Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[GlennB]

If the EU and UK reached an agreement, wouldn't such an extension be a part of said agreement? I'm sure both sides are aware of the steps posted above.

But, as AGG said above, they couldn't do it off their own bat.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the EU and UK reached an agreement, wouldn't such an extension be a part of said agreement? I'm sure both sides are aware of the steps posted above.

Yes normally. But there is a concern that there is an attempt to agree a deal and then renege on it to achieve no deal.

 

[The Don]

If the EU and UK reached an agreement, wouldn't such an extension be a part of said agreement? I'm sure both sides are aware of the steps posted above.

In a sane and sensible world that would be the case, Brexit is neither of those .

The suggestion is that, no, this would not be part of the agreement - specifically because Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings don't want a deal, they want no-deal and this would be a way to achieve that, get a deal so that there is no need to ask for an extension and then fail to be able to implement that deal because of procedural issues at which point the 31 October "Leave without a deal" default cuts in.

 

[Vixen]

In a sane and sensible world that would be the case, Brexit is neither of those .

The suggestion is that, no, this would not be part of the agreement - specifically because Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings don't want a deal, they want no-deal and this would be a way to achieve that, get a deal so that there is no need to ask for an extension and then fail to be able to implement that deal because of procedural issues at which point the 31 October "Leave without a deal" default cuts in.

Do you know I recall almost a year ago, in the run up to Christmas, sitting through yet another episode of Brexit with Theresa May running around trying to get her Bill through and here we all are still watching one catastrophic episode of this long-running soap opera ten months' later.

When will it all come to a head, as it surely must?

I am not sure a second referendum is the key as people might still vote for Leave and even if Remain was now the majority there would be a lot of angry brawls and demonstrations - dare I say - even acts of civil disobedience, of the sort we saw inflicted on MP Jo Cox.

Maybe a complete Revoke of Article 50 is needed, with a promise Brexit will be reinvestigated in the future.

I do blame Theresa May and her ultra-secretiveness over 'her' Bill.

 

[catsmate]

It is hard to admit, even to yourself, that you were wrong. Even harder to admit that you were conned. And hardest of all that you were conned by enemies of your country. The Leave campaign also played the patriotism card for all it was worth.

And racism, mixed with the Imperial Delusion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am not sure a second referendum is the key as people might still vote for Leave and even if Remain was now the majority there would be a lot of angry brawls and demonstrations - dare I say - even acts of civil disobedience, of the sort we saw inflicted on MP Jo Cox.

Remain has looked very likely to win for quite a while now, not least because more young people are now eligible to vote, and more old people have died.

As for people being angry, there are two points. The first is that the way to mitigate this is to give people detailed options so that they know exactly what they're voting for. In other words, not just Leave and Remain, but putting a specific deal and No Deal on the ballot.

The second is that if you refuse to do something because you fear that it may inspire a tiny minority of extremists to violence, then you're acquiescing to terrorists' demands before they've even had to do any terrorism. Encouraging terrorism as legitimate political action is a bad idea. Doing it before the terrorists have even had to do anything is a much worse idea.

 

[abaddon]

Were this forum to be Little Britain, ceptimus most likely could play the 'Only Brexiteer in the Village'.

You owe me a keyboard.

 

[abaddon]

I don't see how the EU can unilaterally extend anything. It would have to be agreed by the government.

I think LJ intended that the EU could offer an extension off it's own bat. Whether parliament does or does not accept it cannot stop the EU extending such an offer.

 

[catsmate]

Remain has looked very likely to win for quite a while now, not least because more young people are now eligible to vote, and more old people have died.

About 2.5 million, who oppose the act of national suicide known as Brexit by 4:1, while 2 million Brexit supporting (2:1) oldsters have died off. A significant change.

As for people being angry, there are two points. The first is that the way to mitigate this is to give people detailed options so that they know exactly what they're voting for. In other words, not just Leave and Remain, but putting a specific deal and No Deal on the ballot.

There's even the possibility of having multiple options; vote in order of your choice Leave with no deal, Leave with Deal #1, Leave with Deal #2, Remain.
Though that might be too complicated for Brits.

The second is that if you refuse to do something because you fear that it may inspire a tiny minority of extremists to violence, then you're acquiescing to terrorists' demands before they've even had to do any terrorism. Encouraging terrorism as legitimate political action is a bad idea. Doing it before the terrorists have even had to do anything is a much worse idea.

And yet, when the consequences of re-imposing a hard border on (Remain voting) Norn Iron are mooted, Brexiteers condemn any such threats.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There's even the possibility of having multiple options; vote in order of your choice Leave with no deal, Leave with Deal #1, Leave with Deal #2, Remain.
Though that might be too complicated for Brits.

I was a litle surprised that ceptimus suggested almost exactly the same thing a few days ago. Surprised mainly because, even without any demographic shifts since 2016, such a poll would almost inevitably have Remain as the largest voting block, and therefore as the outcome of the referendum. I suspect, though, that a result along the lines of 48% remain, 17% leave with deal 1, 18% leave with deal 2 and 17% leave with no deal would in fact suit some Brexiteers right down to the ground, because they could then claim that the poll was unfair and continue to play the drama queen for a few more years without having to face the consequences.

It seems to me that a better way to reach a result with clear democratic legitimacy would be a two question referendum. Question 1: Leave or remain? Question 2: If we leave, deal or no deal? But of course the hard liners would complain, because the inevitable result would be either Remain or Deal, and the no-dealers would be exposed as the extremists that they are rather than the populists that they pretend to be.

Dave

 

[McHrozni]

Remain has looked very likely to win for quite a while now, not least because more young people are now eligible to vote, and more old people have died.

In an average year, approximately 1.4% of the electorate is exchanged, predominantly older people die and are replaced again predominantely by those who just reached the age of majority (plus an odd naturalized immigrant or two). The number assumes an average voter is eligable to vote for about 70 years, from turning 18 to dying or becoming incapable of voting at the median age of 88. Few people are capable of voting at that advanced age, the real rate may well be even higher, this is just a ballpark estimate to serve as a starting point.

You could also count from the age when people usually begin to vote, then the percentage may shift higher still. It is a fact voter participation is abysmal in the 18-25 group, so what actually happens is the old generation is replaced in the largest extent by tweens (~25-35 years of age) who began voting and to a smaller extent by young voters (18-25) and other groups. The replacement of the electorate that votes is therefore higher than 1.4% (because average number of years someone votes are lower than the period in which they are eligeble to vote) and could be as high as 2%/year on average.

This is significant with razor-thin margins that show a clear generational divide. Brexit and Trump should both take heed. Well, Brexit should, at any rate.

McHrozni

 

[Information Analyst]

Given 'Windrush' citizens were told they lost their citizenship if they left the UK for more than two year, this seems an incredibly harsh and hostile environment for the EU guys in the UK.

False. It was non-UK citizens who lost their residency. They still had whatever non-UK citizenship they had, because obviously the UK couldn't deprive them of that.

 

[catsmate]

I was a litle surprised that ceptimus suggested almost exactly the same thing a few days ago. Surprised mainly because, even without any demographic shifts since 2016, such a poll would almost inevitably have Remain as the largest voting block, and therefore as the outcome of the referendum.

I was thinking of a PR-STV version; eliminating and redistributing votes from unpopular options until one is arrived at that has majority support. Let's avoid Belfast South...

Though the UK, or rather the UK's government, has an abhorrence of PR in general and would need to educate the electorate in how to vote.

I suspect, though, that a result along the lines of 48% remain, 17% leave with deal 1, 18% leave with deal 2 and 17% leave with no deal would in fact suit some Brexiteers right down to the ground, because they could then claim that the poll was unfair and continue to play the drama queen for a few more years without having to face the consequences.

Meh, Brexiteers will continue to whine and posture no matter what happens. If the UK crashes out they'll blame the catastrophic consequences on anyone but themselves.

It seems to me that a better way to reach a result with clear democratic legitimacy would be a two question referendum. Question 1: Leave or remain? Question 2: If we leave, deal or no deal? But of course the hard liners would complain, because the inevitable result would be either Remain or Deal, and the no-dealers would be exposed as the extremists that they are rather than the populists that they pretend to be.

True. Hence I favour a single ballot, multiple choice referendum.

From a technical perspective dichotomous referenda are a really bad idea; polarising and emphasising disagreement over consensus, when most people have nuanced views.

I rather like Emerson's take on it:

“Are you Catholic or Protestant? Serb or Croat? Hutu or Tutsi? These were all questions of war, as too was the choice during the Cold War: are you communist or capitalist?

There was an excellent report from University College London, Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, back in '96 that discussed the twenty or so multiple-choice referenda that have been held worldwide.

 

[wobs]

Remain has looked very likely to win for quite a while now, not least because more young people are now eligible to vote, and more old people have died.

The latter is not strictly true in terms of leave voters, as it is the baby boomers who voted leave, while the people who actually fought in the war, a. largely voted remain, and b. are the ones dying of old age.

With the YouGov pole looking like remain, I think its is people who have come of age, and people who have changed their minds.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/over-65s-brexit/

 

[Lothian]

It seems to me that a better way to reach a result with clear democratic legitimacy would be a two question referendum. Question 1: Leave or remain? Question 2: If we leave, deal or no deal? But of course the hard liners would complain, because the inevitable result would be either Remain or Deal, and the no-dealers would be exposed as the extremists that they are rather than the populists that they pretend to be.

Dave

That is what got us into this mess. We had a vote to leave in circumstances where any particular way of leaving is opposed by the majority.
I think rather like the Tory leadership election you list all the options and keep eliminating until an option gains 50%. A short cut to that is the single transferable vote, where people rank their preferences in order.

 

[3point14]

That is what got us into this mess. We had a vote to leave in circumstances where any particular way of living is opposed by the majority.

Deep, man.

 

[catsmate]

That is what got us into this mess. We had a vote to leave in circumstances where any particular way of living is opposed by the majority.
I think rather like the Tory leadership election you list all the options and keep eliminating until an option gains 50%. A short cut to that is the single transferable vote, where people rank their preferences in order.

Why not just accept PR-STV?

Deep, man.

The people of Belfast South were represented in parliament for two years by a man whom more than three quarters of them hadn't voted for.
Their current representative managed the support of 30% of the voters...

 

[Lothian]

Deep, man.

Fixed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A short cut to that is the single transferable vote, where people rank their preferences in order.

Mind you, since in this case there is a single outcome to be determined, the use of a single transferable vote would then equate to the AV system, which was rejected by a referendum in 2011. So we couldn't do this without violating the will of the people as expressed in 2011.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

Yeah, but some really rich people will become much, much richer.

The movers and shakers of the UK won't be subject to new EU tax laws.

Putin gets what he wants, which is a destabilised west. His shills have worked hard for that.


Brexit is doing exactly as it is intended to do.

Just wait till the UK puts tariffs on its imports of Novichok.