Brexit Vote, what next!

You couldn’t make it up could you?

Edit: Except that the promise is to table a motion on the 29th of January, not February which is somewhet more reasonable.

There seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in that the professor is proposing England leaves and NI remains. If NI, or to be more accurate the DUP, would agree to be in a different trading block from the UK and the same trading block as Ireland then there wouldn’t be an Irish border problem and we wouldn’t be in such a mess right now. Isn’t that what the EU suggested way back, to avoid the need for a backstop by having the sea as the border?

1 Like

February 29th was made for Brexit decisions. What better than to promise a date that doesn’t exist then blame the calendar when nothing changes. I’m almost disappointed that it’s actually January. :frowning:

2 Likes

Well, the argument seems to be that we could subvert a hard border by the UK literally being part in an d part out and negotiating free movement of goods across internal UK borders (which are then also EU/3rd state borders) as a result.

As I said - no idea if it is workable but it is, at least, novel.

:grin: LOL well spotted, sorry about that.

Either that’s too subtle for me or it’s not subtle enough.
As I see it, if you split the UK into different trading blocks it’s no longer a single entity, or at least not when it comes to trade agreements which is what’s relevant here. So saying the UK is part in and part out is disingenuous, if you want to hold on to the concept of a United Kingdome then to be accurate you would have to say that part of the UK is in and part of the UK is out. No individual country can be half in and half out, either it’s in or it’s out. England would be out. Scotland would be in and NI would be in. Wales would be one or the other. Borders would no longer be internal borders - internal to what? - they would be EU/3rd state borders and they would be outside of freedom of movement.
Pure cake and eat it IMHO and I suspect the EU’s HO as well.

No but there would be an England Scotland border instead so the same issue still exists if Scotland is in and England is not! No sane government will agree to a breaking up of the UK! And treating different parts unequally. It would lead to an immediate Scottish referendum, then probably a Welsh and Irish one to! Which ever way the UK goes now the country is fooked! Congratulations Mr Cameron, your vanity project has bought about the destruction of coherent government and society congratulations! :+1:t2::woozy_face:

Well, another major issue the professor skips over is, how membership contributions would work. If Scotland and NI and potentially Wales were to be responsible for paying their own contribution to the EU budget (because can you see England stumping up?), that would require full devolution and totally separate economies. But, the EU couldn’t accept an independent Wales as a member state in its own right for a long long time if ever, it would need to develop its economy and set up institutions and it would have so much work to do to meet the criteria. Scotland, more likely but not at all certain. When you say an Irish referendum I presume you mean for unification? because Northern Ireland as an independent country isn’t realistic. The EU might be receptive to extending membership to the whole island of Ireland but the Republic would want to protect its own interests because NI is a lame duck economically and ROI wouldn’t want to have to carry it, In any case the DUP won’t go for it.

I suppose that’s true if you consider that being a sane government means being a self-seeking government, in that it would be insane of a government to agree to something that was in the best interests of anyone other than itself. Following that logic, this must be the sanest government ever known to man.

1 Like

I know Anna the whole things just doesn’t stack up I don’t think Europe would agree to it anyway. It’s all of the UK or none of the UK I would think would be their approach they told Sturgeon as much when she wanted to be considered a separate country. So I doubt much has changed. As for sane Government not sure what one of those is anymore. I bet Mrs May now thinks she was insane to give away her majority in that election now!

The solution to Brexit, well a suggestion anyway!

I have been trying to come up with a suggestion for the issue of Brexit that would be acceptable to:

  • the majority of MPs
  • the EU and
  • the majority of UK population.

Understandably it is not particularly easy but this may be a way forward. It is very easy to criticize the over existing process but difficult to come up with an alternative as we are witnessing.

It would appear to me that a major sticking point currently is MPs being consulted on a party by party basis, but within each party there are opposing views and therefore having something agreed with a party leader is not necessarily going to get it through the House of Commons. Today the PM is discussing things with some of the party leaders whereas others are refusing to attend – the issue to me is party leaders, it should be representatives of like-minded MPs and not on a party basis as some MPs from differing parties have the same thoughts on Brexit.

My suggestion package for discussion is as follows:

  1. Delay Article 50 by 3 or 6 months (may not be popular but is required for a proper solution)
  2. Announce the following proposals.
  3. Make a Statement that the 2016 Referendum was not legally binding , despite suggestions at the time that the result would be acted upon
  4. Every MP must commit to be represented entirely by collective representative (eg Jacob Rees-Mogg, Yvonne Cooper) – if there is no leader that represents their views they can represent their own views.
  • 4a. This group of representatives then consider the main core issues of Brexit (perhaps 10 cores issues) of what they do want rather than what they don’t want.
  • 4b. Group of representatives are likely to rule out No Deal.
  • 4c. A representative from EU can be present and influencing the decision to ensure that core issue resolution could be endorsed by EU.
  • 4d. The representatives vote upon these issues, each representative has the number of votes that reflect the number of MPs who have committed to them.
  • 4e. At this point the majority of MPs have agreed the outcome of the core Brexit points.
  1. The collection of core principles decided is put to EU for voting by them.
  2. Steps 4 and 5 repeat until agreement (Majority of MPs now in agreement, EU now in agreement)
  3. The new agreement is now put to a legally binding referendum with the choice “New Deal” or “Remain” – exact details of the “New Deal” are now known and have been agreed (there is no other deal). An informed decision can now be taken by the public.

At this point:

  • Majority MPs would be in agreement
  • EU would be in agreement
  • Majority of UK population is in agreement

This is just my idea with a hope of moving towards an acceptable solution.

I understand that some may consider that as absolutely laughable fantasy land - but bearing in mind the complexity of finding a solution…what ideas do you have as an alternative that passes the above 3 key points (MPs, EU, public) ?

2 Likes

I have an Alternative Mat Davis for PM! A beautifully pragmatic solution if only we could achieve it!

1 Like

Don’t know so much, I still enjoy the Groucho Marx films.

1 Like

The Sanity Clause…

That’s what is missing from Brexit… “sanity”… :rofl::joy::roll_eyes:

2 Likes

I agree, Carl, except that I think her motivation is (still) to try and prevent the splitting of the conservative party - which is the reason for this situation.

Oh, and she’s still hoping the EU will blink first, which is the reason she can’t make the warm noises that Corbyn needs because she’s still clinging to the notion that she can use the possibility as leverage.

Corbyn knows this so he can seem to be reasonable and put the blame on the Tories while all the time getting what he wants - a complete disaster with no blame attaching to him, unless you stop to think it all through. Sadly he knows 99% of the electorate don’t bother.

If anything I am starting to respect him even less than I respect May and Cameron (which is pretty hard).

The trouble is that the EU seem to have got to the “Well, if that’s what you want” stage of things.

Is there no politician in the UK who can argue the point that this vote to leave was NOT democratic, as it had wrongly informed the electorate on what they were actually voting for? I am sick to the teeth hearing the government saying it would be undemocratic to have another vote, it wasn’t a democratic vote in the first place. Here’s a suggestion then, let’s have a referendum about whether to have another referendum or not! I know it sounds silly but no sillier than a lot that has been said recently!

2 Likes

I don’t think that’s very fair Teddy because the referendum question was very straightforward and put it to us simply, “Remain in the EU” or “Leave the EU”.

What that might mean was spoken and written about by a very wide range of commentators, and everyone had a chance to inform rhemselves on the issues, to the extent of their interest in the outcomes, and within their capabilities, and also bearing in mind that the result of any decision could not be predicted except in very general terms, and taking into account the very different wishes and hopes of all concerned.

Everyone who voted one way another has to take responsibility for the way they voted, and for their motives for doing so. The referendum itself was a model of the democratic process.

I can’t see there are any legitimate grounds for saying it wasn’t democratic. Every citizen over 18 had the right to vote, and had the means to do so.

I think there are reasonable grounds for putting another question to the people as a ‘peoples’ vote’ now the implications of leaving are now a little clearer (but still not fully clear) and I hope there will be one before the March dead-line.

I can’t see how the March deadline can be met with anything other than a no-deal Brexit. The time left just isn’t long enough to an agreement on anything that the EU will accept as the factions are too far apart. An extension to article 50 and some radically different thinking is the only way forward and none of the so called leaders show any sign of coming up with anything like that.

I take your point on board Peter that there was a simple, remain in the EU or leave the EU, but I do think there are people, like yourself, who are capable of informing themselves on the merits and negatives of whatever decision you make, but I would guess there are more people than not who seek “outside” help in coming to a decision, be that help, particular newspapers or particular politicians. When that “help” is coming from the far right or the far left, therein lies the problem. I’m guessing the land of milk and honey scenario spouted by the Farrages and Johnsons undoubtedly did influence the way people voted and in my opinion, these people have a case to answer in the mess that Brexit is currently in. I completely understand people wanting to leave the EU in the same way I understand, people in the states wanting anyone but Hiiary, but there has to be a better answer than Trump and this mess of a Brexit!

2 Likes