The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU

[Matthew]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Matthew I have agreement with some of what you say.
Saying leaving without a deal has not as yet pressurized the EU negotiators into a major shift.
...

It's been blocked by hook or by crook by those wanting to ignore the direct democracy of the people and instead are motivated, fanatically, to go against that and remain. They knew no deal was pivitol and they stopped it.

Posted by greybeard (here)
...
The bottom line for them is the Irish border--the backstop.
...

The UK have said all along they will never put a hard border there. I have yet to see who will put a hard border their, because it will never be the UK. The EU have said they won't have a hard border. It's this kind of thought experiment of fear that has been pushed, when the de facto solution is to work off trust. Hard borders rise up to accommodate problems, you don't start with a hard border. Nobody starts with hard boders, nobody has said they will put up a hard border. We already operate between Ireland and the UK with different currency, different tax rates, because of trust it works. Look at the hard border of Israel; it didn't start a hard border, and grew around actual problems. Yet again another discussion already had, the same fear

Posted by greybeard (here)
...
I really cant see that democracy is in any danger--now.
...

17.4 million may disagree with you.

Posted by greybeard (here)
...

You may well have voted leave knowing what you were voting for but the information given out by Boris and friends before the referendum has been proven to be inaccurate.
So many voted believing this information to be true--would they vote the same way now?

There does not seem to be much disagreement about leaving with a deal and I think that's really what people expected.

So, as I have said, I think it fair for people to have a chance to vote the same or have a change of mind.

An election really is a separate issue with lots of thing to vote on, a referendum is about one thing.

If my grand children end up having to leave University I dont think they would find much solace in me sayiig "Its for the good of democracy" they have worked for years as have many others to get to Uni.
Their parents worked years , took risks to build their business it would have been easier to work for a boss, not that that's safe these days either.
Chris

Not sure which democracy you are talking about. I'm talking about the direct democracy in a referendum, which was brought about because people voted in the parties which had an independence referendum as key to their manifesto, and the speaker Bercow had to use SO24 to go against this and be hugely non-impartial, and Boris called for a general election to turn over a parliament which no longer represents the people, and the oposition strangely blocked it. Boris called for the opposition to give him a vote of no confidence (which would trigger a general election) and again they abuse their right to sit on the green benches. Who do they think they are? UK democracy is possibly already dead, any hope is in the next few weeks

[greybeard]

The reason that the opposition parties would not go for an election at this moment is because they fear that Boris could sneak through exit without the democratic approval of parliament while we are in an election situation.
Many in parliament are for exit but not without a deal.
There has to be a border somewhere after exit because of there will be different tarrifs after exit.

Son in laws shop had the busiest Friday last week of all time --why- because customers suspect rightly that prices will go up dramatically on the clothes--many from Italy--if no deal Brexit happens.

There are no trade agreements of any note with other countries.
On a no deal Brexit the maximum tariff on incoming goods will apply.
The yellow hammer document produced by the Government does not make pretty reading.
People in favour of no deal exit are probably financially secure.

Chris

[Matthew]

No greybeard, the reason was to stop the UK leaving the EU. Humans adapt very quickly, and trade is ancient - you can't stop it, and the border control at Calais came out and rebuked the claims of problems in a no deal situation

Former Port Chief Says No Deal Border ‘Chaos’ Widely Exaggerated
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...y-exaggerated/

One example from many...

...and yet outside the UK there are rumours of shenanigans:

NO DEAL, NO CALAIS France threatens to block Calais port to the UK if we refuse to pay £39bn divorce bill in a No Deal Brexit scenario
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/756662...brexit-threat/

The democratic approval of Parliament as you put it relies on the democratic approval of the people, and Boris called for a general election, and the remainers blocked it. Going round in circles again with this discussion

[greybeard]

Im listening to Remain--Leave with a deal--Exit no deal.
The dangers of leaving without a deal are coming from many including those who wish to leave with a deal.
Yes there is media hype--thats what they do, but underneath that all only the leave without a deal hard core ignore the consequence sor brush it aside with--we will cover that financially.
With who's money? Not theirs.
And then where is the funding for the new hospitals coming from--a money tree?
They cant get enough nursing staff as it is--European nurses leaving UK.


A smooth exit was promised--leaving without a deal and the consequences there in was not highlighted prior to the referendum.

Cool logic required.
Chris

[Matthew]

The no deal was for negotiations but the only thing the EU would settle for outside no deal has been coined the surrender act, and not wtihout good reason. It's dubbed the worst deal in history.

So now a no deal should kick in because the so called deal May and the EU cooked up is beyond awful. In the event of no deal we would continue to trade as we have unless the other side choose to stop.

What are you talking about nursing staff? Nobody ever talked about stopping migration, the UK has a proud history of immigration before the EU, and since joining we have gradually cut immigration from countries of previous generations of immigrants. Have you noticed how diverse The Brexit party is? Immigration would continue, the UK has a proud history of immigration why would that stop?

The UK is one of the stronger economies in the region, they need us just as much as we need them deal or not. Somehow we will find a way to continue to trade. The mindset is de facto vs de jure

[greybeard]

Matthew, discussion is good because it brings others into this important debate and more information comes up for open minded to consider
I dont expect you, or anyone else, to agree with what I am saying.

Yet again to be clear I dont mind if the end result is stay or exit as long as its done in an orderly fashion.
I agree that this country is resilient but no need to make it more difficult than it need be.
Chris

[araucaria]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
I hear you say we should get along more, and not trust Boris. I don't trust him, except it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill', as it's too bad to be a deal, but has parity with surrender treaties.

The Brexit referendum has already been had, and the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table. But it's past that now, democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased (he abused SO24 emergency debates), betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election (FFS!), and the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair) who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy. Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand.

Nothing any of us can do about it - it's past that, but it's sad to see them wangle out of a very clear 17.4 million strong leave vote, in the biggest turnout for a democratic exercise in our country's history. It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy

Thank you YoYoYo. I have a few comments if I may.

it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill'

With respect, you have never heard any such thing. Each of those thousands of references is to the Benn Act obliging Johnson to request an extension to prevent no deal. That much I would have thought was clear. To describe this hard exit deal a surrender sounds like a no-dealer talking (excuse me, I don’t know your actual position).

the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table.

Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc. Many in Europe now just want Britain out, deal or no deal it really makes no difference.

But it's past that now

Why did the honest negotiation come to nothing? Because it was a hollow threat that did not work, maybe because making threats is not a particularly honest negotiating tactic.

democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased

Blaming the referee is usually a poor argument. Why? Because in this case Theresa May's deal was defeated by voting members only (NOT the Speaker). The Tories scored a spectacular own goal with no outside help.

betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election

Opposition MPs don’t betray the other side; they are not there to help but to hinder; they simply do their job of opposing, using all the legal options open to them. The best way to enact legislation is still to have a parliamentary majority agreeing to it, without relying on the opposition. Unfortunately the first thing May was to squander hers, and Johnson has done likewise.

the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair)

Blaming the referee 2. The supreme court is not an ad hoc arrangement but does valuable work in all kinds of fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...me_Court_cases

who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy.

No, magistrates are not elected but appointed on merit, for which you would surely be grateful if ever you had to deal with them. The judiciary is thankfully separate from the legislative arm. And if I may add, neither is the monarch elected, and it was perhaps a “worrying abuse of democracy” to involve her in this.

Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand.

Democracy is indeed at risk when the illegality of government action is played down and the authority of the judiciary undermined. There would be no point in having checks and balances that never checked and never balanced. The risk is compounded when the illegality involves shutting down Parliament, i.e. the voice of the people. When you vote in a general election, you are electing Parliament, not the government. Prorogation had the effect of laying off your representative, and everyone else’s as well. Oh yes, democracy is/was at risk.

It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy

Since you are into shenanigans, you need to look at the whole picture, including those that led to a referendum result that was far too close for Farage to call – wasn’t he conceding defeat for several hours? Such overlooked shenanigans cast the later ones in a rather different light.

Things like the 350 million per week saving for the NHS. No need to dispute the figure and no need to hark back to 2016. The government has unveiled its plans which “include a £2.7bn investment for six hospitals over five years”, 70 million here, 100 million there, and 200 million elsewhere, totaling a shade over three billion – again no need to dispute the figures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49867376
That represents the spending over five years of a sum saved in about nine weeks! Wow! I think anyone supporting this government ought to feel scandalously betrayed over the way it is delivering Brexit. The 350 million figure may have been inflated, but at the same time it inflated by an equal amount those politicians’ commitment to fund the NHS. By their own count they should be spending upwards of 18 billion a year, 91 billion over five years. Has anyone asked what they intend to do with the surplus? Call it dishonesty, call it sheer incompetence, total unfitness to govern, but please don’t call it stolen democracy. And, as I said, Leave voters should be furious with Johnson over this, which is merely the first example that came to mind.

[Matthew]

Posted by greybeard (here)
...
Yet again to be clear I dont mind if the end result is stay or exit as long as its done in an orderly fashion.
...

The result has been in for a few years already, it was to leave - to have a fair orderly negotiation, that could only have happened if both parties had their own no deal on the table to start with, both parties need to be able to walk away... that's called a fair negotiation. However, the European Commission does not want no deal, can't cope with a no deal plan; they grew their empire too fast, too quickly

[greybeard]

Logically I can only see two end results--a no deal exit or remain.
I just can not see any deal being reached.
There is no way that the Government will agree to the backstop--no way EU will agree to divorce without the backstop.
Logic says that remain will be the end result.
Logic may not win.

Just having a general election would probably produce roughly the same problem--not enough leave members--not enough remain MP's .

If remain collective parties gets a win in a General Election--then they would probably have a challenge getting remain voted for in Parliament.
For exactly the same reason if an exit collective gets in, it may struggle.
Collectives disagree on the small print.

So having a referendum before a General Election might make more sense.
Then there is a clear vote based on current information and a General election can focus on other issues.

Im pleased to see viewpoints from people with more knowledge that I emerging.
Chris

[Matthew]

Posted by araucaria (here)
...
With respect, you have never heard any such thing. ....

I certainly have.. here look:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/03/boris...egal-10678653/

Posted by araucaria (here)
...Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc. Many in Europe now just want Britain out, deal or no deal it really makes no difference.

What do you mean emptyish threat, it's called a serious negotiation and has the concept of 'best alternative to negotiated agreement' (BATNA go look it up) and is the bedrock for fair negotiations, it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work or should work and if the BATNA is not there, it's not a fair negociation

Posted by araucaria (here)
Why did the honest negotiation come to nothing? Because it was a hollow threat that did not work, maybe because making threats is not a particularly honest negotiating tactic.

Posted by araucaria (here)
Blaming the referee is usually a poor argument. Why? Because in this case Theresa May's deal was defeated by voting members only (NOT the Speaker). The Tories scored a spectacular own goal with no outside help.

The referee is not impartial, that's the point - and used a Special Order 24 to have an emergency session to force an extension; abusing his impartial position of power

One of the sides seems to have bought the ref.

Posted by araucaria (here)

betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election

Opposition MPs don’t betray the other side; they are not there to help but to hinder; they simply do their job of opposing, using all the legal options open to them. The best way to enact legislation is still to have a parliamentary majority agreeing to it, without relying on the opposition. Unfortunately the first thing May was to squander hers, and Johnson has done likewise.

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy and then refuse a general election (to get voted out) when they go against their promise to the people, it's so clear

...

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consent

[araucaria]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
...
With respect, you have never heard any such thing. ....

I certainly have.. here look:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/03/boris...egal-10678653/

Erm, this is exactly what I am saying. The title, “… ‘surrender bill’ which would make no-deal Brexit illegal” means the Benn Act. The May bill would have made no-deal Brexit impossible: she was seeking to sign a deal. Further down, Johnson is pretty explicit: “It’s Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender bill”. And Hilary Benn is making my own point: “There’s a growing number of members who have come to the conclusion that what he [Johnson] really wants, is a no-deal Brexit.”

it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work

The word “threat” was yours, not mine. You are contradicting yourself again. If you don’t like the word, then you should not have used it. But since you did, better admit to having used it improperly than accuse me.

The referee is not impartial, that's the point

That is precisely what is meant by “blaming the ref”. Which is usually (not always) an excuse for an otherwise inadequate performance.

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy

They are there to oppose what needs to be opposed as conscientious representatives of their constituents on whose behalf they act. They are not “voted in by democracy”, whatever that is supposed to mean, they are elected by a majority of local people for their personal qualities, which include greater familiarity with the business of parliament, independence of mind and other things which are never going to please all the people all the time. They are not required suddenly to all align themselves behind slightly over half of the electorate of three years ago. Democracy means entitlement to disagree and reach consensus by properly airing those disagreements. It is a process, and the quality of any final consensus depends on the observance of that process.

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consent

This is just one voter’s opinion such as has been swamping the media. As such, it is bound to be ineffective precisely because it is outside of the above-described “process”. Voters are possibly frustrated at being only represented by individual MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. Maybe a more direct form of citizen participation would be in order some day, but right now we can safely say it is not going to work, notably because of this lack of loser consent you mention.

At this time, I am fairly confident the process being followed by Parliament will reach a conclusion which, as Greybeard says, would be acceptable either way. Tell me, can you agree with that? Or would you maybe suffer a bit of the lack of loser consent yourself? You see, the thing about democracy is that up to 49% of the population can be on the wrong side of a given argument. We are going to have to give up on this idea of losing because there is far too much of it embedded in the process. We should none of us be losing if democracy is winning. If democracy is winning, government by the few for the few will cease just as soon as voters stop voting for them. What I see Brexit doing is exactly the opposite of that: getting the ordinary citizen and the underprivileged to keep a flagging bunch of old Etonians and their cronies in power.

[greybeard]

If the believers in leave are so sure that their numbers are increasing how is it that they are so against another referendum?
Parliament is a democracy which is why other parties are called the opposition.
Only a one party or decisions making situation would be a dictatorship.

This why it is absolutely necessary that the Government can not do as it pleases--it has to get any proposal through parliament.
The fact that May could not get her deal through Parliament was not because Parliament is anti Brexit but because they did not like the deal.
If a deal had been produced without a backstop and continuing in part membership--then it would have gone through first go.
This blame Parliament--blame the speaker-- blame the judges, is all to get people to believe its all about the will of the people and the aforementioned being the traitors and standing in the way of the peoples will.
That's promoting anarchy.
Its continuous N.L.P. (Neuro, Linguistic, Programming)
Hypnotic repeating key phrases.
The blaming--the propaganda.
One of Hitlers Generals said "If you repeat something often enough people will believe it
Them and us.
We are for the people--how many freedom fighters regretted supporting whoever.

Chris

[samildamach]

How many times would you like a revote if you lose again?

[greybeard]

Posted by samildamach (here)
How many times would you like a revote if you lose again?

I did not loose because I did not vote.
I want truth and so many lies were told in the run up to the referendum--the result was built on a false premise.
That being that there would be an easy exit and we would be living in a land of milk and honey.
We would not pay the divorce bill.
NHS would benefit greatly.
Look at all the prominent people who said Borois was incapable of telling the truth.
Ex employers--David Cameron--Sister-- Brother ex members of his cabinet--Amber Rudd
All they all part of a conspiracy against Brexit--I dont think so.
Look at what is coming to light now--conveniently disregarded by Brexit supporters.
So this is the man that you want to trust to lead us out of the EU.
Where is the integrity?
A man who sacks long standing cabinet members and leading Conservatives.
An Ex chancelor who got the countries debt greatly reduced.
Where is the statesmanship in words like betrayal--is this going to unite the party members far less the country.
People are being stirred up on purpose I suspect.
I suggest examine all the available facts from all perspectives with an open mind.
Chris

[Matthew]

Posted by araucaria (here)
...

it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work

The word “threat” was yours, not mine. You are contradicting yourself again. If you don’t like the word, then you should not have used it. But since you did, better admit to having used it improperly than accuse me.

To use the word threat like you did, 'Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc.' that's not how I used the word to describe negotiations. Negotiations have an implicit threat, but you don't call a negotiation 'a threatening' - yet deconstruct a typical negotiation and threats are in there - that was when I used the word threat. You called it 'emptyish threat' but it's how fair negotiations happen

Posted by araucaria (here)
...

The referee is not impartial, that's the point

That is precisely what is meant by “blaming the ref”. Which is usually (not always) an excuse for an otherwise inadequate performance.

It's widely argued that Bercow is NOT impartial, but were're all entitled to our opinion

Posted by araucaria (here)
...

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy

They are there to oppose what needs to be opposed as conscientious representatives of their constituents on whose behalf they act. They are not “voted in by democracy”, whatever that is supposed to mean, they are elected by a majority of local people for their personal qualities, which include greater familiarity with the business of parliament, independence of mind and other things which are never going to please all the people all the time. They are not required suddenly to all align themselves behind slightly over half of the electorate of three years ago. Democracy means entitlement to disagree and reach consensus by properly airing those disagreements. It is a process, and the quality of any final consensus depends on the observance of that process.

It's much simpler than that, our MPs are our representatives. They no longer represent the people and BLOCK a general election. They aren't fit for opposition

Posted by araucaria (here)
...

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consent

This is just one voter’s opinion such as has been swamping the media. As such, it is bound to be ineffective precisely because it is outside of the above-described “process”. Voters are possibly frustrated at being only represented by individual MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. Maybe a more direct form of citizen participation would be in order some day, but right now we can safely say it is not going to work, notably because of this lack of loser consent you mention.

you said
"MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. "

It's more than that, how you shrug this off... MPs are going against their pledge to honour the referendum result, it's that simple, its not that MPs arn't pandering to individual wishes... I can;t believe I read that

[greybeard]

This thread "Should I comment" by enfolded blue might be helpful.
Chris

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1316547

[greybeard]

Are hedge funds driving Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans? | Peter Jukes

"Follow the money"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eLH-wXNCtEA

[greybeard]

MPs have been accused of ‘collaborating’ with Brussels. But why on earth shouldn’t they?
The Independent Letters,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mps-accuse...122105448.html

MPs should be collaborators with Brussels, for that is exactly what the democratic will of the people was, as expressed in the 2017 general election, a more recent and much better informed democratic exercise than the 2016 referendum.

In 2017, the party associated with hard Brexit and non-negotiable “red lines” lost its majority. Most people voted for parties that were promising to “collaborate” with Europe to get a soft Brexit deal, or even to remain. The parliament that was then elected still exists and, in making a no-deal Brexit illegal and working with Europe, it is doing no more or less than enacting the will of the people.

Adrian Cosker

[greybeard]

The Latest: EU nations to ‘engage actively’ on Brexit offer
Associated Press Associated Press

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/latest-joh...110002969.html

MANCHESTER, England (AP) — The Latest on Brexit and British politics (all times local):

5:30 p.m.

The European Union presidency says that the 27 member states are ready to look at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s proposals “constructively.”

Finland, which currently holds the EU rotating presidency, said that the European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker will assess the proposals “and is ready to engage actively.”

The statement added that “the EU 27 will stay united” during the upcoming negotiations.

___

5:05 p.m.

EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has welcomed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “determination” to advance Brexit talks and said negotiations on Johnson’s new withdrawal deal proposal would take place “over coming days.”

Despite a yawning gap between the two sides, the European Commission said Juncker “acknowledged the positive advances” in some of the proposals Johnson submitted on Wednesday.

At the same time, the commission said “the president noted that there are still some problematic points that will need further work in the coming days.”

If there is to be any divorce deal before the U.K. leaves the EU as scheduled on Oct. 31, both sides have said they would need to reach an agreement by the time an EU summit set for Oct. 17-18 EU summit ends.

Johnson said in his letter to Juncker that his proposals “provide a basis for rapid negotiations.” In his reply, Juncker has left the door open for a solution to be found that resolves remaining differences.

___

[greybeard]

Boris Johnson To Prorogue Parliament, Number 10 Confirms
HuffPost UK Rachel Wearmouth,HuffPost UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-john...172340809.html

Prime Minister Boris Johnson delivering his keynote speech on the final day of the Conservative Party Conference

Parliament will be suspended for six days, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has confirmed.

The prorogation will start on Tuesday and will allow the government to bring forward a new domestic agenda in a Queen’s Speech on October 14, Number 10 has said.

It comes after Johnson’s longer five-week shutdown of parliament was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Johnson said: “I want to deliver on the people’s priorities.

“Through a Queen’s Speech, the government will set out its plans for the NHS, schools, tackling crime, investing in infrastructure and building a strong economy.

“We will get Brexit done on 31 October and continue delivering on these vital issues.”