Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:23 AM

As a larger EU nation, Jim, we have more than an equal share of influence. While we are members there can be no European army and no moves toward the much-derided, dishonestly-invoked "ever-closer union." We have the power of veto over such things. Of course, if we leave we lose that influence, and those things we affect to detest so much are far more likely to come about. As a member of the EU the UK can help to preserve what looks like becoming the last bastion of democracy on the planet (other than disparate, small nations, with apologies to Canada). If Trump gets another term we can forget all about the US holding its place as the Land Of The Free, we have a dictator for life in China who tramples all over human rights, we have Putin ruthlessly trying to turn Russia into an aggressive superpower, we have disgusting regimes all over the Middle East, shambles all over Africa ( thanks to past colonialism) and the far right gaining ascendancy in Brazil.

And now she's put off the vote in Parliament. She's becoming a serious threat to democracy in this country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:20 AM

As reported by Guido
"After days of intense speculation, Sky News are reporting that Theresa May has finally decided to pull tomorrow night’s meaningful vote – despite Number 10 repeatedly insisting for the last few days that it was going ahead and sending numerous ministers on air including Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and Michael Gove to insist that it was “100%” happening. “100%” shambolic…"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:07 AM

"Nice to see Tommy Robinson and his Neo-Nazis out with their banners over the weekend (very little mention of the counter-demonstration though)
Actually if you bothered to read the reports there were more counter demonstrators than demonstrators.
From the guardian (you know it is right)
Anti-racist marchers in London claim victory over far-right protest

‘Brexit betrayal’ march led by Tommy Robinson heavily outnumbered by opponents

More made up jimmy bullshit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:48 AM

Big Al are you a minimalist?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

"Just thought I'd do condensed version."
A bit more complicated than that, I'm afraid Al
Ther is nothing wrong with federation as long as it is voluntary and based on mutual co-operation
Our nations have been part of federations at all levels for centuries - The U.N., Nato, Economic, political and military ones, supposedly to create a united effort to make things better... not always the case, of course.
The E.U. is a federation of capitalist states; at present, its aims are to make Capitalism work to the advantage of its members
I believe Capitalism is on the skids and is long past its sell-by date, but until genuine attempts to fix things for all, it'll have to do
Just look at what has emerged as an alternative - Trump, Orban, 'Free' Russia..... all the tinpot fascists that have crawled from the woodwork with their own alternative future
Nice to see Tommy Robinson and his Neo-Nazis out with their banners over the weekend (very little mention of the counter-demonstration though)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:43 AM

It is silly to say that May's deal is a 'remain' option. Catchy but silly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:31 AM

Jim's agin it

Iain's for it.

Just thought I'd do condensed version.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 05:30 AM

At the entrance to the Visitors Centre of the European Parliament, there is a plaque with these words:

    “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times….The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”

Federalism is the game plan! Time we was orf!

"That explains why they are so obsessed with free movement, mass immigration and cultural diversity. Those are all instruments for smashing traditional nationhood and creating a new common European citizenship. As the EU’s rulers know only too well, a country without any borders or identity is not a country at all."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/the-eu-has-revealed-its-true-nature-a-federalist-monster-that-wi/
And yet there are still denialists!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

This morning I have heard senior politicians from Labour and the Conservatives saying the ECJ ruling doesn’t change things. Maybe not over the next few days, but if we should get as far as a referendum it is of critical importance, because without it any ‘remain’ option would be speculative: we would have no idea if it was possible at all, or whether we might lose things compared to our current position. That would have been a major debating factor, and is now eliminated

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

" Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties."
This appears to regard the EU as a single entity, which it is not
If Britain remains in the EU it is just another country with an equal voice in what happens there
The problem from day one of this whole debate has been the "them and us" atmosphere which as dominated
Britain appears never to have shaken off the "I'm the king of the castle" attitude that prevailed throughout the Empire
Brexit was launched largely on the interests of England - "the other lot" hardly fatured in the equation, even to the extent of ignoring the possibility of reawakening violence in Northern Ireland - co-operation, not confrontation is what is needed if anything is going to work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

" Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties."
This appears to regard the EU as a single entity, which it is not
If Britain remains in the EU it is just another country with an equal voice in what happens there
The problem from day one of this whole debate has been the "them and us" atmosphere which as dominated
Britain appears never to have shaken off the "I'm the king of the castle" attitude that prevailed throughout the Empire
Brexit was launched largely on the interests of England - "the other lot" hardly fatured in the equation, even to the extent of ignoring the possibility of reawakening violence in Northern Ireland - co-operation, not confrontation is what is needed if anything is going to work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:30 AM

Whatever happens we need a deal whereby if the UK government treats the rest of EU like proverbials, UK citizens (not the goverment) must continue to enjoy freedom of movement, the benefits of customs union, and access to structural and cohesion programmes. Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:09 AM

Meanwhile, in other news, ECJ rules that the UK. can unilaterally cancel Brexit.

Tick, tock, tick, tock....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 03:41 AM

I'm an extreme leftie. I own a big house outright with half an acre of garden with a view of the sea and there are two cars on the driveway, one of them a sports car. Unless you think I don't qualify...

Oh, and there's a bottle of prosecco in the fridge, so I don't qualify as a champagne socialist...

God, I'm confused.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 03:16 AM

"There is no extreme left wing on here."
Of course there isn't, there never has been
Easily proved by asking those who believe there is to produce examples, but we know from past experience that would be a waste of time.
There is not really an 'extreme left wing' in Britain - the UK has never really produced one.
The left Parties, many now moribund, have mainly opted for theory rather than action and, as far as I know, have never advocated violence as a policy - cold be wrong, of course, but again, a waste of time asking for examples
Anybody can fling about names - bit more difficult to substantiate the labels they choose to use.

When it comes to right extremism - take your pick
Racism is the jewel in that particular crown
Brexit motivation, Islamophobia, antisemitism-proper (the hatred of Jews), religious and cultural sectarianism.... all advocated, financed and carried out by the right
There extreme poverty rising from the inequality of our society, the debasing of the British people by associating with despots and selling them arms to oppress their subjects, the refusal to provide sanctuary to their victims - that makes British right wing extremism International

There Stan - I've shown you mine, now let's see yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:08 AM

There is no extreme left wing on here. Use of that phrase only proves how far to the right things have moved. Even if there were, they would most likely support your view as both ends of the political spectrum are anti-europe. It is the more moderate who support remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:03 AM

ate: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM 

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly? 

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is.

Now who is claiming the general public are too stupid to understand what they are voting for?

Whether you think May's deal is remain, or I think it is leave matters for how we vote as individuals. It is for each voter to decide what it means. So it needs to be labelled May's vote. Not leave. Not remain.

Nor does it split the vote, because the system merges the results until there is a clear winner. I happen to think most people who put May in first place would put leave in second. If that were true, Remain would get the 48% on both rounds on Steve's figures and leave would get the 52%. Talk of splitting votes is misunderstanding the system.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:57 PM

Don't be silly. May's deal takes us out of the single market and customs union, and ends free movement. Remain means keeping all those things. If you can't see the difference, you simply haven't been keeping up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:26 PM

I agree with Nigel. May's deal is actually 'remain'. I'm amazed that you (the extreme UK left wing) don't support it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:22 PM

Fishing again. In case anybody didn't notice, you can't store a live lobster and hope a customs official will get round to collecting the duties on it.

https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/is-eyemouth-facing-a-brexit-employment-tsumani

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:11 PM

"Obviously a skewed system."

Somewhat ironic, this, from a brexiteer. Nothing could have been more "skewed" than the original referendum. The electorate was given a choice between leaving, an irreversible decision (once enacted) that would affect generations to come, and remain, a decision that could be challenged again and again at frequent intervals for about ten million quid a time. Yet the bar was set at fifty-fifty. When an irrevocable change in a nation's fortunes is called for, you might expect the bar to be set high. I'd have said a minimum of a two-thirds majority on a minimum 75% turnout, but hey. Expediency rules OK!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 06:45 PM

"That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is."

Nonsense. It provides for a small number of the provisions of membership, but without the opportunity to take part in the processes that control those provisions - it would make us a Vassal State of the EU. Completely unacceptable.

Just as you mob demand that Leave means Leave, Remainers demand that 'Remain means Remain' on precisely the terms we currently enjoy. May's half-arsed agreement doesn't even begin to do that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is. Then May's deal will split the remain vote, rather than splitting the leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:57 PM

I think, by the way, that May's deal is the one most likely to be eliminated, so the deciding factor is likely to be what those who put May's in first place put in the second place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:54 PM

On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:32 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was
May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%
Then what?
The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.
I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.


The problem is that a vote on those terms will give an unfair advantage to the remain proposition. On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.
For those who are serious about leaving the EU, "May's deal" is effectively a vote to remain.
It is interesting to note that the suggested voting figures give 48% to 'remain', which was the original voting pattern, but improves the chance of 'remain' getting the final vote. Obviously a skewed system.
Under the above suggestion, if one of the other two options fails at the first hurdle, 'Remain' can never drop below 48%, and so has an unfair advantage.
'Remain' has already been voted against by the public, so any vote should be between 'accept May's deal' and 'leave with no deal'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 11:01 AM

Mr. Natural sez 'Tuesday afternoon after lunch is the most cosmic time of the week".
Good luck on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 10:07 AM

"The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives."

Is this the reason the brexit referendum result is being thwarted at every turn?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 09:12 AM

Boris has had a haircut, He must be planning something. Another career for Marr at the very least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 04:03 AM

That is pretty much what I said earlier, McGrath, but it does make the assumption there is a means for the least favoured option to be dropped. Which is not only reasonable, but is easy to understand. Voting systems using one of the various Condorcet systems do not do that: instead they use the ranking to assess each pair - leave versus May, remain versus May, leave versus remain - and allocate a total percentage to each option, which would end up looking very like Steve's list.

If it does, it will not matter a jot how clever the mathematics behind it is to ensure fairness in a formal sense, people will see one of two things, or possibly both:

a) There are two things that could be labelled 'leave' and one 'remain', so the 'leave' vote will be claimed to have been unfairly split.

b) the 'experts' behind the scene are rigging the vote.

Which is why I say elimination of the weakest option is vital.



I have also been thinking about any forthcoming campaigns. As I said before, people votes are more based on emotion, in the main, rather than fact - there is plenty of research. So I think to have a chance of winning the Remain camp really does need to talk about 'retaining control' (who believes Trump's America will be gentler than the EU?), patriotism (keeping the UK together) and other such softer things, not just financials.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 01:10 AM

"I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that."
It's about time the system was considered for all elections
Ireland has its problems with rogue politicians, the recent Presidential election which presented us with a blatant attempt at a takeover by the use of racist Populism against Travellers, showed that.
In the main, the PR system manages to present some form of balance and the worst excesses are kept in check, forcing the leaders to at least listen to what others are saying, unlike Britain
The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives.
Here, you are left with the feeling that, by voting, you are making a difference - I can never remember feeling that in Britain - you always know that, whatever they promise at election time doesn't mean squat once they are in power
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:29 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.

I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 12:38 PM

What about Amber Rudd? Is it pay-back time for May's treatment of her over the past couple of years, or is she a committed accomplice of May in a plan to abandon the idiocy of Brexit but in a way that will avoid the blame falling on May, and laying it firmly on the other 648 MPs?

I think it's the former, but I fervently hope and pray that it's the latter.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 10:40 AM

I think thats a point in McDonnell's favour, when faced with overwhelming evidence, he is prepared to change his mind. No such common sense from May, who adheres to her "red lines" no matter how damaging to the national interest they are shown to be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 09:04 AM


I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Probably of limited value until after the vote on the 11th! :)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:28 AM

Ah, dammit, David, he's changed his mind! This from the Guardian on Nov 28:

"At a Guardian Live event less than 24 hours earlier, McDonnell had said a second Brexit referendum “might be an option we seize upon”, suggesting for the first time that remain should be on the ballot paper and insisting that a no-deal Brexit should not."

I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:55 AM

Errr. Steve, are you sure? Last I saw from John McDonnell was that a referendum would be between Mrs May's deal and remain, and that he would vote remain,

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:25 AM

Steve
He probably only comes here because nobody else will talk to him - nort even at home
How would your family react to somebody who behaved if you brought that behaviour home ?
Let him wallow in his own swill
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:11 AM

The post you're complaining about contained considerable on-topic material in addition to my response to bobad's off-topic post. You complain about people going off-topic, yet three out of YOUR last four posts have been completely off-topic and peppered with petty insults. Now why don't you just go and sort yourself out. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what YOU think about brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:04 AM

If we do enter into the unfortunate circumstance of another vote, I see that there are some, including John McDonnell, who are suggesting that remain shouldn't be an option on the ballot paper. I think that would be an outrage and an affront to democracy. We are where we are because of unforeseen difficulties (yes, I know...), the need for unsavoury compromises and almost certain economic catastrophe. None of those were flagged up by the leave side in the first campaign, so giving us now only a choice of how to leave would be immoral. If this country still has the ability to ditch brexit, then that option must be on the ballot. Far too much has changed since June 2016 for the assumption to be fairly made that we must "respect the result (38 percent, lest we forget) of the referendum." The very fact that we'd be having another vote instead of just getting on with it suggests a root and branch rethink. Massaging the ballot to exclude remaining would be an affront to millions of people whose only choice would then be between two equally bad options. There's already a groundswell against that which would result in millions of spoiled ballot papers with REMAIN scrawled across. It's a dead cert that such a ballot simply wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:50 AM

From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM
Call yourself a scientist?
Apparently you cannot even read a clock!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

It's amazing how, in all this talk of another vote, we've forgotten about the crucial principle that Cameron forgot when he set up the referendum, that if you want to make a massive and irreversible change of direction then the bar for change must be set very high. The original vote was marginal and unconvincing and the whole matter should have been dropped there and then. A similar close vote in whatever cockup of another referendum is magicked up would solve absolutely nothing. It reminds me of that old Irish joke in which a chap asks another chap for directions to another town. "Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here," came the reply.

I can't see a way out of this that isn't going to pitch this country into big trouble. I'd like to see our politicians pulling the plug on the whole thing, taking us back to the halcyon days of pre-2016, then ducking.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

I fail to see how two posts nine hours apart can be regarded as having been "cross-posted."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:09 AM

The problem of the short timescale is eliminated if we withdraw Article 50 now, then a period of negotiation, the exactly the vote that Steve proposes, with the options being no deal, whatever deal is negotiated, and remain as is. Personally I would be in favour of a fourth option, further integration with membership of the Euro and Schengen, but I suspect that would be almost as unpopular as no deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:07 AM

How many are emigrating if the fickle finger of fate places Corbyn in power.
(An unlikely scenario, but nothing can be discounted in these mad times)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:41 AM

I think that may be human nature, DMcG. No one enters a challenge expecting to lose. I agree that they should have a contingency for if they do though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:04 AM

I found it darkly amusing this morning to reflect on the fact that one of the things May and many others complained about for the 2016 referendum vote was that there was no plan whatsoever for how to proceed if the option Cameron preferred did not win.   

Which appears to be exactly the position for the Dec 11 parliamentary vote on her deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:35 AM

VOICES IN HIGH PLACES
MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

That is why we have to use some form of eliminating transferable vote system. Yes, actually agreeing what form is a problem in its own right, but it has to come up with a result where the is a clear winner. Anna Subry's approach of eliminating the weakest - No deal in your example - and redistributing the second preference to whichever of "May's deal" and "Remain" they preferred will end up with one above 50%, which would be the winner. Now, if some of these Brexiteers are telling the truth that they really do prefer remain to May's deal, then Remain would be highish 50's or low 60's and a clear win. However, I suspect they are not and we would end up again at an almost 50-50 split. And I cannot see that ending well.

There has been quite a lot of talk of the Condorcet system. I don't think is a good idea partly for technical reasons but mainly because it does not eliminate options, so would indeed end up with the sort of result Steve listed, probably with no-one above 50%. That also, I think, makes ongoing division near certain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:27 AM

That is of course a reference to From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM
As apparently we cross posted.