EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Yes, but putting it on record in a speech, seems like a gift for those who want a "meaningful vote" to include reprising A50 or holding a second referendum.

Previously to this week her language has always been clear that "we are leaving".

Yeah the order of the 'options' here in the context of a speech is important too (I'm sure there is a fancy Greek name for this, but my days of translating Cicero's speeches are long gone).

"You can have A (brexiters go 'meh'), or B (brexiters go 'eeewwww'), ... ... or C!"

It's basically providing a counterpoint to the increasingly bad options mentioned first, so option C (her deal) is meant to be seen as a relief from the bad and worse options mentioned first.

I can't help but think this has always been in her mind. She's a remainer at heart.

She couldn't float a second referendum when she was negotiating the deal, she'd have been out in an instant and we'd have been in no position to get a deal with any merit.

She knows her time is numbered, she's negotiated what she think is the best deal she could get, now I think she knows the right thing to do is put the options before parliament, first, then the people. Deal, No deal or No Brexit. They are the three options.

Peoples vote in early March.

I agree the phrase 'no Brexit at all' has been put in very purposefully.

AMT following the LFGSS template for selling bikes when you've got in over your head and need to exit the game.
"It is with a profoundly heavy heart..."

I'm a bit worried that "her deal" will still get votes because too many people still go "TL:DR" even though the UK government already pointed out that a single market/cu deal is pretty bad for the economy.

The Remain campaign would really need to break it down in super concrete problems.

lol

I suppose this is of little relevance now but a friend (a history professor) pointed something out to me yesterday.

I knew that the UK doesn't currently exercise the controls available to it to limit EU immigration (means testing, health insurance, etc etc) but what I didnt realise was that it could be implemented regionally.

I.e under current EU legislation, the UK could have made it so the areas of the UK under the perception of immigration pressure could have legally had immigration levels slashed, all without leaving the EU.

Puzzling.

Yeah, but its way too much hassle and EU immigrates are net contributors to the economy.

Every politician know's this they just wont admit it if it suits there anti immigration agenda to get those gammon votes.

They are the three options.

There are only two options available. May's deal or No Brexit.

A No Deal is not an option as this would violate the UK's international obligations under the GFA.

The GFA could be the saving measure in all of this. May was constrained to accept a deal that is ridiculous and harms Britain without giving sovereignty and indeed renders us less in control than if we were simply members of the EU because she believes she is obliged to deliver a Brexit but cannot enter into a Brexit which falls foul of the GFA.

Ultimately, a grown up is going to have to stand up and say that the only real option is No Brexit. We don't need a referendum on this. We need leadership.

as this would violate the UK's international obligations under the GFA

And you think a majority in government or the population outside of NI cares why? Let's face it, the rest of the 'United Kingdom' very much likes to entirely disregard NI, its interests, or even its existence when there isn't a good reason to remember it.

Sure.

I can't provide a source for this but the rumour is that David Cameron basically told Barnier and Tusk that the conservatives were not happy to lose face by facing up to their own responsibilities on the issue.

Utterly depressing.

The UK is just not bureaucratically equipped for this, as the past thirty years have seen central government remove rule-making abilities from local governing bodies - as opposed to what’s been happening in Europe, which is why Bavaria voting in a right-wing government is a big deal. As opposed to, say, Lancaster voting in a left wing council, Bavaria can set all sorts of rules, whereas Lancaster can basically fiddle with the bus timetables.

So we hope one of our spineless politicians is actually going to stand up and say "after careful consideration leaving the EU is a terrible idea".

If any of them had integrity and courage we might expect this to happen, though instead they are terrified of the "will of the people" (is that actually @WillMelling ? people on here are terrified of his withering put downs) and all the contradictory things that people think Brexit will deliver - moar money to the NHS, no forrins, big leaving bill, no leaving bill, stronger economy, fucked economy, blue passports and special 50p pieces.

How does this work in practice, does @amey get an automatic ASBO in Dagenham? Geo-fenced electric shock?

No they don't care. But breaking an international agreement and pissing of ROI is one guarantee to get blocked by anybody bar total banana republics.

ROI has links with the USA, as loads of Irish people went there in the past. So now you have the orange baboon and that.
The EU will be ultra pissed.
I am not sure the ex colonies have full trust in the UK [see the new zealand lamb debacle when the UK joined the EEC] and that won't help.

Only a total moron would do that. Even May is not THAT dumb.

My view has always been that if the UK had put on a show of applying these rules (even if the result was a costly fuck-up) then the Brexit vote would probably have gone the other way.

I suspect there's still a chance that we'll end up with an EU-lite where the "immigration controls" that have been won from the EU are actually these rules.

Gets my vote. #buildthevirtualwall #shockhimup

That was fun. Basically an MP would stand up and go "what about a peoples' vote" and May would stand up and go "we had a peoples' vote". Again and again and again.

This whole 'but we had a vote' argument is so childish. As if we can't vote on something again. That's what happens in democracies every few years.

(I'm obvs hoping for a peoples' vote. I don't think a general election will help because of Corbyn and his Brexit stance.)

This is a good outline of how a mature democracy operates.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-latest-swiss-model-theresa-may-switzerland-second-referendum-eu-a8633416.html

@SwissChap requested for comment ;)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46219496

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the DUP is piping up. And Corbyn who has no solutions is also complaining. Amazing, 19 months in and the penny may finally drop that this amazing Brexit that was promised is undeliverable.

Slithy Gove rumoured to being offered Brexit Minister job.

#stabberjocky

.

1 Attachment

Yeah the outline of what happened seems correct, but there are a few points here.

1) I don't get the tagline at all: "but because we nearly always vote again after an initial referendum, we didn't end up following that path of destruction" - there was no second vote after, as he writes himself in the article.

2) Similarly, this sentence is a bit... I don't know, skewed to suit the UK situation? "The Swiss are prepared to vote again and again to make sure that parliament correctly interprets their will." - that doesn't really make sense. The difference in the Swiss system is that you can force a referendum to happen if you get enough support, therefore if Brexit was happening in Switzerland there is no way a second vote wouldn't already have happened - it can't be blocked. Calling that 'being prepared to vote again and again to make sure that parliament correctly interprets their will' is a bit weird though.

3) "So the Swiss parliament drafted a law that forces employers to give priority to hiring Swiss nationals and residents in periods of high unemployment in their region or sector. No capping, no quotas, no violation of the free movement treaty." - Yes, and that was a massive and slightly dangerous bodge.

What 'actually happened' here is that the SVP managed to get a really fucking stupid referendum accepted, with not that many people in government being in favour of that at all - it wasn't this almost 50/50 split that you can observe in the UK today. There was a show of negotiating with the EU, which obviously did not work out as anyone with a brain and some honesty could have told you beforehand - though Blocher, the SVP billionaire-in-command, was spouting bullshit on much the same level and of the same sort as Farage.

In the end, actually doing what the referendum result mandated (and this one is not advisory) would have, strictly speaking, meant annulling the bilateral agreements with the EU (not sure whether it was the Bilaterals I or II, but it probably would not have made a difference as the EU is not very willing to play cherry-picking). Parliament and government did not want to do that, so they invented this pseudo-solution that kinda pretends to maybe do what the referendum asked for, perhaps, in a way, if you squint really hard.

Thank fuck they did. But I wouldn't say it's a particularly good example of why referenda work, more the opposite: they had to bodge their way out of implementing a really stupid idea.

Different viewpoint if you lived through the IRA bombing campaign on the 'mainland'.
(Few more details it tonights Stii-yaahhl event).
Back to resignations of the brexiteurs.