Brexit - general discussion thread

Great Debates
341

Quartz, before I dig into your cites, here is your precise claim:

And your cites for this are…

Before even clicking on the link, that’s already a significant climbdown. “Brexit could cause World War III” is a very extreme claim. “Brexit could cause war” is a fairly reasonable statement predicated on the fairly young strife in Northern Ireland, and how that might be reinflamed by Brexit (among other things). This is not some random whackdoodle theory; this is a real concern. Google is your friend; here’s just one example from the Independent.

Now, looking at your link, I see your source is The Mirror. Not off to a great start, are we? But okay, what does the article say?

Introduced by Labour ex-Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the British Museum in London, he said: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

“I would never be so rash to make that assumption.”

Whoops, that’s another step down in the hyperbole. This statement is controversial, but it isn’t stupid. At least in my (German) high school classes, The European Union was credited in a major way with keeping the peace between European powers. This is not an uncontroversial view of history, but it’s hardly insane to posit that one of the EU’s largest nations leaving the EU (led by a ship of [del]fools[/del] insane racist cretins) might lead to upheavals and instability. And hey, what’s this, from your cite:

“No, I don’t believe that leaving the EU would cause World War Three to break out on the European continent.”

That quote is from Boris Johnson, who seemed quite eager to put words in Mr. Cameron’s mouth. Which may explain how you got this so wrong.

Again, in this interview, we have people putting words into Cameron’s mouth, and Cameron responding to the hyperbole in an entirely measured, reasonable way. Indeed, Cameron challenges him on where he said it would lead to World War 3, and Faisal Islam couldn’t. It’s 2 minutes out of a 57 minute interview, snipped out of context by a leave advocate trying to make David Cameron look silly.

So both of your cites are David Cameron, and neither really supports your point about Remain hysterics. But even if they weren’t wildly distorted… Okay, there’s one person of note - a person of note who resigned immediately after the vote. Who else? :slight_smile:

342

Top of the results when I searched in Google. There are plenty others. You are perfectly capable of using a search engine so can confirm that.

343

You obviously didn’t read or click further.

344

Care to quote the part where Cameron mentions WW3? It’ll be difficult, considering it’s Leaver Boris Johnson that brings it up, but if you can quote Cameron I’ll concede the point.

345

I am perfectly capable of knowing a source with the habit of distortion and hysterical misrepresentation along a certain editorial line.

And I from that the Financial Times, it does not characterize so.

But a certain kind of English tabloid with a certain kind of readership, they do.

In any case it is the distracting responses and the hand waiving.

346

Just came across this video, Stephen Fry explaining why people voted leave and how they were lied to.

It’s animated too, so there’s a chance you’ll be able to follow it Quartz.

347

I mean, I read/watched the entirety of every source you offered, and they didn’t support your claims. I’m not sure what more you want from me. You want me to go nutpicking for you? I mean, okay, there’s this Irish Times article which is so far flung from reality that I don’t even know how to parse it - “But beyond the tactical issues, the fundamental problem of the Remain proposition is that Britain left the EU a long time ago.” :confused: There’s this Independent article which lists two significant “remain” lies (not the ones you brought up) and four far more significant “leave” lies. I dunno, man, I don’t think the problem here is “I’m not doing my due diligence”. Speaking of not reading - have you read my posts? Like, actually read them, not scanned through them looking for one line you can respond to out of context. Why does this sound so obnoxiously familiar? :mad:

My main argument here with regards to leave vs. remain in terms of dishonesty is that, on one side, you have to nutpick and take things out of context; on the other side, the dishonesty was best represented by their leading argument plastered on the side of a fucking bus and the idea that their idea was ever anything less than fucking awful. The remain side fudging manufacturing data? That’s bad. The leave side existing in the first place? That’s bad news for the concept of a modern, rational democracy, as it shows that with the right packaging, you can get people to buy just about any stupid bullshit. The leave side winning? Fuck, man, you guys are screwed, and my only hope is that you don’t end up screwing me in the process - I have friends over there I’d like to visit.

348

Seems to me Quartz doesn’t care about the suffering Brexit will bring as long as he gets his Brexit which means he wins. He hasn’t got anything positive to say about it, he just wants to get over the line.

He’s going to be disappointed, as once we leave, that’s just stage one. Stage two is the actual negotiating of our trade agreement with the EU and with the rest of the world, which will be complicated and take years and in the meantime people will suffer and die.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

349

You didn’t give a link, but I think you probably mean this video:

Brexit: Facts vs Fear

It’s well worth watching.

350

Both of these are out of line. If you can’t engage without these types of personal jabs, I suggest you take it to the Pit.

[/moderating]

351

Sorry, but I’m not continuing this.

352

Meanwhile…

Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council (the body that governs the EU), said that the current Brexit withdrawal plan, agreed to last weekend by UK Prime Minister Theresa May and EU leaders, will provide an “orderly divorce.”

“A few days before the vote in the House of Commons it is becoming more and more clear that this deal is the best possible, in fact the only possible one,” Tusk said Friday at the start of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

So our options are the (thoroughly miserable) hard brexit, or this deal. Let’s hope the UK takes the deal.

353

No, let’s hope we choose not to leave at all.

354

The part I found interesting/amusing/relevant is there is a (I think) pro-brexit guy saying there could be a second referendum after the details of the exit plan are made more clear. That seems relevant to some of the discussion here, specifically those who say the vote make it a done deal.

Of course I’m not surprised at all to hear someone would say one thing before the vote and then move the goalposts after. (Rugby has goalposts too, right?) In other words, say anything to get what you want, then ignore what you said before.

355

Note that he has since completely gone back on that position. To quote him from the article:

“Now the fact that that the Government has negotiated incompetently does not mean you should reverse the result of the referendum. It means that you should look at getting a better deal.”

This is just embarrassingly dumb. How, exactly, is the government supposed to get a better deal here? The UK has exceptionally little leverage. This guy belongs to the same school of thought as Donald Trump, where having a good negotiator can somehow save you from a deal where your opponent holds basically all the cards and you need to make a deal or you’ll suffer.

I suppose one advantage in a game of chicken is if the people driving the truck are literally blind to the existence of another truck, which is kinda what’s going on here:

Liam Fox dismissed calls for a second referendum this morning, adding that UK was ready to walk away from the European Union without a deal.

Uh… No, no you fucking aren’t. A no-deal Brexit would be a fucking catastrophe for Great Britain. I mean, you personally might be, Mr. Rich White Guy. No qualms there. :mad: This whole thing is a shitshow where I cannot for the life of me understand how these people get it so wrong if not on purpose. Like, I could understand “It’s going to suck, but it’ll be worth it for independence”, because at least there I can identify that they’re putting a truly bizarre overemphasis on self-determination (or racism, or whatever). But “It’s all going to be fine”? That’s nuts.

356

There is much speculation that May has some sort of Plan B should Parliament vote against the Withdrawal Agreement.

What could it be? A ‘Frictionless Trade’ computer system to solve the hard border issue in Ireland? A ‘Brexit app’ for the container trucks that would replace the lightweight customs checks that exist between EU members with something that does a similar thing? It would need to have a deadline for implementation that is acceptable to the Brexit faction. They other thing they want is the freedom to start trade negotiations with the rest of the world before leaving.

Surely she must take something out of the hat that would overcome objections rather than just her resignation?

She has ruled out a second Referendum and, of course, Remain has been politically labelled ‘against the democratic will of the people’. Her position is this WA deal or No Deal.

So it has to be some modification of the current WA that persuades the Tories and the DUP to vote with the government.

Or could Plan B be a plan for a hard Brexit? A vote on that would polarise the Tory Brexit faction into those who want want Brexit at all costs and those that wish to exercise some economic responsibility.

A Parliamentary vote against the WA and vote against hard Brexit without a deal would mean that the government cannot deliver Brexit. Surely the only way out is to go back to the people and ask another question to get the authority to over-rule Parliament and force through one of these options?

It would be helpful if the government clarified the constitutional status of a Referendum. At the moment I believe it has no status except what politicians decide to project onto it. It can mean whatever they declare it to mean, which seems a very dangerous state off affairs that has resulted in this awful mess.:frowning:

357

The referendum was advisory, that is in no way unclear. The Government is under no compulsion to deliver any form of Brexit except that which Parliament may or may not place on it. Parliament is completely within its rights to instruct the Government to withdraw article 50 and remain in the EU, and the public have the recourse of voting in a new Parliament if they disagree.

There’s no constitutional need for another referendum, the arguments over it are political.

358

Well the political imperative that has been created around Brexit has become so strong that it is as if it has a constitutional status. The much repeated claim that it represents ‘the democratic will of the people’ along with dire warnings of riots on the streets if it is not delivered by the Government. That political imperative, has been stoked up considerably by May and the rhetoric of the Brexit faction in the Conservative Party and there are similar sentiments in the Labour Party. They seem to fear the consequences of angry Brexit voters far more than they do the similar number that voted to Remain.

May has been dogged in trying to deliver Brexit. But it looks like she will fail to arrive at a Withdrawal Agreement that is acceptable to Parliament. The only alternative is to leave with no agreement and that is also looks unacceptable to Parliament.

So what does a Government do when it has tried to deliver on this political imperative democratically decided by the British people and they clearly have failed to do so? Shrug shoulders and say it is too complicated? Would Labour do any better?

There has to be a way of revisiting this question to get this and any other Government off the hook. I am wondering if the way in which the Referendum campaign was run is a way out. It looks like Leave campaigners broke the rules about funding.

Could that be a way out? Declare the Referendum to have been compromised and declare it invalid?
:dubious:

359

One of the points of a representative democracy is that we elect people to represent our interests, rather than necessarily our beliefs or desires. It’s is abundantly clear that Brexit is not in the national interest, so the Government should be trying to stop it, on our behalf.

That the referendum was fatally flawed due to lies from the leave side is one way to do that.

Personally, I’m no fan of the EU’s overreach and would like to see it scaled back quite a bit, back to mainly a trading group. I’m fine with free movement, but it’s not a massive deal to me either way. But, it’s become very clear that that’s not going to happen.

So, when the referendum happened, I was ready to vote leave, especially when I saw the leave campaign’s promises. But then I looked into them, and realised just how deeply our economy is tied into the EU and how much damage would be done by leaving, and that the promises of prosperity and independence given by the leave campaign were outright lies.

360

Apologies, I shouldn’t have been posting so late at night. Yes, that’s the video I watched.

Are you going to back up anything you’ve said in this thread? So far you’ve just kept posting cites that show the opposite of your point, then dissapearing for a few days so that you don’t have to answer any questions.

Yeah, that’s Jacob Ress-Mogg, leader of the ERG (European Research Group), i.e the small group of hardcore brexit Conservatives. The only amusing thing he’s done is try to get May sacked when her deal was announced. He spent all day giving speeches and press releases saying that the rest of the party were behind him, putting in letters of no confidence, and saying she’d be gone by the end of the day. Then she was going to be gone after the weekend so that MP’s “had time to consider their options”, then went quiet as the rest of the party realised that May was the best they had (God help us).

Yep, this could all be cancelled now with just a straight vote in parliament. The referendum was essentially a government funded opinion poll. The only legally binding part of Brexit is the vote in parliament to activate article 50, and prliament always has the power to override itself so there’s nothing stopping them from cancelling it.

The only reason not to is that they don’t want to anger the leave voters, but for some reason they’re happy to anger to Remain voters, even though that group’s getting larger by the day and is probably (according to polls) already bigger than leave.