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

[mormont]

The idea that there is 'unity' among Brexit voters is self-evidently not true and can be dismissed out of hand. 

It is true that many Brexit voters want what they were told they could have, which is everything and a lollipop. Unfortunately, they were told lies. They can't have free trade with the EU and also complete freedom to strike independent deals undermining the EU. They can't have free movement within the EU for themselves while halting immigration from the EU. They can't have closed borders except for the one that isn't closed. 

Not that I blame the voters, mind you. It is the job of the people's representatives to look at these hard policy choices and make them. But there's been a consistent refusal to do so, indeed indignation at the very suggestion and accusations that to do this is treason. 

It's worth noting that even the amendment asking May to go back to Brussels and waste more time asking for things she's been told are not on the table, does not command a Parliamentary majority, only a plurality. It would take only four MPs to switch sides because they don't like any hypothetical 'alternative arrangement' and we'll be back to square one. Which, as a wilding points out, is exactly where May wants to be. But it's a moot point: there simply isn't going to be an 'alternative arrangement' that hasn't already been considered, completely satisfies over 100 MPs who loathe the backstop, is acceptable to Ireland, and can be drawn up in two weeks. 

[Nevarfeather]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

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. 

good point, which is why we are in the mess we are in, brexiter can't agree on how to get brexit and then can't agree on what brexit. 2.5 years and nothing has changed. what an embarressing shitshow

[Heartofice]

Just now, Nevarfeather said:

good point, which is why we are in the mess we are in, brexiter can't agree on how to get brexit and then can't agree on what brexit. 2.5 years and nothing has changed. what an embarressing shitshow

The idea that is just Brexiteers that can't agree on what Brexit they want is disingenuous. The reality is there are a lot of people who voted Remain trying to implement Brexit as well, who don't want Brexit and want the softest form of Brexit possible. 

The issue with Brexit is that a 'soft Brexit' (stupid term really) .. isn't really Brexit as it leaves you in the same state as before and doesn't address the key issues of why people voted. And a 'hard Brexit' is an incredibly unappealling to anyone who voted Remain and scary for some due to the complexity of untangling ourselves from decades of being in the EU.

We are at least now at a point where we have agreed on basically something, some form of Brexit that isn't no deal, even if the details are stupidly vague at this point.

[Nevarfeather]

Just now, Heartofice said:

We are at least now at a point where we have agreed on basically something, some form of Brexit that isn't no deal, even if the details are stupidly vague at this point.

2.5 years and the best the UK can do is 'not that one' 'not that one' 'not that one' 
something 'alternative' please
'no, we can't tell you what it is either'

and you think this is a good thing?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Nevarfeather said:

2.5 years and the best the UK can do is 'not that one' 'not that one' 'not that one' 
something 'alternative' please
'no, we can't tell you what it is either'

and you think this is a good thing?

No, but half the country and the house don't even want Brexit. It has also been handled incredibly badly by May. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

25 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

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. 

Half the household agrees, they all want a singular pet for the house. But one wants a dog, but not a cat. And one wants a cat, but not a dog. One wants a hamster. And one wants a boa constrictor. The other half does not want a pet at all.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Half the household agrees, they all want a singular pet for the house. But one wants a dog, but not a cat. And one wants a cat, but not a dog. One wants a hamster. And one wants a boa constrictor. The other half does not want a pet at all.

That one's easy though.

Snake eats hamster, snake eats cat, and presumably snake eats dog, too.

Thus the snake as the last pet standing wins, and rests and digests. Problem solved.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

And a 'hard Brexit' is an incredibly unappealling to anyone who voted Remain and scary for some due to the complexity of untangling ourselves from decades of being in the EU.

And for anybody who hasn't inherited a hedgefund. But it's about time somebody spoke up on the behalf of the Rees-Moggs of this world. But I am sure British farmer's will enjoy their new found freedom outside the protectionist EU. Or The guys who work in the car and aviation industries, which rely on j-i-t delivery of the parts.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

We are at least now at a point where we have agreed on basically something, some form of Brexit that isn't no deal, even if the details are stupidly vague at this point.

No you really haven't. You just said no to pizza, and no to hamburgers for dinner. And you also decided you want to have something for dinner afterall. That's not the same as saying what you actually want for dinner.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No, but half the country and the house don't even want Brexit. It has also been handled incredibly badly by May. I don't know what else to tell you.

While true, what Brexiters simply cannot comprehend, that a lot of those problems are innate to Brexit. Those are features, not bugs produced by May. Can she have a different deal? Yes, if she removes more redlines, she will get other (arguably better) options. If she insists on her redlines she will get this deal. The backstop is not going anywhere. The all UK one, as has been pointed out earlier was the explicit result of a UK request. The EU originally only wanted it to be valid for NI, which has lead the DUP to throw a tantrum about not wanting to be in a different internal market than the UK. The EU would gladly move back to the first backstop agreement from december 2017. Which turned unacceptable as soon as the legally binding text arrived in London.

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

No you really haven't. You just said no to pizza, and no to hamburgers for dinner. And you also decided you want to have something for dinner afterall. That's not the same as saying what you actually want for dinner.

You understand you are talking nonsense?

I think we need to be clear that we have gone from a point where May's deal was dead by an enormous majority, to the point of parliament saying they will sign off on that deal providing there was negotiation over the backstop arrangements. And actually that seems to have been the prevailing opinion for months. So there is clarity as to what Parliament will accept on almost everything except the backstop. And personally I think they have good reason to cautious over the implications of that backstop. 

[Which Tyler]

5 hours 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. 

Actually, Brexit is very well defined - not being a member state of the EU.
Literally anything that provides that delivers Brexit.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You understand you are talking nonsense?

I think we need to be clear that we have gone from a point where May's deal was dead by an enormous majority, to the point of parliament saying they will sign off on that deal providing there was negotiation over the backstop arrangements. And actually that seems to have been the prevailing opinion for months. So there is clarity as to what Parliament will accept on almost everything except the backstop. And personally I think they have good reason to cautious over the implications of that backstop.  

Not sure, if stupid or just Brexiter, but that's probably a redudancy if there ever was one.

You still have not put forward an alternative to the Backstop. Plain and simple. You don't have a workable plan to replace the backstop, then the backstop stays. Like I said, saying no to pizza for dinner is not the same as saying what you want for dinner.

[Rippounet]

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think we need to be clear that we have gone from a point where May's deal was dead by an enormous majority, to the point of parliament saying they will sign off on that deal providing there was negotiation over the backstop arrangements. And actually that seems to have been the prevailing opinion for months.

Really? I find this hard to believe.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not sure, if stupid or just Brexiter, but that'S probably a redudancy if there ever was one.

You still have not put forward an alternative to Backstop. Plain and simple. You don't have a workable plan to replace the backstop, then the backstop stays. Like I said, saying no to pizza for dinner is not the same as saying what you want for dinner.

Missing the point. In reply to the idea that nobody can agree on anything, in fact there seems to be a reasonable level of agreement on most of May's deal.

Where there is not alignment is on a Backstop that could potentially lock the UK into a situation of EU rule taker permanently without any viable means of escape. I fail to see how that situation could be viewed as acceptable to anyone. 

[Nevarfeather]

38 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Actually, Brexit is very well defined - not being a member state of the EU.
Literally anything that provides that delivers Brexit.

why don't they just vote for May's Withdrawal Agreement then, it provides that

[Nevarfeather]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Where there is not alignment is on a Backstop that could potentially lock the UK into a situation of EU rule taker permanently without any viable means of escape. I fail to see how that situation could be viewed as acceptable to anyone. 

of course there is a viable means to escape
brexiters keep telling us there is an amazing invisible tech solution out there, they just have to invent it and hey presto a way out. the wording 'unless and until' within the Backstop provides for a solution. The brexiters just have to find it. They tell us they can. So what's the problem......

unless they're lying?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Where there is not alignment is on a Backstop that could potentially lock the UK into a situation of EU rule taker permanently without any viable means of escape. I fail to see how that situation could be viewed as acceptable to anyone. 

Christ this is painful.

First. You are aware the backstop only comes into force if the UK fails to reach an agreement in two years; and that the UK could even trigger an extension that extends the transition by another two years (so really four years before it can ever kick in)? The backstop is merely an insurance policy to keep the Good Friday Agreement alive, and make sure there's no border on the Irish Island. You are aware of that? If you are aware of that, then you know why there can't be a time limit or any other nonsense you Brexiters fantasize about.

Second. There are some ways out, one would be to essentially discard NI, which means leave it in the CU with the Republic and the EU, while little Britain can do whatever pleases. Just that pimping out NI as a gateway to the EU internal market is not happening.

The latter was actually more or less the first backstop arrangement reached in December 2017. The all UK one came at the insistence of the UK (well more the DUP but that's splitting hairs).

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think we need to be clear that we have gone from a point where May's deal was dead by an enormous majority, to the point of parliament saying they will sign off on that deal providing there was negotiation over the backstop arrangements.

We haven't done any such thing.

As I pointed out already, the Brady amendment passed by a razor-thin margin, and does not command an actual majority in Parliament. Even that was on the basis of unspecified 'alternative arrangements'. It would take only four MPs of those 317 to decide that whatever concrete, actual 'alternative arrangements' might come back from the negotiations* aren't good enough in practice for us to be right back to square one.

*not that any will, because as also previously noted, it's a pie-in-the-sky notion that any such 'alternative arrangements' can even be found. 

 

[Heartofice]

46 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

First. You are aware the backstop only comes into force if the UK fails to reach an agreement in two years; and that the UK could even trigger an extension that extends the transition by another two years (so really four years before it can ever kick in)? The backstop is merely an insurance policy to keep the Good Friday Agreement alive, and make sure there's no border on the Irish Island. You are aware of that? If you are aware of that, then you know why there can't be a time limit or any other nonsense you Brexiters fantasize about.

Second. There are some ways out, one would be to essentially discard NI, which means leave it in the CU with the Republic and the EU, while little Britain can do whatever pleases. Just that pimping out NI as a gateway to the EU internal market is not happening.

 

I'm well aware of what the backstop is and I'm totally in agreement that it needs to exist..as a temporary measure.

I'm also aware that currently there is potentially no viable way for the UK to leave the backstop should it come into effect without full agreement from the EU, a situation which basically means that the EU could hold us in a disadvantageous position permanently. It seems quite naive to think that it isn't in their interest to do so either, and in that way it isn't also in their interest to agree to any future arrangements. 

So there needs to be some mechanism by which the UK can legally leave the backstop if certain mechanisms are not met. Some people are mooting a time limit but I don't see how that is viable, especially given the extreme inefficiency of the negotiations so far. 

 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Nevarfeather said:

why don't they just vote for May's Withdrawal Agreement then, it provides that

Because they still live in clowd cuckoo land, and think they can get better.

Or, worse; they genuinely think a No Deal Brexit is better than May's deal.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm well aware of what the backstop is and I'm totally in agreement that it needs to exist..as a temporary measure.

As in, the reason for the backstop will just vanish into thin air, when it suits the UK's interest? If you truely understand the reason for the backstop, you would see that all your little brexiter raging will fall apart there.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As in, the reason for the backstop will just vanish into thin air, when it suits the UK's interest? If you truely understand the reason for the backstop, you would see that all your little brexiter raging will fall apart there.

So you would be totally fine being permanently locked into the backstop I suppose?