement. It achieves fuck all else in all honesty.

So let’s assume our MPs represent our people, and therefore we’ll assume Brexit Tory MPs represent people who voted Tory (greatest proportion of electorate) and voted Brexit (a majority) for the purpose of my upcoming point. If your point is correct, why on earth are none of the Brexit Tories behind the proposed deal? Furthermore, the Leave general public don’t want this deal either because it’s a crap form of Brexit.

Could this possibly be because Brexit is about more than freedom of movement? Just maybe? Your logic doesn’t stack up.

 

[Fompous Part]

For all I care, the 'debate' could be an hour of May and Corbyn performing a drunken duet of Islands in the Stream while David Dimbleby intermittently farts into a trombone. It would still have more intellectual credence than silkyman's asinine posts.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I know and work with lots of migrants, most of them are really nice people if one takes the time to get to know them.

As everyone else in the country is aware, because (this might come as a shock so hold onto your seat) they live and work with them too. They are an everyday part of life in the UK and live much the same existence as everyone else - which is why a majority of them also support a reduction in immigration, despite a torrent of well meaning simpletons and more nefarious ideologues telling them how xenophobic that probably, possibly, maybe is.

Yeah, there are people like that, but they have a simplistic view of things when they blame immigration for lack of social housing and pressures on the NHS. Successive governments have under funded the NHS and failed to implement any meaningful social housing building programmes. This govt is also still quite happy to let the likes of Amazon avoid taxes which would generate billions in revenue. Be honest mate, a lot of people voted to leave because they just don't like foreigners who are an easy target. For some people taking the time and effort to look into what really causes these problems is just too intellectually taxing when they have a ready made scapegoat. I'n wondering though, when EU migration stops and we still have a housing crisis and an ailing NHS who will they blame then?

If that somehow happens then they'll hopefully only have the right people to blame. If we're talking about simplistic thinking though, then we have to talk about the people that dismiss the demand part of supply and demand when convenient. The fact that there's more than one solution to easing the housing crisis or the strain on infrastructure spending does not refute the fact that reducing demand would work much the same as increasing the supply. The question ultimately becomes would you rather sacrifice lower taxes or higher immigration, in which case it's not so surprising that the public would choose the latter.

 

[Benji]

And yet the result of the former is that once again the rich and political classes have no consequences for their failures to the housing market. The impact of this particular 'solution' is that those who are not responsible for the problems are the ones who are attacked and demonised.

I'm not sure the 'Breaking Point' poster, or many who voted to leave, appreciated the nuance of this supply and demand argument I'm afraid. I know there are people with valid reasons for finding the EU problematic, but the leave vote was won on racist or xenophobic rhetoric.

 

[Stevencc]

I think even the opposition leader is getting bored of all the Brexit talk...

He'd rather watch celebs eating insects in a jungle down under.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46386737

Or he might think the BBC will be Pro Tory - the Tories of course think the Beeb are pro Labour..

Hopefully that was Corbyn trying to appeal to the masses rather than being genuine.

If he watches that crap I hereby wish my vote for him to be struck from the record.

 

[Red]

As everyone else in the country is aware, because (this might come as a shock so hold onto your seat) they live and work with them too. They are an everyday part of life in the UK and live much the same existence as everyone else - which is why a majority of them also support a reduction in immigration, despite a torrent of well meaning simpletons and more nefarious ideologues telling them how xenophobic that probably, possibly, maybe is.



If that somehow happens then they'll hopefully only have the right people to blame. If we're talking about simplistic thinking though, then we have to talk about the people that dismiss the demand part of supply and demand when convenient. The fact that there's more than one solution to easing the housing crisis or the strain on infrastructure spending does not refute the fact that reducing demand would work much the same as increasing the supply. The question ultimately becomes would you rather sacrifice lower taxes or higher immigration, in which case it's not so surprising that the public would choose the latter.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of EU migrants here want to see less immigration?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Christ, if I had a pound for every time a Leave voter in this thread has complained about Remainer characterisations of them as "racist" I'd be a very rich man. It's funny because I've yet to see anyone here actually level that charge at anyone. The contention has always been simply that dogwhistle racism/xenophobia was a very prominent feature of the Leave campaign and that this succeeded both in winning votes and fuelling open hostility towards migrants living in the UK. This ought not to be controversial but yet not only have I seen no Leaver acknowledge of this but we witness those defending migrants being smeared as "well meaning simpletons and nefarious ideologues".

Is this a bit too close to the bone for some people? After all, we have posters here who were happy to back a party led by noted Trump/Bannon bedfellow, Farage, who have now welcomed Tommy Robinson into their ranks. If the 48% are really expected to indulge the rest of the population's dystopian Moggsian fantasies then perhaps a bit more honesty and self-reflection is required?

 

[Fompous Part]

You only have to go back one page to find our resident Remoaner in Chief argue that Brexit was all about xenophobia. One fucking page.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Do you have any evidence that the majority of EU migrants here want to see less immigration?

The figures that were in the last social attitudes survey that asked the question recorded the opinions of all kinds of first and second generation migrants I believe, not just ones from the EU. The numbers were admittedly higher for the general public (77%) compared to the migrants (60%) though.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

You only have to go back one page to find our resident Remoaner in Chief argue that Brexit was all about xenophobia. One fucking page.

It's fabulous that you have so many fantastically stupid admirers but this point isn't particularly contentious https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/xenophobia-brexit/ etc

And yes of course it wasn't the only factor, but it was a significant one.

 

[Fompous Part]

I skim read the full article on the Frontiers site. The research was done online. The total sample size was 250, of which 194 reported voting Remain and 86 voted Leave. It’s beyond my powers of mental arithmetic to work out what that is as a percentage of 17.4m, but I think it’s safe to say it’s rather small.

It’s difficult to judge the methodology because the researchers attempt to measure four contentious things (collective narcissism, right-wing authoritarianism, social-dominance orientation, fear of immigrants) but don’t provide readers full access to the assessment questionnaires, the entire data set, their calculations, etc.

I also appears that no effort was made to distinguish between attitudes towards immigrants and attitudes towards FMOP (i.e. the lack of control), which strikes me as an enormous conceptual oversight in any study of attitudes towards Brexit.

Again, dismiss this is as anecdotal if it satisfies your confirmation bias to do so, but the overwhelming majority of Leave voters I know are not anti-immigration per se (esp. with regard to Europeans). They dislike FMOP because they think it’s madness to grant easy access to people simply because they were born in an EEA-member country rather than a non-EEA country. They want individuals to be judged as individuals, via a system that applies the eligibility criteria universally. That is actually a lot less racist/xenophobic than the two-tier system we have now.

As for me, the rather non-racist starting point for my take on the EU and immigration is a simple observation that no country has a monopoly on producing bad people. Britain produces plenty of them, which is perhaps the best argument for at least trying not to import more from abroad. Wanting to control X is not the same as hating X or being anti-X. That argument would be considered risible in any other context (would you call someone who wanted a more robust and consistent system of food safety checks “anti-food”?), but I’ve learnt the hard way that no amount of logical reasoning can dislodge this fallacy from the EU-phile script.

Now, lest you think I’m dancing around the issue, I’ll be clear: I have no doubt that there are racist/xenophobic people in Britain, and that most (if not all) of them voted for Leave. If you are afflicted with an irrational fear of foreign people, naturally you’re going to favour the option that at least allows for the possibility of a more robust immigration policy. I mean, if you’re coming at it from that angle, why the hell would you vote for Remain?

But my earlier question remains: if it was all about xenophobia (or, if was a “significant factor”, to use your shiftier words), how do we explain the huge amount of Leaver discontent with the proposed deal? Might it be that Mrs May has made the standard Remainer mistake of seeing the result exclusively through the lens of immigration?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

They dislike FMOP because they think it’s madness to grant easy access to people simply because they were born in an EEA-member country rather than a non-EEA country. They want individuals to be judged as individuals, via a system that applies the eligibility criteria universally.

 

[Fompous Part]

Refusing to publish the full legal advice is disgraceful. The other parties (including the DUP) ought to collaborate immediately and initiate Contempt of Parliament proceedings.

The Tory Party deserves to be destroyed. Utterly destroyed. If that means voting for Corbyn and enduring 4 years of socialism and home made jam, so fucking be it.

 

[Habbinalan]

Refusing to publish the full legal advice is disgraceful. The other parties (including the DUP) ought to collaborate immediately and initiate Contempt of Parliament proceedings.

The Tory Party deserves to be destroyed. Utterly destroyed. If that means voting for Corbyn and enduring 4 years of socialism and home made jam, so fucking be it.

Is this the one you mean?

http://2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpe...al-Agreement-Legal-and-Governance-Aspects.pdf

 

[DarkSithLord]

The Goverment in comtempt of court then. Can this shambles descend in to anymore of a farce?

 

[Stevencc]

The Tory Party deserves to be destroyed. Utterly destroyed.

I've been saying this for years.

 

[silkyman]

So today we've seen the government probably losing in a court case where the sovereign government of the UK tried to force the EU to force the UK out of the EU by denying that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. (i.e. The EU say that we can just stop this without any agreement needed from the rest of the EU, and the UK Government REALLY didn't want that to be the case.)

And the Government being so desperate to cover up what can only be bad news, that they went to the lengths of being in Contempt of Parliament.

All so some people can avoid Austrians in Boots.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

This is a Remainer government Silky, these are your comrades, not ours.

 

[Fompous Part]

To the surprise of precisely no one, Silky has got the facts wrong.

The court case to which he refers was a ECJ case initiated by a cross-party group of politicians and anti-Brexit campaigners who sought confirmation as to whether Britain can unilaterally cancel the Article 50 process. I've made reference to the uncertainty about this before. Believe it or not, I actually support the group's efforts. This is something we ought to have clarified several years ago.

The UK government appealed against the referral to the ECJ, and lost. The case was heard last week, and lawyers for the UK and the EU opposed it. See here for more details.

Today's development is that Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona, an advocate general of the ECJ, has advised that, in his opinion, the UK can unilaterally nix the whole thing. This opinion is non-binding. Neither the UK government nor the EU like it.

To describe this as "the UK tried to force the EU to force the UK out of the EU" is completely wrong. The UK government and the EU both opposed this case.

Silky, despite being one of those urbane, better-educated types who voted Remain, has evidently failed to realise that the EU and the ECJ are not the same thing. Perhaps if he's spent more time reading and less time thinking up lame jokes about Austrians in Boots, he wouldn't make this sort of rudimentary error, but hey...

Also, the Contempt of Parliament proceedings to which he refers have nothing to do with the above. That's an entirely separate matter regarding the full disclosure of legal advice about the withdrawal deal. The government has just lost a key vote on this. See here for more detail.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

The problem is people still try to cling onto remaining but I fear the fallout here in uk could be horrible.

Like in Italy and France, a big rise in hate crimes and a surge in vote to a new far right party bashing Tory/labour for f•cling up Brexit.

I voted remain but you cannot have a parliament just ditch it now after so long saying it would happen........the fallout could see some nut job loon like trump getting a sudden surge of votes into power

 

[Fompous Part]

It’s difficult to say what would happen. A lot of people who voted Leave are fairly ordinary conservatives. Radical politics and civil disorder are not things to which they are intuitively inclined. Your typical pro-Brexit Mr Angry from Bognor Regis might fulminate about betrayal and treachery on Twitter, but he’s probably not going to join the BNP and/or travel down to ‘that London’ to throw Molotov cocktails at the House of Parliament. Cancel Brexit and he’ll probably do no more than moan about it on Twitter.

Probably.

There are definitely risks, though – risks that the second referendum gang, so myopically hell bent on getting their way, haven’t given due consideration to.

For example, civilised order and democracy is probably impossible unless you have (1) agreed procedures for settling political disputes, and (2) a bipartisan commitment by all involved to respect the outcomes. Put another way, there has to be losers’ consent. If I don’t accept a political defeat then I cannot reasonably expect opponents to accept defeat when it happens to them. If it doesn’t count when I win, why should it count when they win? This sounds very childish, I know, but this is a serious matter. Democratic contests – whether they’re elections, referendums or a show of hands at a Town Hall meeting – are agreed procedures for settling disputes. If neither side trusts the other to honour the outcome, the social trust required to uphold democracy erodes and that whole way of doing things collapses.

I honestly see that as more dangerous than, say, a No Deal Brexit causing a lengthy recession, or a hawkish centre-right government embroiling the country in stupid wars, or a daft left-wing government impoverishing the country with a lot of misguided tax-and-spend nonsense. The democratic system can survive terrible governments. We know that. I’m not sure if it could survive one side deciding that it will only adhere to the agreed procedures when they produce desired results.

What are people left with when they realise they can’t achieve their desired change through the agreed procedures for doing so? The ‘best’ you can hope for is sullen resignation. The most obvious alternative is political violence.

 

[Laker]

The legal advice is pretty damning. Can’t see how this could possibly be accepted by parliament, or anyone for that matter.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Being suggested that tomorrow's scheduled vote in Parliament will be delayed/cancelled or something. Presumably because No.10 realise the deal on the table is very unlikely to pass Parliament.

Edit: Now being suggested that May will later announce a delay in a vote with an intention to go back to the EU and try renegotiating the backstop part of the agreement (the bit that caused all the resignations).

 

[Super_horns]

Will the vote ever happen - Mrs May pretty much admitted she would be well beaten so will they try to go back and get another agreement or just give up?

 

[Red]

She's just trying to cling on to her job for a few weeks more, she'll get nothing from the EU that Parliament will accept. Selfish May.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Here begins a stream of my consciousness.

So May goes back to the EU, seeks renegotiation on the NI backstop.

EU won't renegotiate. but they provide some additional wording to clarify the backstop in some non legally binding but 'good faith' way, that sounds vaguely like an olive branch to those opposed to the NI backstop. Something like: We the EU promise we don't want the backstop to be enforced and enforced indefinitely. Honestly.

May comes back to Parliament in January, waving around her bit of paper with the backstop clarification olive branch. Says to the Tory party this is really, really the last, very last, best, bestest deal we could get. And if anyone is still opposed to the NI backstop - what's your preferred plan?

By this time it's weeks or days away from the Jan 21st deadline for Parliament to hold a vote, as stated in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is no alternative plan from the rest of the Tory party (other than the ERG no deal collective). May can press Labour to present something coherent to the House, and they can't either. But are still against her deal, there's potential for a General Election here.

May takes the temperature of the Tory party again. A decent majority of it is now on-side, slightly placated and faced-saved by the notion of having pushed the EU that little bit further than we had previously. And it's this or no Brexit at all, as the strap-line.

However the Parliamentary arithmetic still doesn't quite stack up of course. Working effectively as a minority government, even then with some Tories likely to vote against, May can't be certain of enough cross party support from the rest of Parliament.

Without being certain she daren't hold a vote and risk losing, her career would end instantly and the government would be forced into a General Election on the back foot.

She'd rather be proactive on the General Election front. May stands up to Parliament and says she want's a majority as mandate to get the deal passed. Yes, again!

Tells us that Olly Robbins has already got an agreement in principle to extend A50 for 6 months or whatever. The EU finds a way to make sure the EU27 are agreeable to this. T.May tells Parliament she wishes a General Election for May 2019, if Parliament are happy to update the legislation in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 regarding the Jan 21st vote deadline.

A majority of Parliament eyeing up the prospect of a General Election agrees, votes an update to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and the required 2/3rds vote in favour of waiving the fixed term Parliament.

And so begins another 4 months of campaign kerfuffle.

That's the next few months if I were a betting man.

It puts Labour into a sticky place trying to decide if they throw their lot in for Remain, or Another Referendum, or still maintain their line on a different type of Brexit agreement. It's difficult to hold another Brexit referendum right now, because the Labour PLP doesn't currently officially support it (the leadership definitely doesn't). And neither do any Tories.

However a General Election might well focus Labour's mind and mean another referendum goes in the manifesto, as a bridge to both Brexit and Remain supporters within the party. Nothing like a General Election to shift focus onto holding Party cohesion rather than pure ideology. Others with more knowledge in Labour party mechanics would know better than me though.

We either end up with a Tory majority and May's deal passing. Anything else: we end up with a coalition of Lab/Lib/SNP who will go on to hold a 2nd referendum (or perhaps even a majority Lab). The Tories won't build another coalition in the event of a hung Parliament even if they land as largest party, what with May being untenable as leader after a second majority-lacking election.

My apologies for all that tripe.

 

[DarkSithLord]

Widespread reports of no confidence Vote in May tomorrow from her own party