** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[meic]

A "least damage" route is quite compatible with the various manifesto promises made. That is not what is happening and hence the increased division.

That is something of a judgement call.

"No deal" would just about meet everybody's idea of qualifying as having left, even if not the way they wanted it to be.
Crossing off the letters EU and changing Passport colour would meet hardly anybody's criteria of having left.
To remain in major EU institutions and conventions, subject to EU oversight, well that would satisfy many as having "left" but would it satisfy enough people?

[roubaixtuesday]

Not necessarily a general election, just a series of by-elections. As MPs will "realise" their predicament at different times

For understanding.

You feel the best way forward for the country is dozens or hundreds of byelections?

[meic]

No, I think it is what MPs should do if they suddenly have an outbreak of morality.
It isnt a real world scenario.

[roubaixtuesday]

It isnt a real world scenario.

Well thanks a lot for that diversion.

What do you think MPs should do in a "real world scenario"?

[bovlomov]

A "least damage" route is quite compatible with the various manifesto promises made. That is not what is happening and hence the increased division.

That is something of a judgement call.

"No deal" would just about meet everybody's idea of qualifying as having left, even if not the way they wanted it to be.
Crossing off the letters EU and changing Passport colour would meet hardly anybody's criteria of having left.
To remain in major EU institutions and conventions, subject to EU oversight, well that would satisfy many as having "left" but would it satisfy enough people?

It's one thing, calling a vote on a subject hardly anyone knows anything about. That's standard democracy. But to try and discern what actions would satisfy an electorate that knows nothing about the subject, yet still sets a bunch of impossible and inconsistent conditions? Well, that's the way to madness.

Even though the referendum was largely a criminal enterprise, I'm not sure a re-run is the answer. Instead, MPs need to wake up. The referendum question was vague enough to accommodate a whole range of options, many of which wouldn't destroy the country. Parliament could ignore the PM's blackmail and push for one of those saner options.

[meic]

It isnt a real world scenario.

Well thanks a lot for that diversion.

What do you think MPs should do in a "real world scenario"?

You set up the diversion and I was following it.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=108977&start=8145#p1292766

You suggested that the MPs were acting out of this higher motive.
The conversation was about what should happen if that was the case.

I dont accept that that is the case, so the conclusions it resulted in I dont accept as being an answer in the real world.

[roubaixtuesday]

OK, Meic, what do you think MPs should do in the current circumstances as you perceive them?

[meic]

A "least damage" route is quite compatible with the various manifesto promises made. That is not what is happening and hence the increased division.

That is something of a judgement call.

"No deal" would just about meet everybody's idea of qualifying as having left, even if not the way they wanted it to be.
Crossing off the letters EU and changing Passport colour would meet hardly anybody's criteria of having left.
To remain in major EU institutions and conventions, subject to EU oversight, well that would satisfy many as having "left" but would it satisfy enough people?

It's one thing, calling a vote on a subject hardly anyone knows anything about. That's standard democracy. But to try and discern what actions would satisfy an electorate that knows nothing about the subject, yet still sets a bunch of impossible and inconsistent conditions? Well, that's the way to madness.

Even though the referendum was largely a criminal enterprise, I'm not sure a re-run is the answer. Instead, MPs need to wake up. The referendum question was vague enough to accommodate a whole range of options, many of which wouldn't destroy the country. Parliament could ignore the PM's blackmail and push for one of those saner options.

They could and I imagine that Mrs may would also like to do that with them.
That will not get rid of the original problem that got them into the predicament in the first place.
The voters who they need to re-elect them.

[meic]

OK, Meic, what do you think MPs should do in the current circumstances as you perceive them?

That is probably above my level.
I am having enough hard work trying to understand what is happening, if you get too invested in what should happen and start taking a side, you lose your impartiality and objectivity.

.

[reohn2]

Where is Corbyn in all this? The Labour Party Conference decided to keep the option of the People's Vote "on the table" yet Corbyn is now unilaterally going in a different direction. Reports are he does not like the EU because of its state aid rules but that he can't see the bigger issue, that it looks like he is going to allow a disaster to happen despite the Labour Party established policy speaks very poorly of him.

I suspect he's just playing politics, putting his possibility to get/win a General election above the good of the country/damage Brexit will cause. He gives me the impression is that he regards the Brexit damage and cost as incidental to his personal ambitions.

Ian

Much as pains me to say it but I believe you're right

[meic]

Look on the other side, if Corbyn had won the general election, then it is certain that the Tory opposition leader would be playing exactly the same games.

[bovlomov]

That will not get rid of the original problem that got them into the predicament in the first place.
The voters who they need to re-elect them.

Politics is managing expectations. The electorate is familiar with feelings of betrayal, and on this it should be no different.

May's mistake was to feed, rather than manage, impossible expectations. And to this day, she and her cabinet (and much of the opposition front bench) are promoting fantasies. MPs fear being booted out for Brexit treason, but that's as nothing compared with the backlash they'll face for ruining the country.

[meic]

The electorate is familiar with feelings of betrayal, and on this it should be no different.

That is because normally the election is totally stitched up and the voters have no credible option but the two sides of the same coin.
However on this occasion there was a third option and enough voters took it to get a referendum and then the major parties to agree to implement it because this third option existed for the voters to turn to.
If they betray again in a blatant way, UKIP will crawl out of its gutter and along with a lot of even less establishment-friendly parties will be raking in those votes.

[bovlomov]

The electorate is familiar with feelings of betrayal, and on this it should be no different.

That is because normally the election is totally stitched up and the voters have no credible option but the two sides of the same coin.
However on this occasion there was a third option and enough voters took it to get a referendum and then the major parties to agree to implement it because this third option existed for the voters to turn to.
If they betray again in a blatant way, UKIP will crawl out of its gutter and along with a lot of even less establishment-friendly parties will be raking in those votes.

But there has been no credible explanation about how to implement it. Among the present and former cabinet members there has been no consistent line. Indeed, most regularly contradict themselves. The same goes for the Brexit cheerleaders. Does Farage think Norway is a good option? Yes. But no! Should Hannan think we stay in the Customs Union? Yes. No. Most of these have demonstrated ignorance about international trade rules and about the EU.

It's all very well, saying the the result should be respected, but after two years, no one can agree what that means. That being so, it would be best to interpret the referendum in a way that doesn't destroy the country. The opposite of how some others it, who have interpreted the referendum as an explicit instruction from the people of the UK to ruin us.

[mjr]

[...academic bits and then...]
Biggest non EU trader is us as stated by EU.
Why would the EU not want a good deal.

I suspect the EU would like a good deal, but what might be a good deal at a low price might not be at a high price... same as it ever was.

I dont like the EU, I will stick to that and was born true the day we left, why do they insist on making it hard for us, they will still need us after leave.......................but wont be bullying us to the same extent................unless they want to cut their nose off like trump and his tariffs which just come back equal or worse.

How the blue blazes are they making it hard for us? We seem to be making it hard for ourselves, so far only proposing things which the EU had already rejected, or in at least one bizarre case, proposing something which UK MPs had already rejected!

Great Britain..or UK or British. Where did little Britain come from.................

I understand "little Britain" was a term coined by Messers Lucas and Walliams about the year 2000, generalising Little Englanders to the whole of Britain as the country collectively jumped the shark with its millennium celebrations and started to take its own national myths a bit too seriously... it then became three series of sketches making fun of such over-self-interested people, which Lucas has since described as "a more cruel kind of comedy than I'd do now" - but rather like Alf Garnett, some people seemed to miss the joke. Was Brexit the final absurd spasm of Little Britain? Only time will tell.