axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Presumably, the fact that the new REMAIN party will launch on 9/9 might have forced their hand too.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Labour Party announces support for transitional Brexit plan
This is basically setting themselves up for failure. Corbyn said FoM is gonna end and even if he tries to renegotiate i dont see why the EU would compromise on one of its pillars just to keep the UK in the EU. Cameron tried to renegotiate FoM and failed. The same thing will happen with Corbyn.
The UK wanted Brexit. If they want to reverse it the EU will make a decision on it.
If the UK wants the equivalent of the a transitional deal they either have to request to stay in or go for a norway model and face up to their citizens.
Audioboxer
Member
Probably the only thing that will override Scottish feelings for the UK will be leaving the single market and actually seeing what Brexit actually means. As much as I'll continue supporting Scottish independence Labour, and Corbyn, probably have the real chance to keep the UK together.
Even although I want to be independent and in the EU, fully, I still care about the people in the rUK and want the Tories arse fuckery to be challenged and opposed non-stop. C'mon Labour!
Even although I want to be independent and in the EU, fully, I still care about the people in the rUK and want the Tories arse fuckery to be challenged and opposed non-stop. C'mon Labour!
This transitional approach makes sense for both sides. The exit clause has never been exercised and the 2 year timescale is pretty much guesswork. It is likely to take longer than that just for the logistics. It doesn't make the EU look stronger by pushing a partner out even if they know the process is flawed
Coriolanus
Banned
Your explanation conveniently ignores that Corbo has never had stronger standing inside Labour than after the election, so if he was the problem before, aint no way in hell he'd agree to go with it now.
But hey.
Probably. But Cameron did manage to get some reforms on benefits offered. It wasn't the major, far reaching reform that he was after, and certainly didn't appease the hardline Brexiteers, but it was still something.
It's more important in that it signals a willingness to keep options open, and keep talking to explore those options.
I can't fully agree with this.
The best option for the EU is that the British people eventually realize that leaving the European Union is a really stupid idea and cancel Brexit entirely. For that reason, it makes sense to simply continue to drag out negotiations, while still conceding nothing. This will not be hard since by all accounts the United Kingdom is completely unprepared to negotiate and will naturally take forever.
This step by Labour represents hopefully the first in a series of moves that can eventually lead to canceling Brexit.
Jezbollah
Member
To be fair, there was a lot of incompetence on the Labour party's part with their stance (or lack of) on Brexit.
Audioboxer
Member
Brexit won't be cancelled, it was democratically voted for. It sets a poor precedent that votes can just be ignored if the people who don't want it can override those that do. Everyone involved in remain should have done a much better job of campaigning.
Scotland voted remain, but we're having to leave as we're in the UK. The only way we can try and stay is by legally finding a way to do so. It became apparent after checking a few options the only way we can stay in the EU is independence. As a good chunk of Scottish people are too scared of that, the next best thing our Government can try is protecting the single market.
Honestly, as someone who voted remain and thinks Brexit is a colossal mistake I also think it's a terrible idea to just overthrow democracy. Do that now and then others will do it again, and maybe next time it'll be for something you were on the "winning" side of. Democracy has lots of responsibility attached to it, and always will. David Cameron deserves some original "blame" for tossing together the vote as his own parties personal play toy. It cost him his career, but he's a millionaire anyway so what does he care if he plays God and fucks up a country. Tory logic.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
So what kind of restrictions to free movement do they want beyond what we already have? You already can't freeload off your host society being unemployed long term unless you have loads of money saved up to live on anyway. Everyone coming under free movement is therefore contributing to society in a meaningful sense. And I assume under such a deal UK citizens can still freely relocate to the EU during this period.
Delaying it as long as possible is smart. I believe in 10 years the UK will be in the single market again. Euroscepticism is largely a movement that is literally dying out. The next generations appreciate the value of international cooperation. And this is, at least more in line with what the members and voters overwhelmingly want, which is to stay in the single market.
Delaying it as long as possible is smart. I believe in 10 years the UK will be in the single market again. Euroscepticism is largely a movement that is literally dying out. The next generations appreciate the value of international cooperation. And this is, at least more in line with what the members and voters overwhelmingly want, which is to stay in the single market.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
My understanding is that what you're proposing is not possible; because the Article 50 letter was sent, the United Kingdom will cease to be a part of the EU and associated institutional arrangements on or about March 29th, 2019. The EU's stance is that it would require unanimity to alter this (or also, to rejoin once the UK leaves), which they don't and won't have. It's possible some of the Brits who are no doubt pissing their bloomers right now would like to construct some legal theory that says it's all reversible and everything is fine, but I doubt Europe would agree.
The proposal here doesn't cancel or draw out Brexit, it ensures there are a handful of post-Brexit institutional arrangements the UK remains a part of temporarily.
I mean, it sets a poor precedent to do something that is unpopular and disastrous for your country and others on the strength of a 4% majority and call that "democracy working." The purpose of democracy is to produce policies that help the citizens of the country. To the degree that it does not do that, it is not an effective democracy, and admiring it simply for being called a democracy is confusing the map for the territory. There's no way out here that doesn't set a poor precedent.
I agree that the EU would need to support it. But, in general, I think they could be convinced to do so, because, again, the ideal outcome for the EU is one in which Britain actually just fails to leave the EU because it's too painful and dumb for them. This would be a great way to avoid countries trying to leave the EU in the future, as well as a good advertisement for joining the EU.
Audioboxer
Member
Sorry, I won't be convinced here. There was ample campaigning and the country knew voting leave would mean leaving the EU. Everything in terms of being set up within a legal framework was fine. The campaigning was arguably scummy from many individuals, but welcome to politics. Trying to convince naive people and dumb people is always part of the effort. Sometimes you lose. Sadly unlike a party change of power Brexit was a referendum so it has longer term consequences, not another vote in 4 years. So yeah, as someone living in this country I know how shitty that is for my short to mid term future.
I just went through Scotland voting no for independence in 2014. While that kept the status quo I personally think the status quo is a poor decision given how the Conservatives and Labour before them have been running the UK for most of my lifetime. Very very poorly. Wasting money, dismantling services and goodness knows how many poor decisions in total. Because I was on the losing side doesn't mean I can campaign to say the vote doesn't matter we're leaving the UK anyway. 45% voted Yes, that's high enough, we win. The only thing I can do is democratically challenge that vote again, whether it be continuing to vote against Labour and Conservatives in Scotland or if another referendum happens voting yes again. I want Scotland to be independent as I think it's the best future for the country and me, especially now with the possibility to be back in the EU. I can't cheat my way to that future though and be "unfair" on the rest of the Scots I live with.
What happens in the hypothetical that Scotland gets another independence referendum in my life time and we vote yes by 1.5%? Do the no voters just get to say we think Scottish independence is wrong, risky, bad for the UK and an overall mess so we're canceling it? As I said to you what you're asking for is democracy to be ignored when you lose in order to turn a loss into a win for you. If you can do that others can do it to you too. What's a "wrong" decision for you or I isn't necessarily a wrong decision for someone else. Heck, if it were that simple every single time a party won an election that you didn't like you could just put up your hand and say "I don't like this decision, it's a bad decision for the country, fuck democracy, your party hasn't won". The forms of democracy we adhere to don't necessarily guarantee the outcome you want every time as every single person in your country gets to vote and not everyone will vote the same as you. That's the power we give to the people.
All the issues in the UK need to be fought legally and above board. Brexit happened. What we need now is a useless Tory government challenged effectively and for the sake of the UK some sort of decent deal, preferably single market access.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
This is spin. Not liking the result of a fully democratic vote because what we consider the dumb option was chosen does not mean that anyone has the right to enforce what you consider the right decision just because they think it's right, overriding a referendum that was presented as the equivalent of being binding. It was presented as a choice that wouldn't be ignored simply because the "wrong" option is chosen.
You can either have a democratic choice, or a country where referendums are completely and utterly pointless, with politicians overriding the "wrong" decision, regardless of which side of the fence you're on; that or mandating super-majorities that would be impossible to reach. It can go for any issue, including one you're on the other side for.
Referendums without super majority requirements are pointless and inherently stupid because they fall victim to the very worst forces in democratic society. Brexit is a prime example of why people are generally horrendously stupid cunts and should not be allowed to make decisions on matters of such a large scale.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
So you're saying that 55-67 percent majorities should be required for any Scottish or Northern Irish referendum, right? After all, such a requirement should be across the board, but there's plenty who think there should have been a supermajority for Brexit...but not for Scotland. Funny that.
I mean, this is a false choice. You can also have a country where people don't have referendums on society-changing initiatives because doing so is simply irresponsible governance, and instead pursue those initiatives, if desired, through the normal democratic process of electing legislators who support those initiatives and asking them to implement them. That is actually how countries are typically run!
To put it bluntly, the constitutional crisis at hand started when Cameron called the referendum in the first place. Claiming that it would suddenly start now indicates a lack of understanding of the situation. You will eventually need to resolve this crisis in one way or another. If you prefer the resolution in which Britain causes itself a grave, unnecessary injury in the pursuit of upholding its right to govern itself using the dumbest and least effective form of democracy, I guess that's up to you.
To be frank, if a Scottish independence referendum won by 2%, I think the odds are extremely low that the United Kingdom would take that as an unalterable statement of the people's will. You are arguing for a principle that there is no reason to think your government would uphold.
ClosingADoor
Member
If they want to stay in the single market, fine. But at this point I rather have the UK out of the actual EU, because if they stay we will have to deal with their anti-EU stuff time and time again. But something like with Norway for trade and travel should be ok for everyone I think.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I hope this doesn't happen.
The UK should leave ASAP so we can all move on from this.
The UK should leave ASAP so we can all move on from this.
I fucking hate nationalism. A philosophy universally for cunts. The Scottish referendum should also be super majority no question. Making such wide reaching constitutional changes should not be done with majorities which are basically margin of error.
Audioboxer
Member
Do you feel the exact same way about Scottish independence or is what you're saying only applicable to Brexit in your mind?
As I tried to illustrate above some Scots would call me a horrendously stupid cunt for voting to break up the UK. They can do that to express their anger or disagreement with me but it shouldn't mean Scottish people can never vote for independence if a party has a mandate. Last time, and this time, the Scottish government has had a mandate.
Now what we can maybe knuckle down on with Brexit is how the Conservative Party had fuck all detailed manifesto for Brexit, so much so they had absolutely no plan for if the vote went through. That was an absolute disgrace, shamed the party and showed how terrible they are at running a country. The British people keep voting for them though! But that is a consequence of a democracy where everyone's vote counts equally. It's why you have to fight hard and smart as a political party to campaign to get people out voting and going after that 5~15% that might sway.
Look at the Scottish independence referendum, something like 85% of the country went out to vote. General elections in the UK have much lower turnouts. Stay at home voters yet again plaguing the world.
Ah well, there's my answer, I guess I am a cunt
I should add I know what you're really saying though I think. You just want a certain percentage threshold to be set. I'm not sure where I sit on that. I'd rather think any large decision should be supported with planned outcomes for both votes, have ample time for campaigning and have a mandate of some sorts. If that is the case I find it harder to argue for percentage caps as essentially you could win a vote and be told no sorry you lose. Easy to say you support that in the wake of Brexit because you're on the "losing" side.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Fair play.
Exactly.
This is just a 'slow, hard' brexit. Not a 'soft' brexit. Fucking useless wankers.
EDIT: I shouldn't have read more of the article, this is all prefaced on agreeing the end of free movement while retaining free trade. Useless doesn't cover it, this is the same pie-in-the-sky bullshit both parties have been peddling since the day after the referendum couched in different terms. Pointless.
Do you feel the exact same way about Scottish independence or is what you're saying only applicable to Brexit in your mind?
As I tried to illustrate above some Scots would call me a horrendously stupid cunt for voting to break up the UK. They can do that to express their anger or disagreement with me but it shouldn't mean Scottish people can never vote for independence if a party has a mandate. Last time, and this time, the Scottish government has had a mandate.
Now what we can maybe knuckle down on with Brexit is how the Conservative Party had fuck all detailed manifesto for Brexit, so much so they had absolutely no plan for if the vote went through. That was an absolute disgrace, shamed the party and showed how terrible they are at running a country. The British people keep voting for them though! But that is a consequence of a democracy where everyone's vote counts equally. It's why you have to fight hard and smart as a political party to campaign to get people out voting and going after that 5~15% that might sway.
Look at the Scottish independence referendum, something like 85% of the country went out to vote. General elections in the UK have much lower turnouts. Stay at home voters yet again plaguing the world.
Ah well, there's my answer, I guess I am a cunt
Unless you resolve the currency issue you are stuck with the Euro and in its current shittastic form it would fuck over Scotland like it was part of Southern Europe. So no, unless you resolve that an independent Scotland is a stupid idea in my view. You would be poorer as a nation. But there is an argument to be had around this. Doesn't mean I think it should be simple majority decision.
Brexit, we know there was no argument. There was only racism and a protest vote against the Tories. People made excuses because people like racism. A massive act of self harm by a feckless public full of scum. We could argue that for the racists this was maybe a rational choice - they derive greater utility from prejudice against brown people vs. enjoying economic wellbeing. However that still qualifies under the horrendously stupid cunt definition.
Audioboxer
Member
I added a small edit above about majority decisions. I think it's where I sit just now. The issue with Brexit is as I said above. An unprepared Tory Government ran a referendum where they didn't even know what Brexit meant in the finer details and therefore had absolutely no plan for a leave vote. That arguably should be the litmus test for a proposed referendum being rejected legally. If the Government proposing doesn't at least have a groundwork laid for both outcomes. To me that's a safety net, versus setting arbitrary % clauses. All that happens there is people want a % clause set at something that might not be obtainable so they can sit back and go "who the fuck cares cause even if they win they won't win". Many political votes in life are won by between 1~5%.
With any big decisions there can be uncertainty of some sorts, but at least the Scottish government had plans for an independent Scotland. We seen how the Conservative government genuinely had NO plans for leaving the EU. I'm not even being hyperbolic there. Anyone in the UK knows that.
Populists and charlatans rarely win democratic contests by super majority thresholds, it's why they exist. They immunise the system to some extent from the inherent flaws that exist within democracy i.e. the stupidity/ignorance of the median voter.
Cameron dodged a bullet on Indy ref, he got cocky and the result was, like pidgeon has already said, the constitutional crisis that was already set in place by offering the referendum in the first place.
Audioboxer
Member
I mean, I know why most say everyone who voted to leave the EU is a racist bigot asshole. It's easy to do that. Just take x million people and say you vote how I don't want you to vote so you're a piece of shit, and the bad guy, and fuck you to your grave. Life isn't that simple though. Even if you're looking at a decent number of people who are racists or bigots you're taking the cheap way out just to call everyone X. Call people who are X, X.
Scotland's already a funny example with Brexit. Decent numbers of voters all voting to remain in the EU (62%), but on the flipside, a good number of them also supporting Scottish independence. There's that nuance. Are you going to call Scots who back independence all racist and bigots because you don't like that vote either? I'd certainly hope not. I'm one of them and NONE of my arguments are for reasons to do with race. A large portion of indyref YES are simply the youth who think they'd be better securing their own future, directly. As we're in a union even with devolved powers we still answer to a Government we possibly won't vote for (Labour/Conservative). The SNP are still a majority Government up here.
If you think myself and many other Scots I know who back independence are a brain twister what about Scots who voted leave to the EU? Who then also vote SNP? Then what happens if I add they voted NO in 2014, whilst voting SNP. Yeah. That's a family member of mine. Used to vote Labour, changed to SNP, voted to stay in the UK, voted to Leave the EU and will still continue to vote SNP. Heck my parents, both ex-Labour to SNP converts too, both voted leave the EU. They voted leave the UK also. No racism involved in it either. None of my family I debated with directly even brought up race.
Ultimately, I'd like to say some people are just naive, easily influenced or do just have their own reasons for voting how they do. Very often I don't like it, maybe even verging on losing respect, but I don't just call everyone an ism of some sorts without evidence that it's true. Either from what they say or their actions.
Coriolanus
Banned
Did the scottish indyref even have a strong xenophobia element going for it?
Can't even understand how it could, since the new government, had it gone through, had said that it'd try to rejoin the EU asap, if memory serves.
Sounds a bit like false equivalency and all
Can't even understand how it could, since the new government, had it gone through, had said that it'd try to rejoin the EU asap, if memory serves.
Sounds a bit like false equivalency and all
Lol
You ascribe far too much importance to something I didn't even know existed until this second and I actually pay attention to politics.
Ask the Lib Dems how well fighting the ref again worked out.
No. Wasn't even a slight element, you want xenophobia look at the orange order unionist Tories.
Audioboxer
Member
Not really, but the arguments above are conflating nationalism as something that is only racism and xenophobia. We have this argument a lot around Scotland as people try to say voting to be independent means nationalistic so that therefore must mean xenophobic, racism or bigotry.
The Scottish government, led by the SNP, but even Labour and Conservatives (Scottish sects) is one of the most progressive Governments in the world. It's the gayest Government and the SNP have a 50/50 gender cabinet. The SNP talk very supporting of diversity and of everyone living in Scotland being Scottish. I don't mean that as in erasing their nationality, but saying if you live here you're welcome here.
Some of the points I'm trying to make above involve allowing some nuance in any shotgun approach to just tarring a whole population or vote when you're angry at it. As I said I know Scots who voted leave who are not racist. I'll call them idiots and argue with them, even with them being family, but they're not X because Joe Bloggs online tells me everyone who votes for something is X. You're never going to get any vote to go 100% yes, 0 % no. Or 0% yes, 100% no.
I was saying Brexit was unquestionably a vote fuelled by racism. Indy ref wasn't. It would not be a stretch to say the majority of leave voters are racist. That would be 25-35% of the electorate. I would feel fairly comfortable in feeling that percentage of people are racist or hold bigoted views. In any country.
There is poll after poll after poll which shows this. There is no lack of evidence for this claim. They were not voting based on economics. Or understanding of constitutional sovereignty. We don't need to ask ourselves a big question why they voted the way they did. We know why. Even on GAF we have asked many a leave voter to offer their reasoning, they offered nothing but easily debunked drivel. Even after being presented with facts as to why their view was wrong you still had these people not even flinch. They took pride in their ignorance. Brexit was not an intellectually honest debate. You had such a large body of consensus from all aspects - our allies, business and academia saying it would be monumentally stupid.
But people like racism. A lot of people like racism. We had to both sides this shit because of that. That is the reality.
I don't feel we should make excuses for this behaviour anymore. 2016 was the year that white supremacy struck back. The same threads that drove vote leave were evident in the insane turnout in the Florida panhandle. A lot of people who never voted did and they voted to leave. They were activated by the dog whistles.
I did say the rest of the leave vote (the remaining 15-25%) was a protest vote and simpletons. Your example of an SNP voter also voting for Leave lines up with that. That protest vote was what the Labour party was trying to minimise and failed to do so.
Audioboxer
Member
Yeah. Some people felt that way about the EU too. I think misguided as the bogeyman set up that the EU drains our money disproportionately to how it helps was nonsensical. NHS 350m pound lie anyone? That's exactly what I argued when I seen my parents and talked politics. They believed quite similar to the concept around Scottish independence that coming out of the EU meant 100% control and possibly a better future. While I agree with them on Scottish independence, I didn't agree on the EU.
Because they support the SNP when I question them now on the Brexit aftermath they say they think Scotland would do better in the EU than the UK so wouldn't be opposed to going back into the EU as an independent country. Bit of a facepalm there. They both can't stand May and the Conservative party but voted in line with the Euro sceptics in the Tory party whilst the SNP campaigned remain.
But again, all throughout this whether I or anyone else agrees with my parents none of their thinking is around race or even immigration reasons. I've pulled some of my hair out debating but at worst I can say they were misguided and I didn't agree with their choice on the EU vote. I can't call them xenophobic and racist when there is no evidence to do so.
Given that UKIP and Farage took the spotlight I can't disagree. The way leave was campaigned for in this country was a disgrace. A blight on our history of politics. Watch any question time around Brexit to suffer a mild stroke.
I can't really disagree with anything else you've said either. I just shared my few anecdotes of how I know people who voted in ways I didn't agree with but they weren't what some online would say they are. I'm sure there are more examples of what I've said, but sure, a large part of the voting base most likely did do what they did for either racial or immigration reasons. On immigration, the kind of Farage rhetoric, not genuine discussions on immigration which can be had.
Even the misguided voters who aren't racist have indeed still contributed to the situation. I've said that to my parents and extended family who voted leave. Fortunately, pretty much everyone younger I know from work colleagues to friends all voted remain. As I mentioned earlier though a good chunk of them also vote for Scottish independence. Just showing again how you can want to stay in the EU but still vote up here to leave the UK. My last boss was a Conservative who voted no to Scottish independence but thankfully to remain in the EU. He is an awesome guy, much banter passed about him voting for the Tories up here. Life, sometimes people just vote in ways you wouldn't expect them to.
Quite honestly I've probably spent far too long talking about Scottish independence in here, so sorry for going off topic. I haven't been in the politics UK OT for a while so it all just kind of came out! Haven't talked Brexit in a while at all to be fair. When the UK news is quiet on the politics scene I guess you "forget" a bit and just move on with your daily life as normal.
Delusibeta
Banned
So in other words, effectively still in favour of Hard Brexit, just not Hard Brexit happening in 2019 (since the odds of them getting a deal that allows them to both remain in the common market and bar freedom of movement is nil, always will be nil and is a very silly notion to even consider).
Delusibeta
Banned
Pretty much, with the exception that I don't think a delayed Hard Brexit would be noticeably less damaging to the economy than a 2019 Hard Brexit.
Audioboxer
Member
Labour is essentially trying to steer the ship through the rough waters to calmer waters. They won't be as calm as before but it's an aim to get the best deal possible and not be assholes about negotiations.
The Tories seem to be like, fuck it, set sail directly for the storm as we can do whatever we want. Their obsession with what is coined a hard Brexit is insane. The country voted to leave the EU, it did not vote for how that is done.
Therefore as all the political parties opposing the Conservatives tried to argue, it should be debated how we negotiate to leave. That had May run off to hold a snap election to crush the saboteurs to which she fucked her majority. The DUP arrived to help out though at the cost of 1 billion pounds. Buying voting slaves, yay, the UK everyone.
Still, Corbyn and Labour are trying to fight on to influence negotiations and try and not have the UK coming out of this a burnt crisp. The EU will negotiate, global business is global business when money, trade and resources are involved. It's just the UK is at the mercy of a Tory government/negotiation fucking everything up more, like they seem to be good at.
As I said early on in here as much as I support an independent Scotland and would like to rejoin the EU fully, I can put that aside for saying right now I'm backing Corbyn and Labour to do the best they can to influence how things end up for the UK. The SNP have returned less seats than they had to the UK parliament so now more than ever Labour are the only real UK Tory opposition (Big mouths Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson were slayed, much to the delight of most of the UK overall, but guys, they fought hard against the Tories and Brexit so a loss there). I also have to accept two main things. I still care about how things end up for the UK people as a whole, and there is a good chance I might never see Scottish independence in my life time. In which case I'd be continuing to live in the UK post-Brexit.