Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:34 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So, as a Remainer, you would rather Remain than have Norway. If you were a Leaver, you would rather have a "real" break with the EU. This compromise seems like instead of everyone getting a little of what they want, nobody gets anything they want. Almost like Solomon offering to split the baby.



How could that possibly command a majority in the Commons?


Many leavers were expecting a Norway option when they voted Leave in 2016.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #252  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:21 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
The simplest method is for Parliament to simply vote to to withdraw the A50 letter. The European Court of Justice has determined that the UK can do this at any time until Brexit actually happens--and it requires no agreement by the EU Commission nor EU Parliament.
And it wouldn't even rule out leaving the EU in the longer term.

The UK's level of intertwining with the rest of the EU is incredibly complex and would require a decade of concentrated unpicking to effect a constructive withdrawal. If the voters really want that then by all means let's do this properly, not stupidly and destructively as is being done now. Those who think we should simply cut the Gordian Knot here by means of a no-deal withdrawal are forgetting that we need the rope to be as intact as possible afterwards.
  #253  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:07 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Those who think we should simply cut the Gordian Knot here by means of a no-deal withdrawal are forgetting that we need the rope to be as intact as possible afterwards.
The ERG don't want anything to be intact afterwards. Don't forget that Rees-Mogg's father wrote a book called Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad. Also The Sovereign Individual about disaster capitalism. It opens with the quote "The future is disorder".

What they want is a chaotic environment with greatly reduced regulation, or no regulation, for the benefit of billionaires, big corporations, vested interests, bankers and hedge fund managers.

They don't keep their money in the UK, but in tax havens overseas. They won't lose anything in a disorderly Brexit, and they stand to gain a lot.
  #254  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:19 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
The ERG don't want anything to be intact afterwards. Don't forget that Rees-Mogg's father wrote a book called Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad. Also The Sovereign Individual about disaster capitalism. It opens with the quote "The future is disorder".

What they want is a chaotic environment with greatly reduced regulation, or no regulation, for the benefit of billionaires, big corporations, vested interests, bankers and hedge fund managers.

They don't keep their money in the UK, but in tax havens overseas. They won't lose anything in a disorderly Brexit, and they stand to gain a lot.
I'm aware of that, but the ERG are not the entirety of Parliament nor of the country.

Frankly, I think Remainers should be leading with "If we abandon Brexit it will royally screw Jacob Rees-Mogg, and that's a goal the whole country can get behind."
  #255  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:26 AM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Frankly, I think Remainers should be leading with "If we abandon Brexit it will royally screw Jacob Rees-Mogg, and that's a goal the whole country can get behind."
Even better:

"If we abandon Brexit it will royally screw Boris Johnson + Jacob Rees-Mogg, and that's a goal the whole country can get behind."
  #256  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:46 AM
robardin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,761
So, very late to this thread, I rarely dive into GQ for sanity reasons (I have enough time sinks in my life), so my apologies if the fact that I'm not going to go back and read all the past posts means that I'm bringing up a question or issue long laid to rest (and feel free to simply point me to the relevant posts if that is the case).

But aside from the question of Should We or Shouldn't We to a British Exit from the EU (which I have "no dog" in, as the saying goes, as a US citizen and resident), I am extremely puzzled by the apparent chaos in the process on the UK side. For a culture that is stereotypically associated with Very Proper Behavior, the way the whole thing has proceeded seems incredibly rudderless.

I did some light Googling on what the basis for British Parliament procedure is, and how laws or decisions get passed, and so on - for the US Congress, this guiding basis would be the Constitution (which thanks to a childhood infused with Schoolhouse Rock I can sing as song lyrics: "We, The People, in order to form a more Perfect Union..."). The UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy", so I figured, what's their Constitution?

But... there isn't one? WHAT?

Rather, there isn't an actual single document or set of documents, but a "series of previous laws" that were written and enacted under whatever procedure seemed good at the time, "unwritten practices which have developed over time and regulate the business of governing" (as I found from this explanatory website from the UK at the top of my search results, though it doesn't appear to be a government one).

So what the heck sets the parameters and the order of events for something like this? Shouldn't that have been Step Zero, "hey, before we have this Very Serious Decision at a National Level, let's get straight how it's going to go?"

I mean, I get that this would only have been relevant had the referendum come back with a majority "Yes", which Cameron didn't expect. But after his very near miss with a similar referendum on Scottish Independence, which brought up very similar specters of "OMG if this comes back Yes we have No Idea what will happen next", he just went and did it again, at an even higher level of disassociation? Never mind the personal irresponsibility of such a decision on Cameron's head - shouldn't the British Goverment itself had said, "Right - no more referendums that alter the national composition until we set some rules first?"

Then there's the question of what the referendum actually "binds". Apparently nothing, because it's not legislation on its own, simply an expression of mandate from the people.

But even aside from all that - the fact that the PM got to call a vague referendum with no specifics, "I'll just leave that for Parliament to flesh out down the road if/when that becomes necessary conditional on a Yes vote, and now it's their baby, see ya" - how is it that a "government" is formed that then negotiates a deal with the EU for withdrawal, over a period of several YEARS, and then fails to get it passed?

I don't mean how is it possible for such a complicated issue to have so many shaded opinions on the matter - I get that. I mean, based on the simple English language definition of what it means to have a negotiation, two parties try to come to a mutual agreement, and if it is achieved, that forms the agreement.

So how can the UK government themselves be arguing about a proposal that was already accepted by the EU (the other party)? Shouldn't they have hammered out the framework and boundaries of a UK-acceptable proposal first, and THEN taken that to the EU table? I mean, imagine if you're on the other side of it - you spend 2+ years talking over something, giving and taking, finally coming to a common point, and then the OTHER person says, dang, I can't do that now?

OK, I also get that that is not a great way to have leverage in a negotiation, going in with your "best price" already visible on the table. But then the negotiator that is sent in MUST have full carte blanche rights to sign, with final authority, to make that negotation meaningful, or else whatever authority is behind that agent needs to be much closer in the loop at every step.

Finally - as I understand it, ultimately "all power derives from the Monarch". So is it possible for the Queen to step in and just say, "As Monarch, I am blowing the whistle, everything stops and resets until you sort out exactly how this can be done sensibly, once more from the top?" Serious question.

Last edited by robardin; 03-13-2019 at 07:49 AM.
  #257  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:21 AM
robardin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,761
Oh, and an actual Brexit specific question (rather than a general "what the heck is up with the British system of government that enabled this chaos" question):

What exactly are the "Irish backstop concessions" that "hardline" Brexiters are seeking from the EU?

The "Irish backstop" is an agreement that in order to prevent the reintroduction of a hard border between the UK area of Northern Ireland and the rest of the island that forms the EU member Republic of Ireland, NI will continue to exist in a customs union with the EU (allowing free flow across the border), "until we revisit this topic in the future", or some such. Yeah?

And hardliners object that this vague agreement means the EU could theoretically avoid that discussion by never coming back to the table, thus leaving NI in the EU customs union forever, which would implicitly mean NI is "kind of" part of Ireland and "different than" the rest of the UK, which is unpalatable to the Democratic Ulster Party of UK Loyalists in Northern Ireland.

I get that.

So, what is it the "hardliners" want, then? It sounds like they still agree that a backstop is necessary on Day One, and the only issue is how to achieve a winding down of that backstop, which... They also don't have a transition plan for? It's another case of "that's going to be someone else's job to work out the details down the road, but we will agree that this is what we want in general terms, with no idea on how that is to be accomplished and at what cost?" (Has nobody learned that this is simply not a viable way to operate anything, not a project plan, not a business, and definitely not a country?)

So what they want is... An explicit agreement from the EU that the UK can cancel the backstop whenever it wants to? How can they agree to that, because wouldn't that "cancel the backstop" really mean "replace it with another agreement"? What if the UK were then to say "OK we're ending the backstop by... Enforcing the UK rules on Ireland and now THEY'RE different from the rest of the EU, and you can't disagree because you already gave us carte blanche to rewrite the agreement concerning NI and IRL, hahaha!"?

Last edited by robardin; 03-13-2019 at 08:22 AM.
  #258  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:00 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358

What will the UK do wrt Brexit?


Nm

Last edited by Malden Capell; 03-13-2019 at 09:01 AM.
  #259  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:01 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
So, very late to this thread, I rarely dive into GQ for sanity reasons (I have enough time sinks in my life), so my apologies if the fact that I'm not going to go back and read all the past posts means that I'm bringing up a question or issue long laid to rest (and feel free to simply point me to the relevant posts if that is the case).
Yes, those questions have been answered before, more than once.

Just read the previous discussion on this thread, and perhaps other threads. It's not up to other people to do that for you.
  #260  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:35 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Oh, what the hell, I'll give it a go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
So what the heck sets the parameters and the order of events for something like this? Shouldn't that have been Step Zero, "hey, before we have this Very Serious Decision at a National Level, let's get straight how it's going to go?"
Yes, it should have.

Quote:
I mean, I get that this would only have been relevant had the referendum come back with a majority "Yes", which Cameron didn't expect. But after his very near miss with a similar referendum on Scottish Independence, which brought up very similar specters of "OMG if this comes back Yes we have No Idea what will happen next", he just went and did it again, at an even higher level of disassociation? Never mind the personal irresponsibility of such a decision on Cameron's head - shouldn't the British Goverment itself had said, "Right - no more referendums that alter the national composition until we set some rules first?"
If he had done so, I think Cameron feared huge chunks of his party would float to UKIP.

Quote:
how is it that a "government" is formed that then negotiates a deal with the EU for withdrawal, over a period of several YEARS, and then fails to get it passed?

I don't mean how is it possible for such a complicated issue to have so many shaded opinions on the matter - I get that. I mean, based on the simple English language definition of what it means to have a negotiation, two parties try to come to a mutual agreement, and if it is achieved, that forms the agreement.

So how can the UK government themselves be arguing about a proposal that was already accepted by the EU (the other party)? Shouldn't they have hammered out the framework and boundaries of a UK-acceptable proposal first, and THEN taken that to the EU table? I mean, imagine if you're on the other side of it - you spend 2+ years talking over something, giving and taking, finally coming to a common point, and then the OTHER person says, dang, I can't do that now?
In any other situation, you would be absolutely right. No Government would have launched a referendum, or started Brexit negotiations, without an agreement on what Brexit is.

But the paradox is that to define Brexit is to destroy it. It only won the referendum because Brexit was undefined. It simply meant 'Brexit'. There's certain people on this board - people here will know who I mean - who still, to this day, insist that only their personal view of Brexit is the correct one, and all others - including May's - are treasonous betrayals of the people's will.

So we have this circular firing squad whereby everyone in government agrees Brexit should go ahead, but nobody wants to define that Brexit, because to do so means Brexit can't happen.

Instead, the Government has hobbled along for years in the hope that it could get people who adhere to the other different definitions of Brexit to implode or defect to May's flag.

Quote:
OK, I also get that that is not a great way to have leverage in a negotiation, going in with your "best price" already visible on the table. But then the negotiator that is sent in MUST have full carte blanche rights to sign, with final authority, to make that negotation meaningful, or else whatever authority is behind that agent needs to be much closer in the loop at every step.
Again, in normal times, the final authority would be Parliament passing an Act to make whatever agreement that is made have domestic legal force. But we have another paradox in Brexit. Brexiters insist Brexit is about parliamentary sovereignty, but they also don't trust Parliament to enact 'their' view of Brexit. It also helped to try to keep it out of parliament's hands, as it prevented awkward discussions about what Brexit means that would cause Brexit to fail.

Quote:
Finally - as I understand it, ultimately "all power derives from the Monarch". So is it possible for the Queen to step in and just say, "As Monarch, I am blowing the whistle, everything stops and resets until you sort out exactly how this can be done sensibly, once more from the top?" Serious question.
Yes, she could, but it would be the uttermost direst circumstances, and would likely be the last thing the Queen would do as monarch, besides her abdication.
  #261  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:46 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I think there is now a reasonable chance for another referendum.

- There will be a vote today excluding the possibility of no-deal. This should pass by a large majority.
- There will be a vote on Thursday to extend article 50. Again, it's likely this will pass.

There will then be further votes on several options, and if Labour supports a new referendum, backed by the other opposition parties and a few Tories, they may well win the vote. Of course, it depends what precisely the question(s) will be in the new referendum, and this will be a matter of hard negotiation.

The EU will certainly be willing to extend article 50 to accommodate another referendum.

And Remain will likely win a further referendum... then the UK can wake up from the whole bad dream.

This is the most positive outcome, and it seems to be a real possibility. There is a growing feeling in Parliament that since there is no majority for any option, the only thing left to do is to put the question back to the public again.
And if you lose that vote, then a 3rd and 4th referendum. The public gets a free choice in the matter so long as it is the correct one.
  #262  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:49 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Yes, she could, but it would be the uttermost direst circumstances, and would likely be the last thing the Queen would do as monarch, besides her abdication.
Yep, the last time a British monarch overruled Parliament was over three hundred years ago, in 1708, over the Scottish Militia Bill.
  #263  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:57 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Yep, the last time a British monarch overruled Parliament was over three hundred years ago, in 1708, over the Scottish Militia Bill.
A few years ago, the leader of the Green Party in Canada -- which is as much of a fringe party here as it is in the US -- wrote to the Queen to ask her to intervene in supposed election irregularities. The Queen replied with a nice letter saying, in effect, "Dear lady, I don't think you understand how this works."
  #264  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:58 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post

So how can the UK government themselves be arguing about a proposal that was already accepted by the EU (the other party)? Shouldn't they have hammered out the framework and boundaries of a UK-acceptable proposal first, and THEN taken that to the EU table? I mean, imagine if you're on the other side of it - you spend 2+ years talking over something, giving and taking, finally coming to a common point, and then the OTHER person says, dang, I can't do that now?
They thought they had a UK-acceptable proposal, i.e., having cake and eating it, as the Brexiteers had proposed. The agreement that has now been voted down twice is, in effect, the EU's restatement of the bleedin' obvious (,I'm no expert on the minutiae, but as a reasonably well-informed citizen, even I knew that's what it was) - just gussied up a bit to try and help Mrs M get it past headbanging Brexiteers in her own party.

And that's one of the governing miscalculations on her and her government's part: that honouring the referendum result meant insisting on incompatible "red lines" to try to keep her party together.

The other was to call a general election having already set the clock ticking on withdrawal. Not only did it leave her in a much weaker position, dependent on the DUP, who don't actually represent majority opinion even in their part of the country: it also rather revealed that the Brexit process per se wasn't that salient with the voters, the swing away from the Tories being probably more to do with the side-effects of 10 years of restraining government expenditure. Neither major party really put it to the electorate that the process must involve hard choices rather than "just get on with it". Likewise, there seems to have been a fundamental misunderstanding of the EU's inevitable position, namely that it wasn't down to them to resolve the unresolvable contradictions and help a self-lamed government over its self-created stile - rather, to expect them to come up with a workable proposition to meet the principles they outlined from the beginning.
  #265  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:07 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And if you lose that vote, then a 3rd and 4th referendum. The public gets a free choice in the matter so long as it is the correct one.
That silly argument keeps being repeated.
“It’s too late to correct it,” said the Red Queen. “When you’ve once said a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences.”
Fortunately we are not in Looking Glass World (though I sometimes wonder).

In a democracy there is no objection to the public voting on the same question again after an interval of three years - especially since a) the consequences have become very much clearer to everyone, and b) the government has been unable to come up with an acceptable way of implementing the earlier vote.
  #266  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:17 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
But the paradox is that to define Brexit is to destroy it. It only won the referendum because Brexit was undefined. It simply meant 'Brexit'. There's certain people on this board - people here will know who I mean - who still, to this day, insist that only their personal view of Brexit is the correct one, and all others - including May's - are treasonous betrayals of the people's will.

So we have this circular firing squad whereby everyone in government agrees Brexit should go ahead, but nobody wants to define that Brexit, because to do so means Brexit can't happen.

Instead, the Government has hobbled along for years in the hope that it could get people who adhere to the other different definitions of Brexit to implode or defect to May's flag.
I don't think that this is the terrible conundrum that people are making it out to be. In many cases in family or business life, you have a goal that you have decided to reach, but disagree on the way to get there.

A married couple, for example, can decide that they want to move to a different part of the country. Then they have to worry about which party will get a job there first, if any or both, whether to wait until the oldest child graduates from school, whether to stay for a while to care for an elderly parent who is terminal, do we sell the house or rent it, etc. Maybe one party wants to move because they like the new location and the other party wants to move simply to get away from the old location.

Both parties can agree that they want to move, yet disagree on the specific way to get there or even the reason for moving. These difficulties do not mean that the decision to move itself is wrong and that they should scrap the whole idea.
  #267  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:24 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Live debate in the House of Commons on ruling out no-deal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30wXiZ41Ds

This will continue for the next few hours until the vote.
  #268  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:31 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think that this is the terrible conundrum that people are making it out to be. In many cases in family or business life, you have a goal that you have decided to reach, but disagree on the way to get there.

A married couple, for example, can decide that they want to move to a different part of the country. Then they have to worry about which party will get a job there first, if any or both, whether to wait until the oldest child graduates from school, whether to stay for a while to care for an elderly parent who is terminal, do we sell the house or rent it, etc. Maybe one party wants to move because they like the new location and the other party wants to move simply to get away from the old location.

Both parties can agree that they want to move, yet disagree on the specific way to get there or even the reason for moving. These difficulties do not mean that the decision to move itself is wrong and that they should scrap the whole idea.
This is a perfect example of how analogies to politics really don't work.

Moreover, a lot of the time married couples do decide the original decision was wrong and scrap the whole idea.
  #269  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:37 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Both parties can agree that they want to move, yet disagree on the specific way to get there or even the reason for moving. These difficulties do not mean that the decision to move itself is wrong and that they should scrap the whole idea.

No, the dumb decision would be to put your house on the market because "well we're going to move, so", having resolved not one of those questions.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #270  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:43 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Brexit is putting your house on the market, selling it, then moving into a dingy flat five hundred miles from your workplace, while fixating on the money you save on rent, ignoring that you no longer own your home, are now subject to the whims of a landlord, and you spend more than what you saved on your mortgage on commuting costs.
  #271  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:56 AM
robardin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And if you lose that vote, then a 3rd and 4th referendum. The public gets a free choice in the matter so long as it is the correct one.

This is both accurate and unfair, isn't it?

From this outsider's POV, the current government, headed by Theresa May, has genuinely attempted to put together a framework for the UK to leave the EU that satisfies most parties' objectives... Except for the issue of Northern Ireland. Right?

Which in turn, objectively speaking, boils down to four possibilities. Am I missing anything?

1 - The reintroduction of a "hard border" between NI and the RoI
Pros: It's exactly what Brexit represents at some level, "going back to before 1973"
Cons: Troubles Part II, in all likelihood

2 - No "hard border", but NI is governed according to UK regulations, RoI to EU regulations
Pros: You've discovered a way to have mutually impossible outcomes occur at the same time, like opening Schrodinger's box to find the cat is still both living and dead
Cons: What you've really achieved is a kind of "wink-wink, let's play pretend" attempt at enforcing regulations, in reality you've just made a free-flowing, no-border Ireland a kind of Wild West lowest-common-denominator zone, the only difference being which region things are originating from.

3 - No "hard border" and a single set of regulations, because NI is run according to EU regulations
Pros: This is the status quo
Cons: After Brexit, it would represent a separation of NI from the rest of the UK - a step towards a de facto union with the Republic

4 - No "hard border" and a single set of regulations, because the RoI is run according to UK regulations
Pros: Brexiters would surely agree to this
Cons: The Republic of Ireland would never, ever agree to this (and would mean its own exit from the EU)

It seems to me that the best any Brexit position that has come up is Option #3, "as a temporary measure", with no specification as to what the permanent condition on the horizon would be.

So why not make it explicit and permanent?

NI joins in a customs union with the Republic. Whether that means full legal union with the Republic or not is a separate question. They can remain "culturally attached" to the UK - currency, foreign policy, etc. - until such time as a latent referendum to fully join with the Republic passes, which (also objectively speaking) seems like a foregone conclusion within a generation or two, especially of the Republic makes "autonomous zone/cultural sphere" concessions to the Orangemen and friends similar to what Mainland China did with Hong Kong and is suggesting it would do with Taiwan.

Yes, that means the DUP loses its mind. And their "10 seats" are part of the necessary coalition. But they could be overruled, no, if 10+ more seats decided that was the most palatable scenario?

It's that, or accept option #1, and Troubles Part II, which should always have been understood as part of the cost of a Hard Brexit.
  #272  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:15 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,783
Brexit is three people in a car travelling somewhere. One of the people thinks they know a shortcut to their destination along a side road. The people discuss between themselves and take a vote - one person is persuaded to go along with the person suggesting a shortcut, while the other thinks they should continue along their original route. So they go along with the majority decision and take the shortcut. After travelling along the supposed shortcut route for a time, they find that there is a chasm splitting the road, with no bridge to cross. The person who originally suggested the shortcut thinks they can, with a fast run-up, jump the car over the chasm, and continue on the route that may be a shortcut. The person who wanted to stick to the original route thinks the risk of the car falling into the chasm is too great, and they should turn back and continue along the original route. The person in the middle, who decided the vote, is now getting twitchy and sweating profusely at the idea of their pending imminent demise and is having second thoughts about the shortcut.

I should add that, for the analogy to work, the car's door locks and windows aren't working and no-one can leave the car until they get to their destination.
  #273  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:54 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Brexit is three people in a car travelling somewhere. One of the people thinks they know a shortcut to their destination along a side road. The people discuss between themselves and take a vote - one person is persuaded to go along with the person suggesting a shortcut, while the other thinks they should continue along their original route. So they go along with the majority decision and take the shortcut. After travelling along the supposed shortcut route for a time, they find that there is a chasm splitting the road, with no bridge to cross. The person who originally suggested the shortcut thinks they can, with a fast run-up, jump the car over the chasm, and continue on the route that may be a shortcut. The person who wanted to stick to the original route thinks the risk of the car falling into the chasm is too great, and they should turn back and continue along the original route. The person in the middle, who decided the vote, is now getting twitchy and sweating profusely at the idea of their pending imminent demise and is having second thoughts about the shortcut.

I should add that, for the analogy to work, the car's door locks and windows aren't working and no-one can leave the car until they get to their destination.
Out of curiosity, I'll bet you voted Remain, right? Indeed, I'll bet that all of the Brexit critics in this thread voted Remain.

Is there anyone in this thread who voted Leave who feels like the middle passenger in this example?
  #274  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:59 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,110
Quote:
I should add that, for the analogy to work, the car's door locks and windows aren't working and no-one can leave the car until they get to their destination.
And that the other two people find the map and notice it says "road subject to intermittent washouts", and the shortcutter says to the waverer "but you already chose to take this route, no backsies!"
  #275  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:14 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Out of curiosity, I'll bet you voted Remain, right? Indeed, I'll bet that all of the Brexit critics in this thread voted Remain.
It would make sense for Brexit critics to vote Remain. Call me boring, but I don't the risk of falling in a chasm is worth the conjectured possibility of getting to a destination a few minutes early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
And that the other two people find the map and notice it says "road subject to intermittent washouts", and the shortcutter says to the waverer "but you already chose to take this route, no backsies!"
Yeah, the person that advocated for the shortcut is saying to the others: "we already voted, and by changing your mind you would be defying democracy and the will of the people in the car!".
  #276  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:28 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
It would make sense for Brexit critics to vote Remain. Call me boring, but I don't the risk of falling in a chasm is worth the conjectured possibility of getting to a destination a few minutes early.
I agree, but I mean the critics now. Posters are giving examples of how the Leave voters were misled and now that we know the consequences, the Leave voters are like the middle passenger in the car.

Well, are any Leave voters saying this or is it all Remainers? Forgive me if I don't accept these analogies unless they are from someone like the middle passenger who did vote Leave and take them as sour grapes from the losers in the referendum.
  #277  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:40 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Brexit is three people in a car travelling somewhere. One of the people thinks they know a shortcut to their destination along a side road. The people discuss between themselves and take a vote - one person is persuaded to go along with the person suggesting a shortcut, while the other thinks they should continue along their original route. So they go along with the majority decision and take the shortcut. After travelling along the supposed shortcut route for a time, they find that there is a chasm splitting the road, with no bridge to cross. The person who originally suggested the shortcut thinks they can, with a fast run-up, jump the car over the chasm, and continue on the route that may be a shortcut. The person who wanted to stick to the original route thinks the risk of the car falling into the chasm is too great, and they should turn back and continue along the original route. The person in the middle, who decided the vote, is now getting twitchy and sweating profusely at the idea of their pending imminent demise and is having second thoughts about the shortcut.

I should add that, for the analogy to work, the car's door locks and windows aren't working and no-one can leave the car until they get to their destination.
You forgot to mention that the person who wanted to take the original route has been crying and throwing a temper tantrum ever since the car changed directions.
  #278  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:49 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You forgot to mention that the person who wanted to take the original route has been crying and throwing a temper tantrum ever since the car changed directions.
Also, there's three more people in the back seat having the same argument, but they aren't cooperating because they want to be in the front seat more than they want to find a bridge past the chasm.
  #279  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:50 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
This is both accurate and unfair, isn't it?

From this outsider's POV, the current government, headed by Theresa May, has genuinely attempted to put together a framework for the UK to leave the EU that satisfies most parties' objectives... Except for the issue of Northern Ireland. Right?
No.

Something like EEA/Norway/Switzerland would have been a compromise.

Theresa May's Deal is a hard Brexit.[/QUOTE]
  #280  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:51 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree, but I mean the critics now. Posters are giving examples of how the Leave voters were misled and now that we know the consequences, the Leave voters are like the middle passenger in the car.

Well, are any Leave voters saying this or is it all Remainers? Forgive me if I don't accept these analogies unless they are from someone like the middle passenger who did vote Leave and take them as sour grapes from the losers in the referendum.
It's far easier to dupe someone than to convince them they have been duped, UV.
  #281  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:52 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You forgot to mention that the person who wanted to take the original route has been crying and throwing a temper tantrum ever since the car changed directions.
Because there's a CHASM.

The whole 'Remainers are just sore losers' trope is stupid, false, and overdone.
  #282  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:00 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Did you mean to say ". . . nobody gets everything they want" here? Because, if you did, I agree. But if you meant what you wrote, no, I disagree. Brexiters get an actual Brexit; the UK ceases to be a member state. And they get at least some of the outcomes for which they consider Brexit to be desirable. And, while remainers don't get what they most want, continuing membership, they do get to avoid some of the worst anticipated consequences of Brexit.


How does it command a majority in Norway?

It could command a majority very easily. A large (but minority) group of remainers might support it because they regard it as the best attainable outcome, "Remain" being precluded by the referendum result/attitudes of the leadership in both parties/other unpleasant political realities. And Brexiters might support it either because it actually addresses the reasons they support Brexit (if "ever closer union" etc is their particular bugbear) or because they regard it as suboptimal but still preferable to a no-deal Brexit. And those groups together could easily be a majority of the Commons.
I meant to say that nobody gets anything they want. After reading several articles about how Norway interacts with the EU (and again, that's the extent of my knowledge) it just seems like they act in an absolutely identical way as an EU member except:

1) They get to say that they are not part of the EU
2) They get no representation in the EU
3) They pay more per capita as a result of this bastardized system for EU services.

I can't imagine that anyone who voted Leave would have wanted this system. It would be like if I resigned from the local gym but still paid 1.5 times the membership fee and still got to use their facilities. I don't think the Leave voters just wanted some personal satisfaction that came by simply being able to say that they were not part of the EU.
  #283  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:01 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
btw..what time is the vote today?
  #284  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:06 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Polls are now showing that Remain would win comfortably in a new referendum. That shows a significant number of people have changed their minds.

Eurotrack 13 Feb 2019 (Results from 74 polls)

If there was a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote?
Leave 38%
Remain 45%

YouGov 23 Feb 2019

In hindsight do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?
Right 40%
Wrong 48%
  #285  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:08 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
btw..what time is the vote today?
Around 19:00 GMT - there'll be votes on amendment too
  #286  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:09 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
btw..what time is the vote today?
7pm UK time. Vote on two amendments (Spelman and Malthouse), then the main vote.
  #287  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:10 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Around 19:00 GMT - there'll be votes on amendment too
Ah, so that is 3pm my time. What amendments have the Right Honorable Mr. Speaker Bercow tabled?

Sorry if I could easily find this somewhere else. I can't find it.

Last edited by UltraVires; 03-13-2019 at 01:11 PM.
  #288  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:14 PM
robardin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
No.

Something like EEA/Norway/Switzerland would have been a compromise.

Theresa May's Deal is a hard Brexit.
Really? I thought the whole "Norway model" was "too soft" of a Brexit for the True Be Leavers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
After reading several articles about how Norway interacts with the EU (and again, that's the extent of my knowledge) it just seems like they act in an absolutely identical way as an EU member except:

1) They get to say that they are not part of the EU
2) They get no representation in the EU
3) They pay more per capita as a result of this bastardized system for EU services.

I can't imagine that anyone who voted Leave would have wanted this system. It would be like if I resigned from the local gym but still paid 1.5 times the membership fee and still got to use their facilities. I don't think the Leave voters just wanted some personal satisfaction that came by simply being able to say that they were not part of the EU.
That was my understanding as well.

May was told to get a "MORE independent" deal with the EU than Norway or Switzerland has got, as both of those countries allow free movement of people and goods over the borders with the rest of Europe (no passport checks), which is one of the key things the UK Brexit is based on ("control our borders").

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean now - her Brexit is "harder" than the Norway/Switzerland model, yes, but that's because her own party forced those parameters and don't appear to be backtracking on that, in fact they seem to be going in the other direction where there are more people willing to go with a no-deal Brexit than to sign on for being a de facto "passenger only" passive EU member.

Last edited by robardin; 03-13-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #289  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:16 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Ah, so that is 3pm my time. What amendments have the Right Honorable Mr. Speaker Bercow tabled?

Sorry if I could easily find this somewhere else. I can't find it.
BBC summary here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47554167

(as an aside - check the fucking state of Edward Leigh in the bottom photo)

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 03-13-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #290  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:22 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
BBC summary here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47554167

(as an aside - check the fucking state of Edward Leigh in the bottom photo)
Quote:
The amendment (a) from Labour MP Jack Dromey and Conservative Dame Caroline Spelman changes the wording of the government motion to "this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship".
Does this language have any binding effect?

I assume the second amendment is non-binding?
  #291  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:26 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,607
Spelman rejects a no-deal Brexit at any time and under any circumstances. Binding, as far as I know.

Malthouse has already been totally rejected by the EU as delusional.
  #292  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:42 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Does this language have any binding effect?
It's as binding as the government motion unamended would be, so yes. (I think )
  #293  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:45 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
It's not binding. It would require a statutory instrument to amend the exit date, which I understand would be laid tomorrow.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #294  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:45 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Spelman rejects a no-deal Brexit at any time and under any circumstances. Binding, as far as I know.
It's not binding in a meaningful sense, as there's no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can't.
  #295  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:48 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
It's not binding. It would require a statutory instrument to amend the exit date, which I understand would be laid tomorrow.
Pretty sure the PM said (well, croaked - her voice has truly gone) yesterday that the instrument would be laid if that's how the House voted. So, effectively binding?
  #296  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:50 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
It depends on the text of the motion presented to Parliament. I don't think it's been published yet. Possibly, it's still being worked on, or simply is waiting for final approval. My prediction is that it will be a motion to require that any exit from the EU must occur under a legislated withdrawal act. That will take no-deal off the table. It's been announced as a free vote, at least for the Conservatives.

What it won't do is overturn the invocation of Article 50. I'm guessing there will be an amendment, probably from the SNP, that will seek to do so. I don't think such an amendment would pass. Instead, Parliament will vote for an extension of the Leave date on Thursday. That should pass, but the EU could very well make counter-demands before agreeing an extension. Who knows what happens at that point. Basically, the government moved itself into a self-contradictory position, and needs to hire Schrodinger's descendant to explain a path out.
Thanks. That makes a bit more sense. Though would the EU agree to the requirement for a legislated withdrawal, since that seems like a unilateral delay of withdrawal on the UK side.
  #297  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:51 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
Really? I thought the whole "Norway model" was "too soft" of a Brexit for the True Be Leavers?
Not based on what polls and Brexiter literature said during and immediately after the referendum. Since then, Brexiters have become radicalised. Not. Helped by May's self-imposed red lines.

Quote:
That was my understanding as well.

May was told to get a "MORE independent" deal with the EU than Norway or Switzerland has got, as both of those countries allow free movement of people and goods over the borders with the rest of Europe (no passport checks), which is one of the key things the UK Brexit is based on ("control our borders").

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean now - her Brexit is "harder" than the Norway/Switzerland model, yes, but that's because her own party forced those parameters and don't appear to be backtracking on that, in fact they seem to be going in the other direction where there are more people willing to go with a no-deal Brexit than to sign on for being a de facto "passenger only" passive EU member.

Leave campaign literature was internally contradictory. It spoke multiple things to all kinds of voters, who seized on what they liked to hear and ignored everything that contradicted it.

It's the only way Leave won the vote. If they'd specified, they'd have lost.

If May after she became PM had opted to the widest common denominator with a demoralised Remain and a Leave that was still a broad church, she could, maybe, have won through a Norway or Switzerland style deal months ago.

But she put party before country instead.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #298  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:53 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It's not binding in a meaningful sense, as there's no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can't.
Well, again, I am not a UK parliamentarian but if the Commons votes that "this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship" doesn't that then repeal by implication its earlier authorization of Article 50 invocation? I mean...this House rejects...it is pretty strong language.
  #299  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:59 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It's not binding in a meaningful sense, as there's no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can't.
It seems to me kind of like a bunch of people jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and then voting that they aren't going to hit the ground.
  #300  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Division! Clear the lobby!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017