|
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 January 16 2019 08:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 08:08 Zaros wrote:On January 16 2019 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2019 07:50 Zaros wrote:On January 16 2019 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
As an outsider, the past 6 months have felt like a bunch of theater intended to get people comfortable with the idea that Brexit isn't going to happen. Today's vote felt like just another example of "see? this isn't possible? We tried, but sorry, we're ditching the whole idea".
Clearly, if they just came out and said that right away, there would be a lot of backlash. But if they just slowly drag Brexit over some hot coals, eventually it just dies, right?
Anyone else feel that way? The Legal default is No deal, it happens if the MPs don't vote for a deal or to stop brexit, there will be uproar if MPs openly vote to stop brexit. The country is just waiting to see what happens. My understanding is that no deal is such a clear case of suicide that no one will actually let that happen. Sure, it is the "legal default", but every other reason basically points to "yeah, but no, it's not like we'll actually do that". It doesnt matter if people think its suicide it is going to happen unless the government proposes an alternative which gets a majority or revokes article 50, the clock is ticking every day. Doesn't this kind of thinking assume the people involved will continue to sign things, let things move forward, etc? Are you saying that is what you expect to happen, or just saying that is how the words are currently written? My (outside) impression is that people will go to extreme lengths to prevent a hard brexit. There are MP's that want EU influence out of the UK. They don't care about the damage it will do the economy or people, they are part of the elite. They are safe.
But people will hate it. So the best thing is to make sure the process starts (via the referendum) and then let someone else be in charge, but put of a political theatre about trying to get the best deal possible (that doesn't exist).
So that when shit hits the fan they can say "May got us a bad deal so I had to vote No, I would have gotten us a good deal, but they wouldn't listen".
Your fault is assuming these politicians would put country and the people before themselves.
Just look at what is going on the US to see the same thing happening there.
|
i think the argument is more along the lines of
1) "well, we can't agree on how to exit the EU but we don't want No Deal"
2) "we don't want to cancel Brexit because that would be suicide"
3) "so we'll cancel it but tell everyone it's only canceled to give us more time to get a deal with the EU"
I can't see anyone outright saying that they want to cancel Brexit for the sake of canceling it. But i could see some people arguing to cancel it for a short time so the time-pressure is gone only for that to turn into a permanent situation. Assuming the next elections don't find a clear majority for brexit.
|
On January 16 2019 08:30 Toadesstern wrote:
i think the argument is more along the lines of
1) "well, we can't agree on how to exit the EU but we don't want No Deal"
2) "we don't want to cancel Brexit because that would be suicide"
3) "so we'll cancel it but tell everyone it's only canceled to give us more time to get a deal with the EU"
I can't see anyone outright saying that they want to cancel Brexit for the sake of canceling it. But i could see some people arguing to cancel it for a short time so the time-pressure is gone only for that to turn into a permanent situation. Assuming the next elections don't find a clear majority for brexit.
Right, this is what it looks like to me too. They will never officially "cancel" it, just let it slowly rot to death. I imagine at some point there will be some big news that their time to make it happen gets extended by 5 years or something. That is enough time for national politics to shift enough to where it just rots to death.
That's possible right? EU says "Sure, take another 3 years and get back to us" and we continue this political theater everyone knows is going nowhere until support for Brexit gets so low that they can just outright cancel it?
|
On January 16 2019 08:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 08:30 Toadesstern wrote:
i think the argument is more along the lines of
1) "well, we can't agree on how to exit the EU but we don't want No Deal"
2) "we don't want to cancel Brexit because that would be suicide"
3) "so we'll cancel it but tell everyone it's only canceled to give us more time to get a deal with the EU"
I can't see anyone outright saying that they want to cancel Brexit for the sake of canceling it. But i could see some people arguing to cancel it for a short time so the time-pressure is gone only for that to turn into a permanent situation. Assuming the next elections don't find a clear majority for brexit.
Right, this is what it looks like to me too. They will never officially "cancel" it, just let it slowly rot to death. I imagine at some point there will be some big news that their time to make it happen gets extended by 5 years or something. That is enough time for national politics to shift enough to where it just rots to death. That's possible right? EU says "Sure, take another 3 years and get back to us" and we continue this political theater everyone knows is going nowhere until support for Brexit gets so low that they can just outright cancel it? The UK can stop Article 50, as per the EU courts.
Not stopping Article 50 but extending the period past March requires a unanimous vote from all 27 EU member nations.
|
On January 16 2019 05:14 hunter_x wrote:
And i thought our government was a joke, but you brits beat us in that regard;)
We're going through a bad patch. It's not normally this schizophrenic.
|
On January 16 2019 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 08:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2019 08:30 Toadesstern wrote:
i think the argument is more along the lines of
1) "well, we can't agree on how to exit the EU but we don't want No Deal"
2) "we don't want to cancel Brexit because that would be suicide"
3) "so we'll cancel it but tell everyone it's only canceled to give us more time to get a deal with the EU"
I can't see anyone outright saying that they want to cancel Brexit for the sake of canceling it. But i could see some people arguing to cancel it for a short time so the time-pressure is gone only for that to turn into a permanent situation. Assuming the next elections don't find a clear majority for brexit.
Right, this is what it looks like to me too. They will never officially "cancel" it, just let it slowly rot to death. I imagine at some point there will be some big news that their time to make it happen gets extended by 5 years or something. That is enough time for national politics to shift enough to where it just rots to death. That's possible right? EU says "Sure, take another 3 years and get back to us" and we continue this political theater everyone knows is going nowhere until support for Brexit gets so low that they can just outright cancel it? The UK can stop Article 50, as per the EU courts. Not stopping Article 50 but extending the period past March requires a unanimous vote from all 27 EU member nations.
yeah but, according to that the UK can stop Article 50 and tell it's people
"we are stopping Article 50 to give us more time to work this out! Because of that we set a deadline for ourselves. We'll trigger Article 50 again in 2 years (or whatever else)"
and by then people might be voting for people who want to cancel brexit alltogether so Article 50 never gets triggered again.
So basicly extend by canceling and then hope that once that "extension" is through people don't want brexit anymore.
Idk if canceling Article 50 results in some kind of "you can't trigger it again for x years" or something like that but if it doesn't they could do the above.
|
On January 16 2019 09:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2019 08:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2019 08:30 Toadesstern wrote:
i think the argument is more along the lines of
1) "well, we can't agree on how to exit the EU but we don't want No Deal"
2) "we don't want to cancel Brexit because that would be suicide"
3) "so we'll cancel it but tell everyone it's only canceled to give us more time to get a deal with the EU"
I can't see anyone outright saying that they want to cancel Brexit for the sake of canceling it. But i could see some people arguing to cancel it for a short time so the time-pressure is gone only for that to turn into a permanent situation. Assuming the next elections don't find a clear majority for brexit.
Right, this is what it looks like to me too. They will never officially "cancel" it, just let it slowly rot to death. I imagine at some point there will be some big news that their time to make it happen gets extended by 5 years or something. That is enough time for national politics to shift enough to where it just rots to death. That's possible right? EU says "Sure, take another 3 years and get back to us" and we continue this political theater everyone knows is going nowhere until support for Brexit gets so low that they can just outright cancel it? The UK can stop Article 50, as per the EU courts. Not stopping Article 50 but extending the period past March requires a unanimous vote from all 27 EU member nations. yeah but, according to that the UK can stop Article 50 and tell it's people "we are stopping Article 50 to give us more time to work this out! Because of that we set a deadline for ourselves. We'll trigger Article 50 again in 2 years (or whatever else)"and by then people might be voting for people who want to cancel brexit alltogether so Article 50 never gets triggered again. So basicly extend by canceling and then hope that once that "extension" is through people don't want brexit anymore. Idk if canceling Article 50 results in some kind of "you can't trigger it again for x years" or something like that but if it doesn't they could do the above. Yeah... I dont see the voters buying that. Or enough politicians willing to do that.
|
The current government has no interest in stopping article 50. As it is now and has been the UK is heading towards a hard brexit.
|
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that....
|
On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that.... The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU.
Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely.
No one knows what happens next.
|
On January 16 2019 09:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that.... The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU. Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely. No one knows what happens next.
So like... what happens with borders, trade/tariffs, immigration, and uh.... all the other things?
|
On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that....
Basically, the UK wants to leave the EU, and the last two years have been discussions in the UK and the EU as to what our future relationship would look like. Will there be membership of the customs union? If we have the free flow of goods, why don't we have the free flow of people? What will happen to all the EU citizens in the UK, what will happen to all the UK citizens in the EU?
All that shit and more has been discussed.
May proposed a deal that in short is the compromise no one wanted:
In her own party there are people who do not want to leave the EU and or have the closest relationship with the EU as possible.
There are the 200 odd who support her deal, with most not really liking it and saying its better than crashing out with no plan
and then there are the hard brexiteers who maintain her deal means that the UK is still too close to the EU, in particular due border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and how that would be managed.
Now even if all her party voted together she would still have less than half the votes of the house.
This is where the DUP come in,
a northern irish party who, with their 10 seats mean that if they work together, the tories can win any vote (in theory).
They oppose may's plans because in order to not have a land border between NI and ROI, you need to put the border somewhere. IN this case, the Irish Sea.
They fear her plan will hasten the breakup of the union.
So that's just one party, the other parties are similar.
In short, everyone in the country wants different things, and this is unhelpfully not split down party lines:
The opposition has members from areas that voted strongly to leave, the government has members from areas that voted strongly to remain.
What they all seem to agree on is that may's plan of what could happen sucks.
( its worthy to note here, that her plan doesn't cover all the minutiae of leaving the EU, its a "this is the broad strokes, we will agree to keep things from falling apart too badly and we will work out the little things later")
|
In 2016 there was a referendum to stay or leave the EU. To leave by 52% : 48%
In UK, you vote in an Member of Parliament, who is part of a party, which then nominally arranges a Prime Minister. Back then the party in charge of government was The Conservative Party and the PM was David Cameron, who resigned. There was a short internal voting in The Conservative party and Theresa May became PM. Theresa May then called for a General Election to exert control over The Conservative party and lost a lot of votes and now represent the government in conjuction with the DUP, a small party with few seats from Ireland which is adamant that Northern Ireland shall follow the same rules as the rest of UK.
Now this is where it gets complicated. UK triggered article 50, which is a mechanism to leave the EU, and in doing so will automatically leave in 2 years, where upon it will revert back to normal WTO rules unless an agreement or a "deal" is reached. Any deal through many legal rulings and wrangling has to go through parliament and voted on. The Conservative party and The Labour party are the 2 major parties in the UK. The Conservative party nominally is to leave the EU, but has a PM who wants to stay, and The Labour party nominally wants to remain in the EU, but whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave. Both parties are voted in by both those who want to remain and those who want to leave. Both parties claim to want to respect the "will of the people (tm)" by delivering Brexit, but doesn't want to take the political fallout from the catastrophe it will be.
And so you have a "softer brexit" deal being planned to be put through Parliament which was likely to be voted down by MP's who want a hard brexit and by those MP's who want to remain in the EU. After the first withdrawl deal in December (note that this was 20 months after triggering article 50!) was delayed because it would not pass, there was an internal vote of no confidence in Theresa May within The Conservative Party by the hard Brexiteers who are doing everything to derail any deal as the default will be a hard Brexit in the case of no deal. Now, Theresa May has put the deal up to vote, and it has been rejected. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition has tabled a motion of no confidence. Parliament now has 2 weeks to pass a motion of confidence in Theresa May, otherwise another Election will be called.
|
On January 16 2019 09:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 09:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that.... The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU. Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely. No one knows what happens next. So like... what happens with borders, trade/tariffs, immigration, and uh.... all the other things?
Well even the government admit more or less that no deal is a disaster scenario. (all those things will break)
There are rebels who maintain that No Deal will be fine and we will basically walk on water, because we are English (good old English exceptionalism)
|
On January 16 2019 09:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 09:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that.... The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU. Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely. No one knows what happens next. So like... what happens with borders, trade/tariffs, immigration, and uh.... all the other things?
Nobody fucking knows. At least not in UK.
|
Man... thanks for the explanations. This somehow sounds more confusing than our American bullshit. Although I'm sure the grass is always greener on the other side as they say.
|
On January 16 2019 09:34 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 09:21 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2019 09:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Someone explain like I'm 5. What just happened? I feel like I keep hearing UK is in, then out, then in. There's a vote here, then another vote there, then a referendum.
I'm genuinely clueless. The only thing I know is it has to do with leaving the EU. Other than that.... The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU. Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely. No one knows what happens next. So like... what happens with borders, trade/tariffs, immigration, and uh.... all the other things? In the case of a hard Brexit.
Borders will be the same as any border from the EU to outside the EU.
Trade will be reset to World Trade Organisation standards, which means a bunch of tariffs for all sorts of goods (im sure you can find a list on google if you want).
Immigration, into the UK depends on what the UK does, currently unknown.
UK citizens inside the EU and EU citizens inside the UK are uncertain, but likely to be able to stay as its in everyone's best interest for them to do so.
|
United States43565 Posts
On January 16 2019 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 07:50 Zaros wrote:On January 16 2019 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
As an outsider, the past 6 months have felt like a bunch of theater intended to get people comfortable with the idea that Brexit isn't going to happen. Today's vote felt like just another example of "see? this isn't possible? We tried, but sorry, we're ditching the whole idea".
Clearly, if they just came out and said that right away, there would be a lot of backlash. But if they just slowly drag Brexit over some hot coals, eventually it just dies, right?
Anyone else feel that way? The Legal default is No deal, it happens if the MPs don't vote for a deal or to stop brexit, there will be uproar if MPs openly vote to stop brexit. The country is just waiting to see what happens. My understanding is that no deal is such a clear case of suicide that no one will actually let that happen. Sure, it is the "legal default", but every other reason basically points to "yeah, but no, it's not like we'll actually do that".
Nobody wants to be blamed for stopping Brexit so nobody is going to stop it. They’re all happier to blame each other for inaction than to act.
|
Brexit is basically Britain not wanting to come to grips with it's declining global influence and desperately wanting to believe that leaving the EU will somehow stop that decline. But all the politicians know it won't/can't and none of them want to be caught holding the bag (seen as responsible for it).
There seem to be a LOT of periphery arguments focused on avoiding that elephant in the room. At least that's what it looks like to me.
|
On January 16 2019 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Brexit is basically Britain not wanting to come to grips with it's declining global influence and desperately wanting to believe that leaving the EU will somehow stop that decline. But all the politicians know it won't/can't and none of them want to be caught holding the bag (seen as responsible for it).
There seem to be a LOT of periphery arguments focused on avoiding that elephant in the room. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The funny thing about that is that the formation of the EU is probably the only reason Britain didn't end up completely subjugated by the US. Without the EU, the US would have bullied each country into submission. Currently, they have legitimate bargaining power. The US will devour Britain if they leave. Like actually leave the EU
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
