|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On November 16 2018 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:28 pmh wrote:
Labour should rise above their own political motivations and do what is best for the country and support this deal.
Its D-Day,time to make a decision. There is not much room to negotiate and get a potentially better deal,they have been negotiating for over 1 year already.
If deal doesn't get through then I guess that is the end for May and then what? New elections,labour possibly majority and then labour will negotiate a better deal? Am just wondering what the plan is here,how labour sees this going forward.
There isn't time for all that,GB will leave the eu next year deal or no deal. Labour absolutely should not do that. They should be pushing for a second referendum, and do what's right for the country. This deal is awful for the UK, that's why the EU leaders are all loving it. This is a soft brexit, but no-one really wants a soft brexit (the people who seem to want one really don't want brexit at all).
A second referendum on what? To cancel Brexit entirely?
|
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit. If they don't support the deal then they should offer a credible alternative. Not only for the public opinion and the voters,in the end a deal or not still has to be made. What are labours plans?
|
On November 16 2018 22:41 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:28 pmh wrote:
Labour should rise above their own political motivations and do what is best for the country and support this deal.
Its D-Day,time to make a decision. There is not much room to negotiate and get a potentially better deal,they have been negotiating for over 1 year already.
If deal doesn't get through then I guess that is the end for May and then what? New elections,labour possibly majority and then labour will negotiate a better deal? Am just wondering what the plan is here,how labour sees this going forward.
There isn't time for all that,GB will leave the eu next year deal or no deal. Labour absolutely should not do that. They should be pushing for a second referendum, and do what's right for the country. This deal is awful for the UK, that's why the EU leaders are all loving it. This is a soft brexit, but no-one really wants a soft brexit (the people who seem to want one really don't want brexit at all). A second referendum on what? To cancel Brexit entirely?
That option should be there for sure. Or at least a referendum on the terms of brexit.
If that doesn't happen, there will be no deal, and the worst possible scenario for everyone is sure to play out.
There is no way any deal will get through parliament, not with labour voting against anything the tories do and the tories split right down the middle, a majority is near impossible on anything.
On November 16 2018 22:42 pmh wrote:
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit. If they don't support the deal then they should offer a credible alternative. Not only for the public opinion and the voters,in the end a deal or not still has to be made. What are labours plans?
Labour have been pussies about this from the start. They are blinded by their own thirst for power. Corbyn thinks his socialist dream is about to come true, and I think that has stopped him from actually committing to anything at all, he's just hoping that the tories fuck up so badly that he can take over.
|
On November 16 2018 22:42 pmh wrote:
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit.
Here are their reasons to refuse what May got. You can partly infer what they want from that
|
On November 16 2018 22:42 pmh wrote:
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit. I'm thinking its along the lines of "lets huff and puff but not actually get rid of May so that she and the Tories get blamed for the shit deal and then we come in and win the next election".
The #1 thing in all of these political dealings is to remember that no one actually wants to be in charge because there is no viable path forward and whoever is in charge will get blasted for the inevitable result.
That's why May is in charge and why she has stayed in charge despite the constant complaining about everything she does by everyone else.
EDIT: as for cancelling Brexit. I believe that requires a unanimous vote from all EU members. Donno if the UK can get that done. Plus again, its political suicide because a significant part of the country actually still wants Brexit.
|
On November 16 2018 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:41 TheDwf wrote:On November 16 2018 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:28 pmh wrote:
Labour should rise above their own political motivations and do what is best for the country and support this deal.
Its D-Day,time to make a decision. There is not much room to negotiate and get a potentially better deal,they have been negotiating for over 1 year already.
If deal doesn't get through then I guess that is the end for May and then what? New elections,labour possibly majority and then labour will negotiate a better deal? Am just wondering what the plan is here,how labour sees this going forward.
There isn't time for all that,GB will leave the eu next year deal or no deal. Labour absolutely should not do that. They should be pushing for a second referendum, and do what's right for the country. This deal is awful for the UK, that's why the EU leaders are all loving it. This is a soft brexit, but no-one really wants a soft brexit (the people who seem to want one really don't want brexit at all). A second referendum on what? To cancel Brexit entirely? That option should be there for sure. Or at least a referendum on the terms of brexit. If that doesn't happen, there will be no deal, and the worst possible scenario for everyone is sure to play out. There is no way any deal will get through parliament, not with labour voting against anything the tories do and the tories split right down the middle, a majority is near impossible on anything.
There will be elections if May cannot get her majority to vote the deal anyway, no?
|
On November 16 2018 22:45 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:42 pmh wrote:
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit. https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1063147614923907072Here are their reasons to refuse what May got. You can partly infer what they want from that
Their point 1 requires a very soft exit. The 4 freedoms are not negotiable, access to free market mandates free movement aswell. The UK would be giving up their vote on EU matters while still being bound by all EU rules.
The rest of the points don't even have much, if any, to do with the EU and is internal UK business.
|
On November 16 2018 22:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:41 TheDwf wrote:On November 16 2018 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:28 pmh wrote:
Labour should rise above their own political motivations and do what is best for the country and support this deal.
Its D-Day,time to make a decision. There is not much room to negotiate and get a potentially better deal,they have been negotiating for over 1 year already.
If deal doesn't get through then I guess that is the end for May and then what? New elections,labour possibly majority and then labour will negotiate a better deal? Am just wondering what the plan is here,how labour sees this going forward.
There isn't time for all that,GB will leave the eu next year deal or no deal. Labour absolutely should not do that. They should be pushing for a second referendum, and do what's right for the country. This deal is awful for the UK, that's why the EU leaders are all loving it. This is a soft brexit, but no-one really wants a soft brexit (the people who seem to want one really don't want brexit at all). A second referendum on what? To cancel Brexit entirely? That option should be there for sure. Or at least a referendum on the terms of brexit. If that doesn't happen, there will be no deal, and the worst possible scenario for everyone is sure to play out. There is no way any deal will get through parliament, not with labour voting against anything the tories do and the tories split right down the middle, a majority is near impossible on anything. There will be elections if May cannot get her majority to vote the deal anyway, no?
I think the procedure allows them a second chance, but other than that there aren't really any set rules for this type of situation. The tories have ruled out a general election so I don't think that will happen. Its obviously what labour are angling for, but I think a second referendum is the way forward.
|
United States43990 Posts
On November 16 2018 22:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:41 TheDwf wrote:On November 16 2018 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2018 22:28 pmh wrote:
Labour should rise above their own political motivations and do what is best for the country and support this deal.
Its D-Day,time to make a decision. There is not much room to negotiate and get a potentially better deal,they have been negotiating for over 1 year already.
If deal doesn't get through then I guess that is the end for May and then what? New elections,labour possibly majority and then labour will negotiate a better deal? Am just wondering what the plan is here,how labour sees this going forward.
There isn't time for all that,GB will leave the eu next year deal or no deal. Labour absolutely should not do that. They should be pushing for a second referendum, and do what's right for the country. This deal is awful for the UK, that's why the EU leaders are all loving it. This is a soft brexit, but no-one really wants a soft brexit (the people who seem to want one really don't want brexit at all). A second referendum on what? To cancel Brexit entirely? That option should be there for sure. Or at least a referendum on the terms of brexit. If that doesn't happen, there will be no deal, and the worst possible scenario for everyone is sure to play out. There is no way any deal will get through parliament, not with labour voting against anything the tories do and the tories split right down the middle, a majority is near impossible on anything. There will be elections if May cannot get her majority to vote the deal anyway, no?
It would be a constitutional issue if there weren’t, this was a manifesto issue. But things may have changed since we set parliament terms so ad hoc elections may cease to be a thing.
|
On November 16 2018 22:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 22:45 TheDwf wrote:On November 16 2018 22:42 pmh wrote:
But what is labours perspective them,i am curious about that. How do they see this going forward and getting solved. Do they have an alternative?
Right now it seems like "we will get rid of may and after that we will see what we do" because I have not heard a clear plan from labour about how they would address the brexit. https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1063147614923907072Here are their reasons to refuse what May got. You can partly infer what they want from that Their point 1 requires a very soft exit. The 4 freedoms are not negotiable, access to free market mandates free movement aswell. The UK would be giving up their vote on EU matters while still being bound by all EU rules. The rest of the points don't even have much, if any, to do with the EU and is internal UK business.
Essentially the only way Labour can get the points in that video are by staying in the EU...
But there's also quite a bit of fear mongering there. "Worker rights" could deteriorate... or they could improve faster: that is entirely up to UK politicians. Of course, it already is free to UK politicians to protect workers *better* than the EU mandates, but apparently that minimum is enough for Labour? Similar case for immigration. The reason the deal doesn't mention immigration is because under the deal, other than for Northern Ireland, it is entirely up to the UK government to implement their own post-Brexit immigration policy.
|
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. This moment, right now, is when the referendum should be called, when the public can see what the government is actually offering.
People voted for a dream. Guess what? Dreams aren't fucking real. That's why they're dreams in the first place.
All I ever hear from pro-Brexit people is things 'might' be better or the government 'can' do x, y, or z (often forgetting things that prevent them doing that), I don't care about 'might' and 'can', I care about 'will' and 'are planning to'. It is reckless and stupid to leave the EU with things in their current state.
I'm not saying there's no case to be made for doing it. I'm saying the actual people actually negotiating Brexit have not made that case, nor presented a case that makes me think they are vaguely capable of doing so.
|
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now.
|
On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now.
Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer.
|
United States43990 Posts
On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. This moment, right now, is when the referendum should be called, when the public can see what the government is actually offering.
I’m anti Brexit but the 4% argument presumes a unique value to the status quo that doesn’t exist. If 52% isn’t enough support to leave the EU then 48% isn’t enough to be in the EU. When asked whether they wanted to be in or out the British public, by a huge majority, returned the answer “we disagree”. A full 96% of the voting public disagreed with another member of the voting public, if you were to pair them up.
Basically referendums are dumb. We shouldn’t do more of them, we should do less. We don’t need another referendum to cancel out the first one.
|
On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for.
While it's true that votes with massive consequences should probably require higher majorities, or involve more precise questions, you cannot use the "demagogy, lies, blind people" argument only when you're displeased with the result. Plus in many electoral results, the winner got there by a short margin, and thus won perhaps more through luck or perception than something else. It's part of the electoral process to come with some arbitrariness.
|
On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer.
Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this.
|
On November 17 2018 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. This moment, right now, is when the referendum should be called, when the public can see what the government is actually offering. I’m anti Brexit but the 4% argument presumes a unique value to the status quo that doesn’t exist. If 52% isn’t enough support to leave the EU then 48% isn’t enough to be in the EU. When asked whether they wanted to be in or out the British public, by a huge majority, returned the answer “we disagree”. A full 96% of the voting public disagreed with another member of the voting public, if you were to pair them up. Basically referendums are dumb. We shouldn’t do more of them, we should do less. We don’t need another referendum to cancel out the first one.
We're kind of stuck at the moment though. Unless May manages to miraculously convince her doubters to go along with a plan they hate, or convinces half the Labour party to side with her over their own party (which is probably more likely) nothing will pass through parliament, and we'll have no deal.
To me it seems the only way to get through this, no matter what gets decided in the end, is to use a referendum, or let Labour take over.
|
On November 17 2018 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. This moment, right now, is when the referendum should be called, when the public can see what the government is actually offering. I’m anti Brexit but the 4% argument presumes a unique value to the status quo that doesn’t exist. If 52% isn’t enough support to leave the EU then 48% isn’t enough to be in the EU. When asked whether they wanted to be in or out the British public, by a huge majority, returned the answer “we disagree”. A full 96% of the voting public disagreed with another member of the voting public, if you were to pair them up. Basically referendums are dumb. We shouldn’t do more of them, we should do less. We don’t need another referendum to cancel out the first one.
I think there is a case to be made that voting against something is always easier than voting to keep something the way it currently is. Maybe it's just my naive interpretation of how we tend to perceive the bad things of something more pronounced. Basicly "the grass is always greener on the other side" or "it's always red traffic lights for me".
So in that sense I'd assume that if you made a referendum and it turns outthat close and then have a rerun of it every 4 years I wouldn't be surprised if you get out and in and out and in all the time.
That being said, I absolutely disagree with the notion that a 2nd referendum would help or having that talk now would help. You either set out the rules before you have that kind of referendum or you live with the consequences. Going back to it and saying "well, we really should have made it 60% majority (or 55% or whatever)" after the fact is an obvious no-go.
Same with a 2nd referendum imo
|
2nd referendum seems like the least realistic option. Then almost 2 years would have been wasted and we are back to where we where right before the first referendum. Its also far from sure that it would be a remain now
Labour coming to the rescue seems the most realistic option to me to avoid chaos. They could let members decide individual according to their conscience and not have a partyline.
The deal itself I don't think much can be changed about. They could change maybe small bits here and there but they have been changing small bits here and there for months to come to this deal in the first place.
Maybe labour can make some deal,like support may now and get something else in exchange.
|
On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this.
The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
