| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On April 09 2019 02:44 Plansix wrote: Pretty sure the EU could make it a reality if one or more members says enough kicking the can down the road. That would lead to quickly(as in in panic) passing May's deal or revocation. Not no-deal. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 09 2019 02:34 Longshank wrote: No-deal hasn't been an option since early mars when Cooper's amendment made sure it didn't happen by accident. We've been through this before. It's an empty gesture. The British Parliament is not the only negotiator. No deal is the default relationship with the EU come the end of a deadline that the UK initiated and EU has already extended, but appears unwilling to further extend for. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9021 Posts
On April 09 2019 02:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote: We've been through this before. It's an empty gesture. The British Parliament is not the only negotiator. No deal is the default relationship with the EU come the end of a deadline that the UK initiated and EU has already extended, but appears unwilling to further extend for. As long as no one comes forward and says they will veto a further extension, we can't talk about a lack of willingness. But that's not the point, whether this is the last extension or not, there will be a window of a few days between when either parliament votes against applying for a further extension or the EU summit refuses a further extension and the actual deadline. And that's when the paradigm shifts from everyone voting for only their top preference to voting for anything that isn't their worst preference. The default option if you don't decide what your next meal will be is starvation, Dangermouse. Which is about as likely as what we're discussing. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
The starvation analogy is most apt. It doesn't matter if Parliament has voted to not starve, it will starve irregardless if Parliament can't decide what it's next meal will be, in the vague hope that the body will have enough strength to make a decision just on the verge of death. After 3 years of incompetency exhibited, you guys have much more faith than I do. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
If a not insignificant part of the body is ok with starving, then starving becomes a lot more likely. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The whole thing reminds me of when my firm's clients threaten to pull their work every time there is something they don't like. Goes on for a couple years and everyone puts up with it. But at some point my manager tells me to respond with "Where should we send your files?" Follow with "No, really. We are done. You need to fine a new firm to handle these." This can't go on forever. At some point the EU will pull of the band aid. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On April 09 2019 06:47 Plansix wrote: I think the PM's are smart enough to know they are selling lies, but they are well off enough that they won't feel to much of the results of a no-deal. Isn't it more that a good chunk of those people don't believe they will starve? The entire no deal plan seems to be centered around the idea of the UK being to big to fail, and that the EU nations will cave to better trade deals to not lose out on the sweet UK market. Or something. The whole thing reminds me of when my firm's clients threaten to pull their work every time there is something they don't like. Goes on for a couple years and everyone puts up with it. But at some point my manager tells me to respond with "Where should we send your files?" Follow with "No, really. We are done. You need to fine a new firm to handle these." This can't go on forever. At some point the EU will pull of the band aid. That is for the 'common people' to bear. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9021 Posts
On April 09 2019 06:47 Plansix wrote: Isn't it more that a good chunk of those people don't believe they will starve? The entire no deal plan seems to be centered around the idea of the UK being to big to fail, and that the EU nations will cave to better trade deals to not lose out on the sweet UK market. Or something. The whole thing reminds me of when my firm's clients threaten to pull their work every time there is something they don't like. Goes on for a couple years and everyone puts up with it. But at some point my manager tells me to respond with "Where should we send your files?" Follow with "No, really. We are done. You need to fine a new firm to handle these." This can't go on forever. At some point the EU will pull of the band aid. I wouldn't say that there is a no deal plan. Even during the referendum campaign, Farage, Boris & co were saying that the prospect of leaving without a deal is just a scare tactic by the remain campaign that can't happen. In the meantime, the illusions of the UK's amazing leverage that we were debating with bardtown here have completely dissipated. I saw this opinion piece a couple of days ago from a Daily Mail columnist and hardcore Brexiteer, says it all really: If we are honest, we Brexiteers have to admit that the economic arguments for Brexit have been destroyed by a series of shattering blows. The leading Brexiteers argued during the 2016 campaign that the British economy had been held back by membership of the EU and would survive and flourish on its own. That argument is now unsustainable. Investment-led growth has collapsed, and we need to stare that undeniable fact squarely in the face. Just look at the events of the early months of this year. They fill me – as they should fill every lover of this country – with anxiety and despair. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/ There are 160 MPs that are okay with no deal, compared to 400+ that will do whatever to avoid it. For example even though Labour have been voting against May's deal their opposition to it is not nearly as strong as their opposition to no deal. As seen from the recent talks and their willingness to pass it if there's a customs union complementing her deal. But there's still time to play politics and get any possible concessions until that window that I mentioned earlier arrives. What is clear is that no deal loses head to head with anything else and that's what ultimately matters when they are forced to make a decision in the 11th hour. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 09 2019 06:47 Plansix wrote: Isn't it more that a good chunk of those people don't believe they will starve? The entire no deal plan seems to be centered around the idea of the UK being to big to fail, and that the EU nations will cave to better trade deals to not lose out on the sweet UK market. Or something. I mean without being overly sneering, basically? The EU can apparently simultaneously be dismissive of UK concerns and refuse to play ball when we’re in it, but would let us keep the parts of the club we like and give us exemptions on the stuff we don’t when we’re no longer a member. This expectation was seen as ludicrously optimistic at the time by many, it’s subsequently been borne out in negotiations thus far. The other view, that we can No Deal exit and make up the slack elsewhere because we’re the UK or something is IMO even less likely. Proof will be in the pudding, rather pessimistic. It’s pretty much the consensus that there will be a negative impact on the economy overall and not just in the short term either, indeed the current scenario has already hit, its kind of hard to run a business that has big European links if you can’t plan. But no we’re locked into a bad decision (IMO) because that referendum was democratic and binding, but a hypothetical second referendum would not be democratic, despite more of the realities of the situation being out there vs preposterous pie in the sky promises. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 09 2019 07:37 Dan HH wrote: I wouldn't say that there is a no deal plan. Even during the referendum campaign, Farage, Boris & co were saying that the prospect of leaving without a deal is just a scare tactic by the remain campaign that can't happen. In the meantime, the illusions of the UK's amazing leverage that we were debating with bardtown here have completely dissipated. I saw this opinion piece a couple of days ago from a Daily Mail columnist and hardcore Brexiteer, says it all really: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/ There are 160 MPs that are okay with no deal, compared to 400+ that will do whatever to avoid it. For example even though Labour have been voting against May's deal their opposition to it is not nearly as strong as their opposition to no deal. As seen from the recent talks and their willingness to pass it if there's a customs union complementing her deal. But there's still time to play politics and get any possible concessions until that window that I mentioned earlier arrives. What is clear is that no deal loses head to head with anything else and that's what ultimately matters when they are forced to make a decision in the 11th hour. Yeah, that much is true. I’m just pessimistic these days, in theory the least popular single position amongst MPs, plus probably the electorate in no deal should obviously not happen. Until something gets over the line that isn’t no deal, I worry that we’ll manage to fuck up so badly that it does. It seems unlikely, but much has surprised me in this fiasco. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
But no we’re locked into a bad decision (IMO) because that referendum was democratic and binding, but a hypothetical second referendum would not be democratic, despite more of the realities of the situation being out there vs preposterous pie in the sky promises. Pretty much all of what you said there is wrong. A: no, the referendum isn't/wasn't binding. The administration vowed to accept and act accordingly, but it's not binding in any way, shape or form. Not to mention that there really isn't anything to adhere to. "Leaving the EU" can have many forms, and that's inherently undemocratic because now, politicians are claiming that they know what voters wanted (and that's why we NEED a no deal, that's what 17.4m voted for, remember). Without actually doing so. It's really not democratic if the options are "leave with a deal", "leave with no deal", "leave into customs union" etc (the options are vast), to then go ahead and argue that 17.4m voted for no deal. I know for a fact that this is untrue. Arguing that this is the case, again, is undemocratic, reshaping what people actually voted for. Third, what exactly is undemocratic to ask after three years again? If nothing changed, the outcome will be the same. If the result indeed changes, especially now that people can make a somewhat more informed decision, then that's the basic definition of democracy. If you order a spotted dick and 30 minutes later you have a mouldy cock on your plate, then that's not what you ordered (voted for) - you order again (assuming that you don't move country/restaurant), this time making clear that you want the dessert pudding spotted dick. This isn't even counting the fact that politicians on both sides changed their opinions. That deals, amendments and motions run multiple times through parliament on the off chance enough people are drunk. If you'd argue that it probably isn't the greatest idea the UK ever had to run a second (or the first, for that matter) referendum: absolutely. Hell, i would even agree if someone said "well, that absolutely shouldn't happen". But to argue that it's undemocratic is just stupid. ’m just pessimistic these days Nobody is gonna blame you for that one. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 09 2019 09:26 m4ini wrote: Pretty much all of what you said there is wrong. A: no, the referendum isn't/wasn't binding. The administration vowed to accept and act accordingly, but it's not binding in any way, shape or form. Not to mention that there really isn't anything to adhere to. "Leaving the EU" can have many forms, and that's inherently undemocratic because now, politicians are claiming that they know what voters wanted (and that's why we NEED a no deal, that's what 17.4m voted for, remember). Without actually doing so. It's really not democratic if the options are "leave with a deal", "leave with no deal", "leave into customs union" etc (the options are vast), to then go ahead and argue that 17.4m voted for no deal. I know for a fact that this is untrue. Arguing that this is the case, again, is undemocratic, reshaping what people actually voted for. Third, what exactly is undemocratic to ask after three years again? If nothing changed, the outcome will be the same. If the result indeed changes, especially now that people can make a somewhat more informed decision, then that's the basic definition of democracy. If you order a spotted dick and 30 minutes later you have a mouldy cock on your plate, then that's not what you ordered (voted for) - you order again (assuming that you don't move country/restaurant), this time making clear that you want the dessert pudding spotted dick. This isn't even counting the fact that politicians on both sides changed their opinions. That deals, amendments and motions run multiple times through parliament on the off chance enough people are drunk. If you'd argue that it probably isn't the greatest idea the UK ever had to run a second (or the first, for that matter) referendum: absolutely. Hell, i would even agree if someone said "well, that absolutely shouldn't happen". But to argue that it's undemocratic is just stupid. Nobody is gonna blame you for that one. No it’s the opposite of my position. I was parroting Brexiteer rhetoric facetiously. Granted sarcasm doesn’t translate all that well in textual form. So yeah I mean I agree with what you said. I wasn’t in the Remain camp that basically wanted a second referendum as soon as it lost and bemoaned everyone as being racist because they voted in that manner. On the other hand I did think people made promises and proclamations that they couldn’t deliver, or were somehow untrue in other basic ways. So my position is basically the last couple of years have just exposed those particular fibs to be the falsehoods I knew they were at the time, to more people. Brexiteers are scared of a second referendum because they’ll lose it, but they’ll hide behind the ‘respecting the will of the people’ because they have their shot to do what they’ve been agitating for for ages regardless of other consequences. Pretty tight margin as it was, easily swung back. Least based on my many conversations and browsing, plus what polling I have seen on the topics, I think a fair chunk of people’s fall into an ‘ideally we’d leave if there’s no big economic consequence, and we’re the UK so we’ll be fine.’ I think that cohort has shifted over in the past couple years. They’re still leave at heart in an ideal abstract world, but they’ve realised the UK can’t actually have its cake and eat it too. Maybe leave would still carry the day, I personally doubt it. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I agree with what you say there. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 09 2019 19:26 m4ini wrote: Was pretty late and i probably didn't pay enough attention - if i misunderstood, sorry. I agree with what you say there. No worries, it happens. I can’t say I’m a big fan of referendums in the UK, you have to go back to the Good Friday Agreement to find one where ‘my side’ won haha. I was pretty much 100% neutral on the Scottish independence referendum. Brexit was by far the worst because it is the most complicated issue, with the most consequences and had the most misinformation around it, by a distance. The same quarters that said Scotland was too small to go it alone and would suffer economically then argue that the UK is too big to fail in regards to its relationship with the EU? :S In any other walk of life if I sell you on something based on stuff that is verifiably false there are consequences to that when it turns out to be the case. Remain did it as well, just less effectively, there is something in the nickname ‘Project Fear’ after all. If they’d kept it proportionate and backed by plausibility as to what would be likely to happen rather than swinging over into Mad Max territory. People didn’t buy that, and for good reason. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6714 Posts
Wednesday is the last EU meeting and Friday is the end of the current deadline? Neither EU nor UK want the no deal brexit Nothing changed in the UK since the last extension of the deadline? This is more exciting than any movie i've seen recently!! Game of Thrones right there | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On April 09 2019 22:00 Harris1st wrote: Do I have this right: Wednesday is the last EU meeting and Friday is the end of the current deadline? Neither EU nor UK want the no deal brexit Nothing changed in the UK since the last extension of the deadline? This is more exciting than any movie i've seen recently!! Game of Thrones right there Yes you have it right. Also nobody knows whatll happen next. The EU is very likely to offer the UK a long extension (at least a year, but the UK will have to take part in EU elections). The question is if the UK will take it. Taking part in EU elections will be a complete debacle, especially for May's government and the tory party, as it will make their incompetence painfully apparent to the public. Pro remain MPs might be in favor of a long extension as a hopes for cancelling brexit or getting a WA that more closely aligns the UK with the EU (e.g. a customs union or some norway model). I don't think anyone can predict if there is a possible majority in the house for a long extension, but I'd wager that there isn't. If they don't end up taking a long extension, then we should have a conclusion this week, as the EU has stated it will only offer short extensions to implement the WA. Meaning we will see by this friday whether the UK takes the WA, cancels brexit, or goes for no deal. Given how Michel Barnier (and the EU) have repeatedly said that the conditions for starting trade deal negotiations between the EU and UK after the withdrawal are a solution to the irish border problem, and the payment of the 39 billion in obligations by the UK, leaving with no deal would effectively place the UK in the exact same situation that it is now but worse: namely they still have to find a way to solve the irish border problem, they still have to pay their obligations, there is a high likelihood of scotland leaving, and they've left the EU without a deal which would be disastrous for the economy. It doesnt have to be stressed how monumentally stupid it would be to leave with no deal. I imagine the UK will end up taking the WA or cancelling brexit, with cancelling brexit being unlikely. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
Because the EU is a creeping totalitarian state and that would represent a backward step.You think Article 11 and Article 13 were bad? Give it another decade. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 10 2019 09:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why not allow the UK to return to what the people approved in the 1975 referendum.Common market, with sovereign control of borders and laws. Because the EU is a creeping totalitarian state and that would represent a backward step.You think Article 11 and Article 13 were bad? Give it another decade. We’ll see how it progresses. Most coverage of those articles seems to be scaremongering of the worst kind without proportionality of any kind. Copyright infringement is actually a thing. People don’t generally care about the ethics of it, personally I do. We’ll have to see how any of this works in actuality though. I don’t personally mind this ‘creeping totalitarian state’ as a lot of what creeps in is standardisation of pretty reasonable standards that are applied on a pan-Europe basis, or horrors such as environmental standards or anti-trust lawsuits. Not to mention the EU isn’t nearly as unaccountable as framed anyway. But no I’m not a slavish fanboy, there are definitely structural reforms I’d be in favour of. We can leave though and gain absolutely nothing economically, (well that’s being very charitable) and leave our country open to being ravaged by the Conservatives who aren’t even going to be constrained by what EU protections exist How do you offset losses through being out of the EU, or being in the common market if that happens? How do you make yourselves attractive to those competitors? Well deregulation, tax breaks and further stripping worker’s rights. You either do those things which are bad, or suffer an economic contraction which is also bad. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Code For Giants Cup
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
