Brexit.

[detrius]

Also, "pie" needs to be an option.

 

[irihapeti]

I think that the British Prime Minister should go to the country for a straight Yes or No vote (2nd referendum) on her deal

Leave With The Prime Ministers Deal ? Yes or No

Should the country vote Yes then its done

Should the country vote No (the Prime Minister is defeated) then a new general election should be called and a new parliament and government elected, and simultaneously a 3rd referendum held. Remain or Leave With WTO

With the new government to then proceed on the basis that the British people have directly spoken 3 times

 

[Sid]

WA vs Remain is the only logical question but, as I said, that's an argument to be had after we've agreed to have another referendum in the first place.

Since when is being logical part of the Brexit process in Westminster?

 

[Galen McGinnis]

To ease the tension.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Interesting (and savage) piece on May from Der Spiegel (in English)

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Should the country vote No (the Prime Minister is defeated) then a new general election should be called and a new parliament and government elected, and simultaneously a 3rd referendum held. Remain or Leave With WTO

What is the point of holding a general election if the question is already decided by the third referendum? And of course "leave with WTO" is just a way of saying "leave with no deal and hope that Spain or France or Ireland don't block the UK from achieving WTO membership independent of the EU over Gibraltar or fishing rights or the Good Friday Agreement or any other WTO member with a grudge or a cheeto for a President." And why would the EU agree to an extended delay under those terms when they are perfectly willing to take the current deal negotiated with the UK but would rather avoid a no-deal Brexit (your WTO obfuscation) and certainly not willing to drag this out the 3 to 4 years required for potentially 2 more referenda?

While I don't think May's deal is the best way if the UK does go through with Brexit, it is what the UK has negotiated with the EU and should be considered as the Leave option. But if a public vote is held, the other option should be Remain. The EU should be willing to grant an extension under those terms because they are willing to accept either of those outcomes.

 

[Sid]

When I had a say in the EU, I would offer an extension of A50 under the following conditions (if the WA agreement is voted down 3rd time)
Here are the options we offer you to leave as from now:
A a deal like Norway
B a deal like Switzerland
C No deal
D keep voting until the end of times over TM's WA

No special snowflake solutions, not further negotiable. Please let us know when you are ready to leave in one of these manners.
Until then you stay as a full member. Take as much time as you need or withdraw A50 whenever you agree on that.

But that would be to simple I guess.

 

[Arkady Arkright]

There was no referendum needed to trigger A50, so why on earth should a referendum all of a sudden be required?
If that was needed, the EU would have warned the UK over and over already.
So I guess it is another good old EU bashing, to sell the papers.

It's not "EU_bashing" it's "EU, please help us get out of this stupid mess we've got ourselves into" - or at least that's the spirit in which I reported it.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It's news to me that the EU have any such view. A quick poke around Google tells me that the Czech Prime Minister told Theresa May last week he thinks she ought to hold one, but that's all I can find.

The EU have said they'd require a valid reason for agreeing to a long delay, and I imagine they'd probably accept "we need a long delay to give us time to hold a second referendum" was an adequate reason, but I don't think they've said anything more.

Ah.. I've just seen this. How accurate The Times report is, I don't know, but that may be where it comes from

 

[Govi]

 

[detrius]

Brexit: an unending nightmare brought to you by the department for internalized pretend-victimhood, incompetence, magic thinking and "stab-in-the-back" myths.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Brexit: an unending nightmare brought to you by the department for internalized pretend-victimhood, incompetence, magic thinking and "stab-in-the-back" myths.

Urgh.. I admit, I had been hoping for some kind of solution from the caller, however unrealistic. ^_^; But that does rather typify the mentality of Leavers, who, even now, will cling to this notion that if only *handwaving*, then they'd have the deal of their dreams by now. And sadly, that goes well into government itself, with the likes of Baker pushing Malthouse as if it were some genuinely well-crafted, thoughtful solution, rather than unicorn hooch.

(And gods know, the Brexit Taliban has by no means given up - just check out the headlines from the usual rags, especially the Express)

Funny how these days we hear nothing about all these dreams of untold riches - all the "easiest deal in human history" talk - that would spring from leaving, with the PR thrust now being exclusively "just get it done". Has anyone heard any of the Leave cheerleaders explain in the last month or two why the UK should even consider leaving?

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Has anyone heard any of the Leave cheerleaders explain in the last month or two why the UK should even consider leaving?

What do you expect to hear from them other than their usual "getting back our sovereignty", "conquering back our fishing grounds", "less and more meaningful immigration", "lower tariffs mean cheaper food and more jobs" mantras?

I mean, in one debate of the House of Commons the government was proud about that Chanel HQ moved from Paris to London. The MP stated it proudly. 50 new jobs in the UK - so yeah, so this for sure outweighs the losses at Swindon.

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

What do you expect to hear from them other than their usual "getting back our sovereignty", "conquering back our fishing grounds"

What's wrong with these two demands? I mean, why on earth should it be even still allowed that anyone fishes within the sea territories of another country? If I had a say, I would stop that immediately. Also, why is it bad that people want the sovereignty of their government back?
As I said 100 pages earlier, I rather wish that Germany leaves the EU as well, instead of making itself even more dependent on decisions made in Brussels, Strasbourg or elsewhere.
My point of view is that the only real parliament in Brussels is the government of Belgium, that there is no other legal entity called "parliament" in Brussels I do consider anything else than a bunch of overpaid wannabes and sockpuppets playing pretend.
It's my point of view that the only entity allowed to make decisions for Germany is the German government in Berlin, the only entity allowed to make decisions for France is the government of France, the only entity allowed to make decisions for the UK is the government of the UK, and so on. There is no European government that has its seat in Brussels except for the government of Belgium, so any political or financial decision coming from Brussels is not valid for any other country than Belgium alone - and even then, only such decisions coming from the real government of Belgium.
And it's my point of view that each of the European governments should keep their sovereignty for themselves instead of making themselves dependent on a wannabe "parliament" full of sockpuppets of transnational companies. Things had been generally good enough before the EEC, and way before the EEC became the EU as it is now, and especially way before the "Teuro" was introduced, and I think it would be best if things went back to that point. Back to national currencies, back to intra-European borders, back to how it was before the EU and especially before the Euro. There's absolutely no positive that has come ever since.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I don't know. Not having a World War every few decades was probably a good enough reason for the EU, or keeping up with a monolith like the US in world trade.... Together we stand, and all that.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

What's wrong with these two demands? I mean, why on earth should it be even still allowed that anyone fishes within the sea territories of another country? If I had a say, I would stop that immediately. Also, why is it bad that people want the sovereignty of their government back?

Please enlighten us who forced the UK to become a member. I never said that those demands are bad per se; but that's also not the point I am talking about. You are mingling together here different topics.

The estimated outcome of a hard Brexit in the end is a decrease of around 8.3% of the GDP of the United Kingdom, and May's deal around 3,9%. That's what is to bad about it - the economic consequences and the betrayal of the people, who voted in good faith that they are off better with leave than before, while the opposite is the truth. And unless the UK turns into a socialist utopia, the well being of the people depends great lengths on the well being of their economy.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

You can put all three options on the table - just use some form of ranked choice voting.

Much as I like the idea of using the Australian System in England, ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY? You wouldn't need gunpowder, exploding heads would bring down the Houses of Parliament.

 

[Sid]

Every country joined by free will, was part of every decision making of the EU/EEC since they became member and can leave by free will.
But leaving with better agreements than the remaining countries have, is of course not possible.
And it helps a lot, if there is some kind of consensus in a countries parliament about if they want to leave and how they want to leave before triggering A50.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What's wrong with these two demands? I mean, why on earth should it be even still allowed that anyone fishes within the sea territories of another country? If I had a say, I would stop that immediately. Also, why is it bad that people want the sovereignty of their government back?
As I said 100 pages earlier, I rather wish that Germany leaves the EU as well, instead of making itself even more dependent on decisions made in Brussels, Strasbourg or elsewhere.
My point of view is that the only real parliament in Brussels is the government of Belgium, that there is no other legal entity called "parliament" in Brussels I do consider anything else than a bunch of overpaid wannabes and sockpuppets playing pretend.
It's my point of view that the only entity allowed to make decisions for Germany is the German government in Berlin, the only entity allowed to make decisions for France is the government of France, the only entity allowed to make decisions for the UK is the government of the UK, and so on. There is no European government that has its seat in Brussels except for the government of Belgium, so any political or financial decision coming from Brussels is not valid for any other country than Belgium alone - and even then, only such decisions coming from the real government of Belgium.
And it's my point of view that each of the European governments should keep their sovereignty for themselves instead of making themselves dependent on a wannabe "parliament" full of sockpuppets of transnational companies. Things had been generally good enough before the EEC, and way before the EEC became the EU as it is now, and especially way before the "Teuro" was introduced, and I think it would be best if things went back to that point. Back to national currencies, back to intra-European borders, back to how it was before the EU and especially before the Euro. There's absolutely no positive that has come ever since.

The problem with "take back our sovereignty" is that it's meaningless.

Sovereignty isn't a thing -- it's not as if the EU had made off with the Crown Jewels and Queen Elizabeth were demanding their return.

Sovereignty is a relationship, and in the modern global capitalist economy individual countries don't have a great deal of individual sovereignty, quite simply. International capital goes where it wants to, seeking to maximise profits and production, and neither Parliament nor any other national legislature can do much about it, any more than they can, on their own, do much about global warming or pollution.

As to fishing, there's two problems. The first is that many North Sea and North Atlantic fish species are migratory, so they pass through the territorial waters of several different countries, depending on the time of year, so sharing access to fishing grounds in order to conserve and maintain fish stocks overall makes perfectly good sense for everyone.

The second is that if the UK leaves the EU, British fishermen are going to find it difficult to sell their catch anywhere but the UK, since the catch will be subject to all manner of inspections and so on before it can be exported to the EU so, in effect, they're going to remain bound by EU fishing policy no matter what happens.

If you're at all interested, there are some briefing materials in the House of Commons library : Fisheries and Brexit - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

Things had been generally good enough before the EEC, and way before the EEC became the EU as it is now, and especially way before the "Teuro" was introduced, and I think it would be best if things went back to that point. Back to national currencies, back to intra-European borders, back to how it was before the EU and especially before the Euro.

Eighth, I don't know quite how old you are, but from what you've said I think you're a bit younger than am I (I'm in my 60s) and I don't really have any clear idea of how things were before the UK joined the E.E.C, since I was in my late teens when that happened and hadn't had to worry about things like jobs and housing before then.

You, indeed, have even less basis for comparison than do I, since you must be comparing your memories of life in the D.D.R. with life today. So you're comparing things nowadays with your memories of a country that doesn't even exist any more (not least because its citizens didn't like living there).

From what I do remember, though, the UK found it had to join the EEC because, as it ceased to be a great imperial power in the decades following WW2, it discovered that it was very difficult to be an independent nation state and it was far preferable to pool resources with other European countries. Certainly in my teens much British politics was dominated by a series of economic crises, runs on the pound and so on.

In any case, history moves on. We can't return to the past as we remember it. It's not there any longer.