Brexit to go?

[MooseMom]

OK.

The UK is well and truly broken no matter what happens.

[cassandra]

..... that I personally have a very low opinion of Trump, but even I agree that we would have been better off if we had Trump negotiating Brexit.
.....

That’s pushing it a bit. Yes she’s obviously not capable of listening, negotiating, compromising etc. But it’s the Conservative party that’s to blame for the referendum in the first place, Cameron to hold it and run away. And to be honest, the UK people for voting in the conservatives (and DUP)

[Paul]

That’s pushing it a bit.

I don't agree. In "peace time" she would no doubt make a better country leader than Trump, but her negotiations with the EU and with her own party were lame. Trump would have made a much better job of negotiating both in Europe and in Westminster. And I bet Trump would not have left everything to the last minute.

[MooseMom]

Trump would have made a much better job of negotiating both in Europe and in Westminster. And I bet Trump would not have left everything to the last minute.

What on Earth makes you think this?  What has he actually "negotiated"?  He singlehandedly shut down the United States' Government for almost a month because Congress wouldn't give him all of the money he wanted for his wall, despite the fact that at least on 2 different occasions, Congress presented him a bi-laterally agreed appropriations bill calling for increased funding for border protection.  But because the proposed bill did not include as much money as he wanted specifically for the wall, he literally shut down the government.  There were Coast Guard families that had to go to food banks as a result of this brilliant piece of "negotiation".

He does not negotiate.  He demands.  And this is not necessarily a criticism.  It's just the way he is, and it for this reason that he enjoys the support of his like-minded base.  He sees negotiation as a weakness.

I'm sure there are many people who could have done a better job than May, but Trump is just not one of those.

[Paul]

Trump has got some stuff done while in office.

May has got bugger all done as far as Brexit is concerned, her biggest achievement was to call an unnecessary election then run a campaign that reduced her party from a safe majority to an unsafe minority that has to rely on other parties to prop it up.

Trump has got some things past the Senate.

Brexit wise May has got nothing past in Westminster, and nothing even past her own party.

Trump has had some (limited) success with foreign leaders.

Most/all world leaders consider May incompetent, all European leaders wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

To cap it all, the majority of Brits consider Trump to be a useless waste of oxygen, yet most of these people would gladly swap May for Trump if it were possible (probably send him back after Brexit is resolved though).

Also, Trump's "approval rating" amongst Americans is a hell of a lot higher than May's "approval rating" amongst the British.

[MooseMom]

Paul, I'm not disagreeing with you about Theresa May.  But MPs on their own are making a right dog's dinner out of things.

While Theresa May is surely imcompetent, at least the people surrounding her campaign haven't been indicted or imprisoned or investigated by the British equivalent of a special counsel.

[MooseMom]

Now that MPs have voted "no" on all four options in today's indicative vote, how do you all think this will end up?  Any guesses?

[Paul]

While Theresa May is surely imcompetent, at least the people surrounding her campaign haven't been indicted or imprisoned or investigated by the British equivalent of a special counsel.

That I'll give you. Stupid and useless but not criminal (well unless you came over on the Windrush, then you might argue that point).

Now that MPs have voted "no" on all four options in today's indicative vote, how do you all think this will end up?  Any guesses?

Up a certain creek without a paddle.

I'm hoping it will mean a second referendum, but I'm fearing "no deal Brexit".

[cassandra]

I think    the only majority compromise in parliament   will have a customs union in. UK will be in EP elections, general elections will have to follow. So there could be Brexit, stay in Customs Union incl. freedom of movement, but no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU.


I do hope Nigel Farage feels This is Great Britain again

[Paul]

I think    the only majority compromise in parliament   will have a customs union in. UK will be in EP elections, general elections will have to follow. So there could be Brexit, stay in Customs Union incl. freedom of movement, but no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU.


I do hope Nigel Farage feels This is Great Britain again

If we get what you suggest, Nigel Farage will definitely NOT feel that this is Great Britain again! He has stated many times that remaining in the customs union would be a betrayal of those people who voted out. Oh and Reese-Mogg has threatened "civil unrest" if we remain in the customs union.

However, now that May is talking to Corbin, we will probably get a custom's union, as that is one of his "red lines". And although we will not have free movement, it appears probable that the EU will allow us visaless travel (last I heard was that they were voting on this and likely to agree - after all, they want our Tourist euros).

Your last suggestion ("no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU") is pretty much going to happen unless we withdraw Article 50.

If this is how it pans out, then IMHO it is the best of a bad lot of choices. Other than withdrawing Article 50 (which is my prefered option) I doubt we could do any better.

[cassandra]

O I So want the UK to withdraw article 50


   


But that can only happen after the UK people have had their say. That is unlikely to happen, and íf it were to happen, it could verywell become even worse.

[MooseMom]

Oh! Oh! Oh!  It's BoJo!

What do you all think of him and his new cabinet?  What do you think will happen next?  No-deal Brexit?   

[Simon Dog]

I'm hoping it will mean a second referendum, but I'm fearing "no deal Brexit".

Would the pro-Brexit people get a second referendum if the vote had not gone there way?   The problem here is that a second referendum smacks of "we will vote again since you silly people did not vote correctly the first time".

[MooseMom]

Simon Dog, Boris Johnson has created a cabinet filled with ardent Brexiteers, so the only way there would be a second referendum is if a general election were called and Labour was voted in.  A general election would follow a vote of no-confidence in the PM, and that might indeed happen should Johnson and his cabinet continue on the path of a no-deal ("hard") Brexit. 

There are a few problems with that.  Labour's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, isn't generally seen as suitable PM material.  Also, it is unclear whether Labour would actually run on the prospect of having a second referendum.  Then again, many people feel the same way about Boris Johnson.

It is worth knowing that Boris Johnson was not elected PM by the British people, rather, he was voted in by members of the Conservative Party which represents 0.1% of the British electorate.  So, it's hard to guess what would happen in a general election, particularly if a no-deal Brexit was the only kind of Brexit on the table.  The EU is adamant that they will not renegotiate.

As of right now, the Tories have a majority of 3 seats in Parliament, and that may be reduced next week after a by-election in one part of the country.

The Tories' majority depends upon the coalition that Theresa May built with the DUP, the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.  I don't know how the new PM will deal with the Irish "backstop".

Furthermore, it is a distinct possibility that Scotland, in which every region voted Remain, may hold another independence referendum. 

So, all of the "silly people who did not vote correctly the first time" may find themselves the cause of the breakup of the United Kingdom.  I don't think they'd care, though, but I'm not sure Boris Johnson, or any PM, would like to be remembered in the annals of history as being the PM in power when that happened.

[kristina]

Brexit just seems like an unholy mess to me.  It felt so rushed.

I agree with Kristina; I don't know if it is ever going to happen.  And I KNOW that politicians on both sides were taken by surprise by the result.

... And just imagine : almost one and a half year later, after MooseMom mentioned this, and hard trying Prime-Ministers. well meaning cabinet ministers  and many well-meaning thoughts and frightening nightmares later (plus a few suicides "thrown in", committed by scared Continentals who made GB their home, but still kept their original Nationality/Passport), Brexit is still in the planning-stages ...  and no one has any idea where we are right now ...

[Paul]

Would the pro-Brexit people get a second referendum if the vote had not gone there way?

I know this is an old comment but I only just got an answer to it. That answer is "probably 'yes', but in a few years time." The same is true of Scotland, they had a referendum on remaining part of the UK only five years ago. The result was to remain in that union, but there is talk of a second "Scottish in/out the UK" referendum as soon as Brexit is sorted. (Which, if Brexit had run to the expected timetable would have been about three years after the first referendum, it is only because the government is making such a pigs ear out of Brexit that they have not had their second one yet.)

And anyway, if you insist that we must stick to the first referendum, that was in the 1970's and we voted "in" to Europe, if we cannot change our minds with a second referendum, then we have to remain in Europe.

[Paul]

no one has any idea where we are right now ...

There was a gorgeous interview with David Cameron (the Prime Minister who started the referendum)  on the radio this morning. The interviewer (John Humphreys) introduced the interview by saying how much of a mess the thing had been and the dire straits we are in (as a country) because of it, and then started the interview by saying "...And the man responsible for this mess is sitting across the table from me now."

I almost felt sorry for Cameron (almost, not quite, he was a lousy Prime Minister, happy to screw the country over to further his career, and the sad part is that the referendum was not his worst policy, he was quite happy to bring in laws that will make rape more likely in Britain, just to get a few extra votes).

[kristina]

.... suspicion has it that the whole "circus" around Brexit is merely used as a tactical "magic trick" to distract/divert our attention from something much more important, which is supposed to be happening right now in front of our eyes without being noticed ...

Now I would like to know : What is it really all about ? 

Could anyone please enlighten me ?

Thank you.

[MooseMom]

Paul, I did see "The Cameron Years" on TV while I was recently in the UK, and it reminded me that the promise of a referendum had been a carrot for many years prior to Cameron becoming PM.  Euroscepticism has been the downfall of many a Tory leader!

Kristina, if Brexit is indeed a "magic trick" used to divert attention, it is certainly working! 

It occurs to me that the mechanism of the referendum was dreadfully flawed from the beginning.  Here in the US, amending the Constitution requires a much, much more rigorous process and cannot be done by a mere majority vote.  This is where the UK went badly wrong.  If you are going to propose something as radical as leaving the EU permanently, no matter which side "wins", the country as a whole will not "win" with such a small majority.  This was by no means a mandate, so the country, should it even survive in its current form, will remain divided for the decades to come, if not for longer.  If the result had been to Remain, voted for by the same small majority, the same problems would be evident.

With such a small majority, no one can claim to represent "the will of the people".  This is an enormous problem.

If one wants to leave somewhere, surely there must be in mind a map, a mode of transport AND a destination in mind.  The 2016 referendum offered none of these.  If the voters were so sure they knew what Brexit really was, why does no one still really know?

[kristina]

With such a small majority, no one can claim to represent "the will of the people".  This is an enormous problem.

If one wants to leave somewhere, surely there must be in mind a map, a mode of transport AND a destination in mind.  The 2016 referendum offered none of these.  If the voters were so sure they knew what Brexit really was, why does no one still really know?

Well said MooseMom !
As you have pointed out, there was nothing prepared, nothing was in place, no destination was given and no one still really knows.

One wonders what that says about the seriousness and/or capability of our politicians ?

That is one of the reason why so many people are confused about whether or not Brexit was really meant  ...  or perhaps it was not ?

Or was it meant as a "Magic Trick" to divert our attention from something else? But if that is/was the case, what for and why ?

Take your pick what to believe ... there are so many different theories and choices to pick from ...   

[Paul]

MooseMom, that was probably the best analysis of Brexit I have heard in a long time. The next time you are in the UK you don't fancy taking on the job of Prime Minister do you?

The reason it was badly thought out was that it was done in a rushed panic. The Conservative party was in power after having lost several elections in a row and having been out of power for 14 years. They were desperate not to end up back in the wilderness. A new political party was formed whose one and only policy was to get out of Europe, and a lot of die hard Conservative voters were defecting to them. Probably not enough to get this new party a victory in the next election, but enough to reduce the Conservative party's votes so that they would loose the next election. So Cameron promised the referendum simply to save his party, or more precisely, to save his job as Prime Minister.

[kristina]

... Perhaps one of the stumbling-blocks for a Brexit-go-ahead may be Northern Ireland?

After all, the Republic of Southern Ireland is independent from London/Westminster and it is also a member of the European Union and - of course - Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland, which would mean an independence from Westminster ?

If that would/could be allowed to happen, the next step would be - of course - that the Scottish and the Welsh people could also wish to become independent from Westminster as well and then  ........ ?

Such thoughts could leave lots of questions about Brexit, couldn't they ?

[MooseMom]

I was watching Question Time while I was over there, and Fiona Bruce asked the audience if they had thought about NI before casting their vote in the referendum.  They all murmured various forms of "no".  One man even raised his hand and said that not for a single moment had he considered the consequences for Northern Ireland.

And with Nicola Sturgeon raising the question of another Scottish Independence referendum, it is all quite worrying.

[Paul]

Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland

Now this is why it is important you start watching the news. Say that in public in Northern Ireland and you will get severely beaten. Say that in private to a patriotic Northern Irish man and there is a real possibility they will kill you, and I mean that literally. Oh, and if you survive and go to the police, the most likely outcome is that you will go to jail for inciting racial hatred.

Also, DO NOT call it "Southern Ireland", just Ireland - adding the "Southern" is another racial slur, would be safer to refer to a black man by the N word than call Ireland "Southern Ireland"

Quick history lesson:

When Britain gave independence to Ireland there were some people who wanted to remain British, so Northern Ireland was split off as a different country to Ireland, for them to live in. (Think of the partition of India into India and Pakistan.) Unfortunately, a lot of people who wanted to be part of an independent Ireland were trapped there because their jobs/family/homes/etc. were there. The war between these two sides is what causes the violence, and stoking such violence up by saying things like "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland" is what could get you killed if you said it to the wrong Irishman.

Incidentally there is also a religious element to this, the Irish are staunch Catholics, whereas those who want NI to remain British are mostly Protestant, which is why you will often here it talked about as Protestants Vs Catholics.

OK that is a simplified version of a situation that deserves a thousand pages to explain fully, but just NEVER call Ireland "Southern Ireland", and NEVER EVER say "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland", not unless you want to be considered a racist, and get beaten up.

[kristina]

Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland

Now this is why it is important you start watching the news. Say that in public in Northern Ireland and you will get severely beaten. Say that in private to a patriotic Northern Irish man and there is a real possibility they will kill you, and I mean that literally. Oh, and if you survive and go to the police, the most likely outcome is that you will go to jail for inciting racial hatred.

Also, DO NOT call it "Southern Ireland", just Ireland - adding the "Southern" is another racial slur, would be safer to refer to a black man by the N word than call Ireland "Southern Ireland"

Quick history lesson:

When Britain gave independence to Ireland there were some people who wanted to remain British, so Northern Ireland was split off as a different country to Ireland, for them to live in. (Think of the partition of India into India and Pakistan.) Unfortunately, a lot of people who wanted to be part of an independent Ireland were trapped there because their jobs/family/homes/etc. were there. The war between these two sides is what causes the violence, and stoking such violence up by saying things like "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland" is what could get you killed if you said it to the wrong Irishman.

Incidentally there is also a religious element to this, the Irish are staunch Catholics, whereas those who want NI to remain British are mostly Protestant, which is why you will often here it talked about as Protestants Vs Catholics.

OK that is a simplified version of a situation that deserves a thousand pages to explain fully, but just NEVER call Ireland "Southern Ireland", and NEVER EVER say "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland", not unless you want to be considered a racist, and get beaten up.

That sounds very confusing indeed, especially since I have discussed this very issue with different people from both sides and I am still here and very much alive.

Nevertheless, I have noted what you say and thanks for the warning from Kristina.