The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Hopefully Mr Macron will deliver the coup de grace to this abortion of a process and see us out on 12th of April, once and for all. 

It’s absolutely certain that if it is left to Parliament we will not leave. 

It is truly is taking back control, when you, as a Brexiteer, are hoping the President of France will do something in your benefit.

Edited April 6, 2019 by StefanAVFC

[Awol]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

It is truly is taking back control, when you, as a Brexiteer, are hoping the President of France will do something in your benefit.

I know, it’s astonishing that May was prepared to go so far to avoid actually leaving. The Tories are finished, and as was discussed at the beginning of this thread Brexit will hopefully do for the main parties in their current form. 

[Seat68]

Merde. 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

it’s astonishing that May was prepared to go so far to avoid actually leaving

I'm sorry but that is delusional

[StefanAVFC]

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

I know, it’s astonishing that May was prepared to go so far to avoid actually leaving. The Tories are finished, and as was discussed at the beginning of this thread Brexit will hopefully do for the main parties in their current form. 

The reason we aren't leaving under her deal is because leaving is harder than everyone made out when your side 'won' by the narrowest of margins.

The soft-liners don't vote for it because it ends FoM/don't want Brexit and the hard-liners don't want it because it doesn't go far enough.

I'm intrigued what your solution would have been. No deal?

Never a mandate for that and it's a total rewriting of history to say it is.

[Enda]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Never a mandate for that and it's a total rewriting of history to say it is.

As he hopes a French politician vetoes the request of sovereign Parliament, I'm not sure Awol is big on mandates.

[andym]

I guess the question that needs to be asked is why May (and Parliament) are, after having little problem with triggering Article 50 a couple of years ago, suddenly getting cold feet?

If it was going to be as easy and as beneficial as was told, do we seriously think May wouldn't have done it, even if it meant no deal - going down in history as freeing us from the clutches of the evil EU and delivering the 'will of the people' - its a guaranteed vote winner, no politician is turning that down.

Unless there are some pretty big reasons to turn it down, such as the fact it could **** up the country good and proper, in the short term at least.

They all painted themselves into a corner 2 years ago in the rush to not be seen as 'enemies of the people', but now after actually looking into what leaving entails (sure i read Tory MPs were getting briefed on what a Customs Union is only last week), they have realised that trying to unpick 40 years of international cooperation in less than 2 is pretty much impossible, crashing out would be disastrous, and so the can just keeps getting kicked down the road.

 

 

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, Enda said:

As he hopes a French politician vetoes the request of sovereign Parliament, I'm not sure Awol is big on mandates.

The lol is strong with this one... May has a mandate from the electorate  to leave the EU. Not to try and cling on to the economic & geo-legal EU order, but to be outside it. To exit. That’s what Leave actually means.

May decided Brexit was basically about racism, so as long as she delivered an end to free movement anything else was fair game. It’s the possibly inevitable consequence of a Remainer trying to deliver something they never understood in the first place. 

 

 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, andym said:

I guess the question that needs to be asked is why May (and Parliament) are, after having little problem with triggering Article 50 a couple of years ago, suddenly getting cold feet?

If it was going to be as easy and as beneficial as was told, do we seriously think May wouldn't have done it, even if it meant no deal - going down in history as freeing us from the clutches of the evil EU and delivering the 'will of the people' - its a guaranteed vote winner, no politician is turning that down.

Unless there are some pretty big reasons to turn it down, such as the fact it could **** up the country good and proper, in the short term at least.

They all painted themselves into a corner 2 years ago in the rush to not be seen as 'enemies of the people', but now after actually looking into what leaving entails (sure i read Tory MPs were getting briefed on what a Customs Union is only last week), they have realised that trying to unpick 40 years of international cooperation in less than 2 is pretty much impossible, crashing out would be disastrous, and so the can just keeps getting kicked down the road.

 

 

If a no-deal exit was really so disastrous they’d have already revoked article 50 - Mervyn King shot that fox quite comprehensively on the Today programme during the week.

It’s now about the fact that we’ve come up to the deadline to leave but the public haven’t been intimidated into changing their minds since 2016. The MPs and HMG collectively lack the courage to simply revoke and overturn the referendum, neither can they bring themselves to do that which they had legislated to do - Leave with or without a deal.

At this rate they are likely to crash the entire political system, imo. That could be a profoundly good outcome for the UK. 

 

[ml1dch]

If only someone capable and competent who thought it was a good idea had been in charge.  

There was that one guy...no, hang on. What about...actually, no. Maybe the right person was...no.

I think I've found the stumbling block here.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

If a no-deal exit was really so disastrous they’d have already revoked article 50....

It’s precisely why we haven’t left with “no deal”. Why were now hoping for another extension, why the E.U. gave us one. Because it’s so disastrous for everyone.

Futhermore, there’s not really any such thing as “no deal”. If we disastrously left that way, (which I really don’t see happening) we’d immediately be asking the E.U. for deals on everything from security to aviation to medicine to customs, to etc. etc.

its utter Bollex, this “No deal” fantasy.

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

May decided Brexit was basically about racism, so as long as she delivered an end to free movement anything else was fair game. It’s the possibly inevitable consequence of a Remainer trying to deliver something they never understood in the first place.

I'm not sure that's right.

She is certainly predisposed to promote racist policies, as we've seen over years.  She may well have interpreted the vote as expressing racist sentiment (which it certainly was on the part of some), but her instincts are probably more towards that Home Counties feeling of being more comfortable with the England of the 1950s than the kind of overt and aggressive racism that has resurfaced.

I'm sure she saw her task as being to manage a process which was clearly very divisive for her party, without splitting it.  She seems to have failed.

The full implications of trying to exit weren't understood by anyone at the outset, not politicians, nor the civil service, and definitely not the electorate.  How could they be?  So we have ended up with trying to manage an administrative and technical process, while the time and attention of the politicians has been on the political management of bitter internal party divisions.  The arbitrary timescale hasn't helped, nor has serving A50 without the slightest appreciation of how long the unravelling would take.  But the core problem has surely been that a technical and massively complex process has been wholly subordinate to trying to hold together warring factions.

Delivering Brexit would have been hard even if there was agreement on what it meant or what was intended to be achieved, but without even that baseline, it's unsurprising that she has failed.  I don't think it's because she would personally have been more comfortable remaining.

[Enda]

27 minutes ago, Awol said:

The lol is strong with this one... May has a mandate from the electorate  to leave the EU. Not to try and cling on to the economic & geo-legal EU order, but to be outside it. To exit. That’s what Leave actually means.

She certainly has a mandate to the leave the EU. No question there. But the electorate have not commented on March 2019 versus June 2019.

The only mandate in that regard is from Parliament, who have asked for more time.

[Awol]

Just now, blandy said:

It’s precisely why we haven’t left with “no deal”. Why were now hoping for another extension, why the E.U. gave us one. Because it’s so disastrous for everyone.

Futhermore, there’s not really any such thing as “no deal”. If we disastrously left that way, (which I really don’t see happening) we’d immediately be asking the E.U. for deals on everything from security to aviation to medicine to customs, to etc. etc.

its utter Bollex, this “No deal” fantasy.

On your first para we just disagree. 

Agreed that there’s no end-state called ‘no-deal’, but there is leaving the EU without signing a new treaty that surrenders our primary leverage (money) while securing nothing. 

If we were outside as a third country then the leverage of the A50 process disappears, the motivation of spoilers within the UK system is greatly reduced and the reality of no new treaty will force London & Dublin into finding a workable solution to the border outside the backstop arrangement. 

Medicines, aviation and many other areas are already sorted according to HMG. (Un)Surprisingly that never registers with the continuity Remain campaign in politics and the media who simply report their version of reality. 

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

It’s precisely why we haven’t left with “no deal”. Why were now hoping for another extension, why the E.U. gave us one. Because it’s so disastrous for everyone.

Futhermore, there’s not really any such thing as “no deal”. If we disastrously left that way, (which I really don’t see happening) we’d immediately be asking the E.U. for deals on everything from security to aviation to medicine to customs, to etc. etc.

its utter Bollex, this “No deal” fantasy.

And the first thing we'd be told to do (and then we would do) is ratify the withdrawal agreement.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Medicines, aviation and many other areas are already sorted according to HMG.

Sorted in a 'no deal' scenario? Since when?

Sure, there may be unilateral, temporary things that have been put in place for some stuff and they may continue but they aren't what went before and are very much things given at the whim of the EU/ the UK/ individual member states.

[StefanAVFC]

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

(Un)Surprisingly that never registers with the continuity Remain campaign in politics and the media who simply report their version of reality. 

Also (un)surprisingly in Leave politics, is the fact that, following 'no deal', when we finally grow up and stop this tantrum, we will still need a deal which will look broadly like the WA as negotiated.

Or maybe we just don't trade with the EU anymore. Replace all of the trade with trade from elsewhere.

I just don't get the wet dream.

[Awol]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Also (un)surprisingly in Leave politics, is the fact that, following 'no deal', when we finally grow up and stop this tantrum, we will still need a deal which will look broadly like the WA as negotiated.

Or maybe we just don't trade with the EU anymore. Replace all of the trade with trade from elsewhere.

I just don't get the wet dream.

Not having a WA doesn’t mean we simply cease trading with the EU, it means we trade on a WTO baseline that is suboptimal for both sides until an alternative is agreed. 

Exiting without a deal forces a solution to be found in Ireland outside the WA. Once that’s done the threat of being locked into a customs union by the EU with no unilateral exit is gone. After that the remainder of WA is tolerable, so no-deal is effectively a device to force a solution to that problem outside the A50 framework. 

Comments about wet dreams, tantrums and growing up are all a little bit cockish, to be honest. 

[OutByEaster?]

32 minutes ago, Awol said:

If we were outside as a third country then the leverage of the A50 process disappears, the motivation of spoilers within the UK system is greatly reduced and the reality of no new treaty will force London & Dublin into finding a workable solution to the border outside the backstop arrangement. 

So, if we were a third country, it's more likely we could solve the problem of the third country dividing Ireland?

 

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Not having a WA doesn’t mean we simply cease trading with the EU, it means we trade on a WTO baseline that is suboptimal for both sides until an alternative is agreed. 

WTO terms are significantly worse for us than the EU.

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Comments about wet dreams, tantrums and growing up are all a little bit cockish, to be honest. 

I'm not really arsed. I've watched everybody muck around with this for the last 3 years, and No Deal has a huge impact on me as a UK citizen in the EU, as it will on millions of others. Advocating for it is profoundly selfish. Now I'm seeing people like yourself push for No Deal, whilst hoping that the President of France overrides our parliament, ensuring it happens.

So you must forgive my 'cockish'-ness but I have zero patience and mostly contempt, for people wanting No Deal and your hurt feelings are nothing compared to the huge uncertainty and stress I've been living with.

Edited April 6, 2019 by StefanAVFC