UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

[Denvek]

So Parliament votes to reject what's automatically happening if they don't do anything, but also votes against actually doing anything to stop it. They then vote to replace the part of the deal they don't like but will only happen if they can't come up with an alternative, but they haven't come up with any alternative to replace it with. Does that sound about right?

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Denvek said:

So Parliament votes to reject what's automatically happening if they don't do anything, but also votes against actually doing anything to stop it. They then vote to replace the part of the deal they don't like but will only happen if they can't come up with an alternative, but they haven't come up with any alternative to replace it with. Does that sound about right?

It's not a bad result.  The Commons are taking decisions, at long last.  They've removed the option of a second referendum, and they've removed the option of kicking the can down the road.

This narrows down the options to revoke Brexit, accept the WA, whether or not any amendment is agreed with the EU, or go for No Deal.

[Which Tyler]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

What red lines could you delete and still justifiably describe it as Brexit?

All of them

[Chaircat Meow]

45 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's not a bad result.  The Commons are taking decisions, at long last.  They've removed the option of a second referendum, and they've removed the option of kicking the can down the road.

This narrows down the options to revoke Brexit, accept the WA, whether or not any amendment is agreed with the EU, or go for No Deal.

I don't think so. I got depressed before when I said we were all fucked but I think really the Commons just voted to give May two more weeks to achieve nothing, then we'll be back where we were today.  Cooper can still bring her amendment back, or one like it. If she does the Commons will eventually accept an extension (which may lead to a referendum/revocation) or pass the WA as far more mps are against no-deal than voted for Spelman's amendment. 

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I don't think so. I got depressed before when I said we were all fucked but I think really the Commons just voted to give May two more weeks to achieve nothing, then we'll be back where we were today.  Cooper can still bring her amendment back, or one like it. If she does the Commons will eventually accept an extension (which may lead to a referendum/revocation) or pass the WA as far more mps are against no-deal than voted for Spelman's amendment. 

I think it very unlikely that May will secure changes to the WA. But I don't think the votes are there to stop Brexit, in the Commons.  So, MP's will have to choose between accepting the WA or No Deal. 

 

[mormont]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Commons are taking decisions, at long last.

No, they're not. They voted yesterday to take no decisions. They will not decide to delay Brexit. They will not decide to accept the WA. They will not decide to offer an alternative. The only thing Parliament decided yesterday was that the EU should save them by changing their minds on the backstop (without specifying what it is they want the EU to agree to as an alternative). That does not really qualify as a decision. It's copping out.

As for what else May could have done, plenty. One reason that there is no majority in Parliament for any version of Brexit is that at no point in the entire proceedings has May made any effort or shown any interest in building a majority for any version that would attract support from anyone outside the Tory party and DUP. She has treated the issue as an entirely partisan matter.

And as for whether a Brexit without ending free movement is 'really' Brexit, that's an illustration of the problem. That is one opinion of what Brexit is: others do exist. If you don't regard them as a 'real' Brexit, that's your right. But you can't claim that everyone who voted for Brexit agrees with you, nor can you claim that it's deliverable while maintaining free trade with the EU, nor can you say that everyone who does agree with you is willing to pay the price of losing the latter in order to gain the former. There is not a majority for your 'real' Brexit, just as there is not one for anything else. And why not? Because from 2014 to today, neither the government nor the opposition has been honest with the public about Brexit, instead promising them the impossible can be delivered, no problems. And now May is off to Brussels cheerfully promising it again.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

And as for whether a Brexit without ending free movement is 'really' Brexit, that's an illustration of the problem. That is one opinion of what Brexit is: others do exist. If you don't regard them as a 'real' Brexit, that's your right. But you can't claim that everyone who voted for Brexit agrees with you, nor can you claim that it's deliverable while maintaining free trade with the EU, nor can you say that everyone who does agree with you is willing to pay the price of losing the latter in order to gain the former. There is not a majority for your 'real' Brexit, just as there is not one for anything else. And why not? Because from 2014 to today, neither the government nor the opposition has been honest with the public about Brexit, instead promising them the impossible can be delivered, no problems. And now May is off to Brussels cheerfully promising it again.

Well there was no huge majority for Brexit in the first place and that is the issue. Not in the country and not in the house. 

For Brexiteers there is a pretty strong thread of uniformity about what they want: end free movement and return control of laws to the UK. The first one on that list I would say would be the highest priority. The issue there is all the other implications of doing that. 

Almost anyone else I've seen arguing for 'other' forms of Brexit, be it Norway or something else, are generally just wanting to keep the status quo and don't want Brexit to happen at all. 

[mormont]

'I would say': there's your problem. 

Look, if it was clear what people who voted for Brexit agreed on, an inanity like 'Brexit means Brexit' would never have been uttered. That was the moment it was clear that nobody had a fucking clue what we had just voted to do. The disaster has flowed inevitably from that. 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

'I would say': there's your problem. 

Look, if it was clear what people who voted for Brexit agreed on, an inanity like 'Brexit means Brexit' would never have been uttered. That was the moment it was clear that nobody had a fucking clue what we had just voted to do. The disaster has flowed inevitably from that. 

Well lets just say that almost all polls of why people voted Brexit stated that control of immigration and return of sovereignty to the UK were the overwhelming reasons that people voted for Brexit. 
 

[Nevarfeather]

Brexit has never been defined. 
Is it Chequers, Norway, Canada, Labours brexit? Boris' Super Canada, No-deal, Norway+, Norway for now, Swiss style brexit......they can't agree. 

How can you possibly enter into such a large project without knowing what you're trying to achieve, it's mind-boggling that there is still no majority for any type of brexit. This is the problem. Leave sold every type of brexit to 17million people and now they all want their special unicorn and can't agree what it is. That vote should never be combined into one giant 'Out' box on a ballot. It was deeply irresponsible and stupid to do so 

[Nevarfeather]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well lets just say that almost all polls of why people voted Brexit stated that control of immigration and return of sovereignty to the UK were the overwhelming reasons that people voted for Brexit. 
 

At yet the UK's own brexit White Paper states in black and white there was 'no loss of sovereignty through membership' so how can you return something you never lost?

As for polls stating control of immigration is why they voted, when you ask if you're willing to take an economic hit to get that control there is a different answer to the question. 

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well lets just say that almost all polls of why people voted Brexit stated that control of immigration and return of sovereignty to the UK were the overwhelming reasons that people voted for Brexit. 

Except that these are vague generalities, more sentiments than actual policies. This takes us no further forward. 

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

At yet the UK's own brexit White Paper states in black and white there was 'no loss of sovereignty through membership' so how can you return something you never lost?

As for polls stating control of immigration is why they voted, when you ask if you're willing to take an economic hit to get that control there is a different answer to the question. 

I posted a link a while back showing that a large percentage of Brexit voters were willing to take an economic hit in order to control immigration. 

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

Except that these are vague generalities, more sentiments than actual policies. This takes us no further forward. 

It's really not all that vague. May's red lines correlate pretty closely to those wishes. 

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

It's really not all that vague. May's red lines correlate pretty closely to those wishes. 

They don't: they merely appear to, because those wishes are so vague and ill-defined. As proof, consider that a huge part of the problem May has is that within her own party, there are vastly different views of what 'sovereignty' means in the context of Brexit and that most of the rebels on the right regard her plan, red lines and all, as an abject failure to deliver it. 

[Nevarfeather]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I posted a link a while back showing that a large percentage of Brexit voters were willing to take an economic hit in order to control immigration. 

It's really not all that vague. May's red lines correlate pretty closely to those wishes. 

how large a percentage? 
should we continue with such a large generational change in a country for the will of a percentage of 37% of the electorate. Until Brexiters can get behind a definition of brexit there will only ever be a percentage of them who can agree on anything. There is no mandate for any particular type of brexit. Sorry

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

They don't: they merely appear to, because those wishes are so vague and ill-defined. As proof, consider that a huge part of the problem May has is that within her own party, there are vastly different views of what 'sovereignty' means in the context of Brexit and that most of the rebels on the right regard her plan, red lines and all, as an abject failure to deliver it. 

Not really. The wishes of Brexit voters are pretty darn clear. The difficulty is implementing those wishes and the disruption caused during the transition. 

 

[Nevarfeather]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really. The wishes of Brexit voters are pretty darn clear. The difficulty is implementing those wishes and the disruption caused during the transition. 

 

Really
you must be joking right, some want a Norway deal, some want a Canada deal, some want no-deal, some want to stay in the SM, some want Super Canada, some want a Backstop, some don't want a Backstop. The Brexiter have never been clear on what they want. Do they want to leave Euratom, the EMA, Habitats Directive, do they want a hard border in Ireland, do they want tech solutions, what on earth do any of them want. They are not remotely united on what Brexit is at all, have never been. 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

Really
you must be joking right, some want a Norway deal, some want a Canada deal, some want no-deal, some want to stay in the SM, some want Super Canada, some want a Backstop, some don't want a Backstop. The Brexiter have never been clear on what they want. Do they want to leave Euratom, the EMA, Habitats Directive, do they want a hard border in Ireland, do they want tech solutions, what on earth do any of them want. They are not remotely united on what Brexit is at all, have never been. 

I said voters.

As for the Tories, yes there is a large mix, but generally the mix more about Brexiteers vs Remainers, and the difference is about tolerance to compromise.

 

[Nevarfeather]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I said voters.

As for the Tories, yes there is a large mix, but generally the mix more about Brexiteers vs Remainers, and the difference is about tolerance to compromise.

 

I've yet to meet a brexit voter who can tell me what they want in any detail and i live in a leave area. i ask things like 'do you want a border in NI?' and they say no, but then some say they want Ireland to be unified so they'd be ok with a sea border,  but then I ask if they want to lose the EHIC card and they say no, but then I ask if they want to leave SM and CU and some say yes and some say no. I ask if they want more money for the NHS and they say yes. there isn't any unity among brexit voters sorry, to claim there is a unity is nonsense 

 

 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Nevarfeather said:

I've yet to meet a brexit voter who can tell me what they want in any detail and i live in a leave area. i ask things like 'do you want a border in NI?' and they say no, but then some say they want Ireland to be unified so they'd be ok with a sea border,  but then I ask if they want to lose the EHIC card and they say no, but then I ask if they want to leave SM and CU and some say yes and some say no. I ask if they want more money for the NHS and they say yes. there isn't any unity among brexit voters sorry, to claim there is a unity is nonsense 

 

 

There is unity on the main issues on why people voted to leave. Where there is a difference is in what compromises people are willing to make in order to get those wishes.