European Union Referendum

[Super_horns]

Guess so but like you just don't agree with it.

 

[Gassy]

Guess so but like you just don't agree with it.

Personally I think even if they won with a majority, it shouldn’t be revoked without a referendum

 

[Gladders]

Doesn't matter anyway, there is no way lib dems will ever get a majority especially in FPTP.

Can't see anything other than a big majority for tories in this election.

Corbyn is just a bad leader for Labour, and their Brexit policy is trying to please both sides but in truth pleasing neither. As long as the election is on Brexit and how can it not be given we are still not out then Labour will be losing more seats than they win with their current policy.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I am not too sure at present on that tory majority, but it will depend just how many 'Working class northern males' ditch Labour for the Brexit party.

At the last general election there was only 800,000 votes different between Conservative and Labour............not very much, but its all down to where it gets seats of course....now you can group Labour/SNP/Lib Dem together as Labour probably now will never get an overall majority again, but can get power through coalitions.

As it currently stands you could say the gap from the last election has already closed because the only real guarantee so far is two things: A: The SNP is probably going to wipe out the torie seats in Scotland...........that is 12 seats going one way to other side......that takes the tories down to 305 and the other side up to 316.....assuming voting ends up quite similar to last time.

That means the decider is of course the DUP and that is where B: starts............that the DUP is currently very anti Boris Johnson............The Tories have been excellent at 'using' coalition partners and then dropping them into the nearest dustbin, but this has longer term issues for them in respect i don't see any party now currently in parliament who will work with them.

I don't drastically see many Labour seats going tory as i'd expected that to happen in 2017 when Labour were viewed even more lower than currently, so the key is of course whether Brexit party chips at them.......on that i'm unsure.

Otherwise i think it'll be a labour coalition........I expect Lib Dems to grab a small number of Tory seats which will tip the balance......even if voting wise Conservative end up with more. of course it'll depend if the Brexit party take labour voters in the end.

The Tories poll higher, will get more votes....but i am unsure if it'll be more seats and its down to whether DUP/Brexit party push them far enough.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't think the Brexit Party will do particularly well. I think lots of people will favour them, but will vote Tory anyway to avoid splitting the vote. There are lots of Labour seats that voted by a strong majority to leave on the other hand. I wouldn't be surprised if Hull turned blue this year. It's probably difficult to get the wider public enthusiastic about Corbyn, whereas if Boris can make the vote about ending the withdrawal debacle then it's his election to lose.

 

[Fompous Part]

This might be one of the harbingers of the apocalypse, but parliament actually got something right tonight. Lindsay Hoyle is man of integrity, fairness and good humour. Watching him in the chair deputising for that preening, vainglorious midget was always a welcome reminder of how it’s meant to be done. Bryant or Harman would have been insufferable.

 

[PuB]

Lol Farage not standing for parliament, I wonder why he’d rather have his EU seat despite it apparently being a ‘gravy train’

 

[Fompous Part]

However you’re basing it that all politicians are liars and have always lied therefore we are good.

Err, I think I’m making a subtler argument than that. I’m suggesting a category distinction between (a) arguments people use to justify their position, and (b) explicit promises and commitments made on the campaign trail or in election manifestos.

I don’t think that lying is okay for (a) but not okay for (b). It’s more a case of being realistic in our expectations. Everything we know about human psychology should tell us that there will never be an electoral contest in which people use statistics and other facts in an entirely objective way, free of all ideological bias. Even the cleverest and best-intentioned among us are prone to confirmation bias.

But surely making a commitment to do X and actually sticking to it is not beyond human ingenuity. That is not too much to ask, especially when the issue is so fundamental to the politics of the day. There really is no excuse for standing on a pro-Brexit manifesto and then doing everything in your power to block Brexit. We have to draw the line at shit like that; otherwise representative democracy is pretty much impossible.

 

[Gassy]

Ok but what about when Boris blocked it, twice? Was he not doing the same thing?

Everyone seems to ignore that fact.

I noticed the Tory party have a report on Russian meddling in the referendum result but are refusing to release the report until after the election. What a joke.

 

[Laker]

Ok but what about when Boris blocked it, twice? Was he not doing the same thing?

Everyone seems to ignore that fact.

I noticed the Tory party have a report on Russian meddling in the referendum result but are refusing to release the report until after the election. What a joke.

Well the deal negotiated by May was utter turd as it bound the UK into the EU forever - it wasn’t Brexit as we weren’t technically leaving. That’s why Boris voted against it. You can present that as blocking Brexit if you like, I saw it as blocking Remaining forever.

The deal be negotiated removed that and therefore it was a way better deal and IS actually Brexit. I’m not keen on all of the deal but in the interests of this concept of compromise that Remainers want us to adopt I was happy to go with. But again Remainers blocked it.

Yes I saw that on the Russian meddling report, not great is it? Also heard that about 20 Brexit party MPs have apparently left the party as they aren’t comfortable with Farage’s policy to take on the Tories/his policy to go for no deal. The fact he isn’t standing puts him down in my estimation anyway. If he wants to impact UK politics he needs to get himself into the HoC.

 

[Gassy]

Well the deal negotiated by May was utter turd as it bound the UK into the EU forever - it wasn’t Brexit as we weren’t technically leaving. That’s why Boris voted against it. You can present that as blocking Brexit if you like, I saw it as blocking Remaining forever.

The deal be negotiated removed that and therefore it was a way better deal and IS actually Brexit. I’m not keen on all of the deal but in the interests of this concept of compromise that Remainers want us to adopt I was happy to go with. But again Remainers blocked it.

Yes I saw that on the Russian meddling report, not great is it? Also heard that about 20 Brexit party MPs have apparently left the party as they aren’t comfortable with Farage’s policy to take on the Tories/his policy to go for no deal. The fact he isn’t standing puts him down in my estimation anyway. If he wants to impact UK politics he needs to get himself into the HoC.

But if Labour view it as a bad deal, then isn't that also fair enough to block it, just as Johnson did on his own party? Who decides whether or not its a good/bad deal and where do we draw the line? (FWIW, I'm not saying that they're not blocking it, just merely posing a question as to why Boris is allowed to do it against his own party, but the opposition isn't allowed to do it)

Doesn't this deal also stop us from doing trade deals with the USA? Considering that & the single market were the 2 more points of Brexit, is that really Brexit? They've already announced that EU citizens will have free movement to work and live in the UK until December 2020 (whether we have a deal or not deal), so with that & no ability to trade independently, is that Brexit?

Didn't hear that about the MPs leaving the Brexit Party, I imagine Farage will have them replaced pretty quickly if that's the case though - it's not like they have any principles/policies other than taking us out with no deal. But yeah, its pretty embarrassing that he isn't running himself. I personally think he's afraid he won't get in again. But yeah, such a stupid tactic from the Brexit Party, although they won't get a huge number of votes IMO they will definitely be splitting the vote & actually pose probably the biggest risk of Brexit being stopped

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Boris' deal allows for us to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals with any non-EU nation including the US, but they wouldn't come into force until after the transition period has ended. Barring any extension that would mean a whole slew of trade deals could be in place to come into force on January 1st 2021. At latest count we have about 18 ready to go covering 48 countries/territories.

 

[Laker]

But if Labour view it as a bad deal, then isn't that also fair enough to block it, just as Johnson did on his own party? Who decides whether or not its a good/bad deal and where do we draw the line? (FWIW, I'm not saying that they're not blocking it, just merely posing a question as to why Boris is allowed to do it against his own party, but the opposition isn't allowed to do it)

Doesn't this deal also stop us from doing trade deals with the USA? Considering that & the single market were the 2 more points of Brexit, is that really Brexit? They've already announced that EU citizens will have free movement to work and live in the UK until December 2020 (whether we have a deal or not deal), so with that & no ability to trade independently, is that Brexit?

Didn't hear that about the MPs leaving the Brexit Party, I imagine Farage will have them replaced pretty quickly if that's the case though - it's not like they have any principles/policies other than taking us out with no deal. But yeah, its pretty embarrassing that he isn't running himself. I personally think he's afraid he won't get in again. But yeah, such a stupid tactic from the Brexit Party, although they won't get a huge number of votes IMO they will definitely be splitting the vote & actually pose probably the biggest risk of Brexit being stopped

But Labour didn’t reject it because it’s a bad deal, they rejected it because it doesn’t keep us in the customs union. There’s a difference between the two but essentially Labour would have rejected anything which didn’t retain the customs union. And that’s basically stupid because you might as well remain in the EU - you lose all power to shape the rules but still have to comply with them. It’s not Brexit at all.

Boris rejected May’s deal because it was a crap deal in that it wouldn’t actually result in us leaving and having the independent trade policy he campaigned for. It wasn’t Brexit.

I feel you’re being a pedant and trying to be clever, ask awkward questions (I get enough of that from my daughter thank you!). While some of it is valid, some of it is just being awkward for awkward’s sake.

 

[Gassy]

Boris' deal allows for us to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals with any non-EU nation including the US, but they wouldn't come into force until after the transition period has ended. Barring any extension that would mean a whole slew of trade deals could be in place to come into force on January 1st 2021. At latest count we have about 18 ready to go covering 48 countries/territories.

Fair enough, cheers for the explanation. Although I think I heard Emma Barnett absolutely pulling them apart saying how essentially 18/48 is not enough if you're preparing for no deal, which is also true. Tbh, I dont know why Trump is moaning so much about it then, I thought he'd be promoting Boris' agenda - although I'm glad he's not, I dont think any foreign leader should get involved.

But Labour didn’t reject it because it’s a bad deal, they rejected it because it doesn’t keep us in the customs union. There’s a difference between the two but essentially Labour would have rejected anything which didn’t retain the customs union. And that’s basically stupid because you might as well remain in the EU - you lose all power to shape the rules but still have to comply with them. It’s not Brexit at all.

Boris rejected May’s deal because it was a crap deal in that it wouldn’t actually result in us leaving and having the independent trade policy he campaigned for. It wasn’t Brexit.

I feel you’re being a pedant and trying to be clever, ask awkward questions (I get enough of that from my daughter thank you!). While some of it is valid, some of it is just being awkward for awkward’s sake.

But that's your opinion, in Labour's opinion it's a bad deal... Who decides what Brexit is or isn't? Maybe the Brexit party is needed if this is the case?

The point I'm making is that Boris believed it was a bad deal, but many of the Tory party believed it was a good deal as they voted for it. But because you agree that May's deal was bad and this one is good, the blame is now on Labour for blocking Brexit. What if they thought both were bad deals? That's the point I'm trying to get across.

Not trying to be clever or anything, it's not often I get to speak with intelligent leave voters tbh. The only ones I know post shit like "Divorce bill? Already paid in full in 1945" etc. I want to understand and challenge their point of view as I want them to also with mine (which you've all been more than doing).

 

[Fompous Part]

Ok but what about when Boris blocked it, twice? Was he not doing the same thing? Everyone seems to ignore that fact.

Pro-Brexit Tories who voted down May’s deal three times did so because it was shit and because they believed (correctly) that replacing May with a PM prepared to threaten no-deal Brexit would lead to a better deal. Boris’s deal isn’t very impressive IMO, but it’s better than May’s, and that alone vindicates them. Also, those ERG types were absolutely willing to take the no-deal route if necessary, so it wasn’t a matter of lacking commitment. If anything, they were sticking to the “no deal is better than a bad deal” line that May established and then abandoned.

Anti-Brexit MPs in the Tory and Labour parties did not reject May’s deal three times (and then Johnson’s) because they thought it could be improved upon. They said “non” on each occasion simply because it was a Brexit deal, and because they believed that continued obstruction might lead to a scenario where the process could be nixed altogether. Believing that any Brexit deal is ipso facto a bad deal is an honourable position that may be vindicated by future events, but politicians who think that way should have made that clear when they stood for election. It’s the duplicity that grates.

P.S. This doesn't add much to what Laker posted, so apologies for the repetition.

 

[Laker]

Pro-Brexit Tories who voted down May’s deal three times did so because it was shit and because they believed (correctly) that replacing May with a PM prepared to threaten no-deal Brexit would lead to a better deal. Boris’s deal isn’t very impressive IMO, but it’s better than May’s, and that alone vindicates them. Also, those ERG types were absolutely willing to take the no-deal route if necessary, so it wasn’t a matter of lacking commitment. If anything, they were sticking to the “no deal is better than a bad deal” line that May established and then abandoned.

Anti-Brexit MPs in the Tory and Labour parties did not reject May’s deal three times (and then Johnson’s) because they thought it could be improved upon. They said “non” on each occasion simply because it was a Brexit deal, and because they believed that continued obstruction might lead to a scenario where the process could be nixed altogether. Believing that any Brexit deal is ipso facto a bad deal is an honourable position that may be vindicated by future events, but politicians who think that way should have made that clear when they stood for election. It’s the duplicity that grates.

P.S. This doesn't add much to what Laker posted, so apologies for the repetition.

Thank you, that articulates my answer better than I was capable of.

 

[Gassy]

Pro-Brexit Tories who voted down May’s deal three times did so because it was shit and because they believed (correctly) that replacing May with a PM prepared to threaten no-deal Brexit would lead to a better deal. Boris’s deal isn’t very impressive IMO, but it’s better than May’s, and that alone vindicates them. Also, those ERG types were absolutely willing to take the no-deal route if necessary, so it wasn’t a matter of lacking commitment. If anything, they were sticking to the “no deal is better than a bad deal” line that May established and then abandoned.

Anti-Brexit MPs in the Tory and Labour parties did not reject May’s deal three times (and then Johnson’s) because they thought it could be improved upon. They said “non” on each occasion simply because it was a Brexit deal, and because they believed that continued obstruction might lead to a scenario where the process could be nixed altogether. Believing that any Brexit deal is ipso facto a bad deal is an honourable position that may be vindicated by future events, but politicians who think that way should have made that clear when they stood for election. It’s the duplicity that grates.

P.S. This doesn't add much to what Laker posted, so apologies for the repetition.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

So on this basis that you've both said, really then parliament has only been blocking our leaving the EU since Boris took control, which has been less than 4 months.. In fact, how many times did they vote his deal down? Was it once of twice? (Genuinely can't remember).

So, the first 3 years of 'dither and delay' has ultimately been created by the Tory party, which makes it quite funny for Boris' slogan. I do like the Tory motto of "Britain deserves better" - says the government in power since 2010...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think the fact that Boris had to expel 21 Tory rebels is proof enough that treating the Tories as a homogeneous group doesn't make much sense. And personally I'm not sure that any level of Tory incompetence could ever match Corbyn's wrong-headedness. He is actually a gift to the Tories, as is Brexit, because without it to vote for and Jez to vote against I'm not sure what the point of a conservative-in-name-only party is.

 

[Laker]

That's an opinion, not a fact.

So on this basis that you've both said, really then parliament has only been blocking our leaving the EU since Boris took control, which has been less than 4 months.. In fact, how many times did they vote his deal down? Was it once of twice? (Genuinely can't remember).

So, the first 3 years of 'dither and delay' has ultimately been created by the Tory party, which makes it quite funny for Boris' slogan. I do like the Tory motto of "Britain deserves better" - says the government in power since 2010...

Nope I don’t believe it’s an opinion, I believe that’s a fact. They would not have voted for any Brexit deal.

And I fully agree with your sentiment about the dithering in the first period under May - the Tories did screw up the initial negotiations which ultimately left Boris in this hopeless position to start with. I would also say Boris and Gove need to look at themselves for stitching each other up in the 2016 Tory leadership contest as the failure of a Brexiteer to take command was a contributing factor in May taking over, failing in her negotiations etc.

And to confirm, they voted it down twice.

 

[Fompous Part]

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Yep, it’s my suspicion (not a declaration of platonic truth), and one no doubt skewed by certain ideological biases and grievances, which we all have to some extent.

That said, I think I am more open to persuasion than many Leave voters (e.g. I have changed my mind about the wisdom of having the referendum) and would probably revise or at least rethink my outlook if people presented a compelling counternarrative. You’re very welcome to try.

 

[Gassy]

No wanting to try, I believe there are positives for leaving the EU. I actually abstained from voting in the referendum as I was 50/50.

However since then I’ve more leant to the remainer side as the Tories have cocked yo every single part of Brexit and tbh, I’m not sure I see the benefits. On top of that I see so many quite frankly outrageous posts & articles that gets shared by leavers that I end up despising any point they’re trying to make.

The only point that makes sense with me is making your own trade deals, the rest I believe we’re better off in the EU tbh.

Laker, do you think Labour would vote no if the Tories suddenly agreed a deal to stay in the customs union?

 

[Laker]

I think they’d vote yes to a Brexit including a customs union and then I’d have to question their sanity - why not just remain? There is no advantage to a customs union over remaining as far as I can see. It’s BRINO to most leavers.

Even the most staunch remainer would agree with your point that negotiating your own trade deals is a major advantage to leaving. It’s a key element and a customs union prevents that.

 

[Gassy]

I think they’d vote yes to a Brexit including a customs union and then I’d have to question their sanity - why not just remain? There is no advantage to a customs union over remaining as far as I can see. It’s BRINO to most leavers.

Even the most staunch remainer would agree with your point that negotiating your own trade deals is a major advantage to leaving. It’s a key element and a customs union prevents that.

Well tbh being in the customs union has worked out pretty well for us tbh - people seem to forget that we are also the country we are because of the customs union. It’s not all negative. But yeah, it’s the main point I think anyone would want.

What’s BRINO?

Tbh, I don’t see why we can’t have something similar to the Canadian model or Norwegian model

 

[Fompous Part]

if you want to formally leave the EU in a way that will minimise disruption to the economy (which I assume is what Labour meant when they talked of a jobs-first Brexit), the best form of Brexit would be a Norway-type arrangement with continued full participation in the Single Market. Ultimately, that’s what foreign (i.e. non-EU) investors want access to. That’s what allows for dynamic pan-European supply chains. That’s what removes the non-tariff barriers to trade, which is the really tricky matter. Sure, being in the Customs Union exempts us from the Common External Tariff, but that isn’t really as big deal as people (on both sides) make out. Removing tariff barriers is much easier than removing non-tariff barriers, not least because there’s global trend (through the WTO) toward removing tariffs anyway.

Given this, Labour’s prioritizing of the Customs Union over the Single Market doesn’t make much sense unless you assume either (a) they’re issue-illiterate morons, or (b) acting in bad faith. A decent case could be made for (a), but I think (b) is more likely. Labour needed a pretext for voting against the government. I think they went with the Customs Union for two reasons. First, it pretty much guaranteed a fight with the Tories. Second, focusing on the Single Market would have committed them to preserving FMoP, which would prove politically toxic in certain constituencies in the North of England.

If the Tories had pursued a form of ‘Soft Brexit’ that had kept the UK in the Customs Union, Labour would have most likely taken up another pretext for opposing it. Something about protecting the NHS or workers’ rights, maybe. I suspect Corbyn and McDonnell actually favour Brexit but want the Tories to take the flak for it, and that requires them to adopt an oppositional pose. The dull centrist caucus of the PLP just genuinely thinks Brexit is a terrible idea and cleaves to the hope it can be stopped. Given this, it’s hard to imagine Labour getting behind any deal negotiated by a Tory government.

P.S. BRINO = Brexit in Name Only.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Telegraph reporting that Boris will enshrine the December 2020 deadline into law, with or without a trade deal.

 

[Gassy]

I’d be very surprised if Boris managed to get a deal then if that’s the case

 

[Laker]

I’d be very surprised if Boris managed to get a deal then if that’s the case

I was at a course last month with one of the big 4 accounting firms and the feeling there was that a deal is doable in the timespan but probably not for everything - so it’s likely to be goods only, not including services. We’ll see.

I can see why he’s trying to stick to his guns politically, and this stance will definitely resonate with voters. It’s difficult because however much you extend by, negotiations will always go down to that point so a short deadline in that respect doesn’t make much difference. But realistically there’s a lot to get through and I think we should have asked to extend by another 6-12 months.

 

[Gassy]

I was at a course last month with one of the big 4 accounting firms and the feeling there was that a deal is doable in the timespan but probably not for everything - so it’s likely to be goods only, not including services. We’ll see.

I can see why he’s trying to stick to his guns politically, and this stance will definitely resonate with voters. It’s difficult because however much you extend by, negotiations will always go down to that point so a short deadline in that respect doesn’t make much difference. But realistically there’s a lot to get through and I think we should have asked to extend by another 6-12 months.

The only way IMO is if he gets to work immediately. Every single time the Tory government (be it Boris or May) would have an extension and just simply to nothing for 3 months, only meet once every now and again and make no ground - suddenly its the final month and panic stations, which ultimately led to another extension, no deal threat or a bad deal all round. People seem to think it was good negotiation, but it was shit - and that's a compliment.

Goods would be the obvious priority, I heard on radio though that its likely the EU would want the UK to hold similar standards on goods to EU to make things faster though? I can't remember it exactly

 

[Gladders]

The problem before was the EU knew parliament would never leave with no deal so they had no reason to give concessions and could happily stall as they knew we would ask for an extension.

Now they will have in the back of their minds that it's in their interests to give a bit back otherwise it will be no deal. A negotiation is two way, previously the EU held all the aces.

 

[Gassy]

But that still brings back the whole situation of 'you best do a deal with me, otherwise i'll cut off my own arm and one of your fingers'.

The EU will not make any exceptions to the UK, the preservation of the single market will be their priority. Anything that tries to upset that will ultimately lead to a no deal situation.