Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Danoff]

Because the border is symbolic of the crown's division of Ireland into us and them, ours and yours, Ireland and Britain. That's why the principle function of the GFA was to remove the border across the island. There are many, many Irish people (some of whom have become Northern Irish as a function of the crown's ownership of Northern Ireland) who don't think the division (or the crown church) should be there. I'm not sure what the Chinese parallel is to that.

Ok, I think I'm understanding a little better.

Borders don't have to be that "hard". I'd like to think that the EU requirements could be satisfied in a way that would be silky smooth for Irish people passing back and forth. I'm not sure why the UK is required to police the border anyway, this seems like an EU constraint. The UK can say "we don't care" and the EU can say "well we do, so we're putting a border here". That seems like a better solution. I guess that's precluded by a contract somewhere.

Why is this not on the Republic of Ireland's shoulders? The UK is not the one with the border concerns.

Edit:

Apologies for dragging you through this.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Borders don't have to be that "hard". I'd like to think that the EU requirements could be satisfied in a way that would be silky smooth for Irish people passing back and forth. I'm not sure why the UK is required to police the border anyway, this seems like an EU constraint.

Ultimately there will need to be checks on animal stock, food stock, valuable cargos passing into and out of Britain - that's a normal function of customs work. The danger on either side of the Irish/British border is that officers of state will have to conduct the checks, and at that point they become a target. It's not just the Irish Republicans who have sown terror and discontent, there are also Unionist forces who like being part of Britain and who have taken arms to demonstrate that. The DUP (the party ruling in coalition in the UK) have strong links to the Ulster Volunteer Force, a terrorist group that's as reprehensible as the Irish Republican Army. For balance the IRA's political wing (Sinn Fein) also have seats in Westminster, but they refuse to attend to them.

Why is this not on the Republic of Ireland's shoulders? The UK is not the one with the border concerns.

The countries at either side of customs borders have equal concerns, and for the reasons I gave above the pressure comes from both sides of the border. That's why any kind of border processing (and that's all it takes to constitute a hard border) is a very bad thing and mustn't be allowed to happen. But it seems it will.

 

[Danoff]

Ultimately there will need to be checks on animal stock, food stock, valuable cargos passing into and out of Britain

California does some of that with Nevada and Arizona (and probably Oregon). And don't you mean the EU here? Not Britain?

The countries at either side of customs borders have equal concerns, and for the reasons I gave above the pressure comes from both sides of the border. That's why any kind of border processing (and that's all it takes to constitute a hard border) is a very bad thing and mustn't be allowed to happen. But it seems it will.

Why do they have equal concerns? Why can the UK not just say "we don't care about this border, people can come and go as they please". The EU says "we have rules, requirements etc." and the UK says "then enforce them... within the EU". So Northern Ireland has to police the border because they are part of the EU. The UK just shrugs and carries on.

Is that not possible? Why has the UK promised to police EU borders and carry out EU policy after it has left the EU? Mexico, for example, doesn't care nearly as much about the US/Mexico border as we do. Nevada doesn't care one bit about the California/Nevada border. It's all on one side.


Edit:

And if the concern is that Irish unionists will attack the EU border... well.. that's the cost of voting "remain".

 

[PzR Slim]

I'm still not seeing the issue.

Let those who do explain it to you.

 

[Danoff]

Let those who do explain it to you.

Watched it. Lots of appeals to emotion on that one.

The UK is not asking for a border here, it's not the one with stringent standards, who requires inspection, who cares about people crossing. At least, not based on my understanding of the situation. It is The Republic of Ireland (via the EU) that has these requirements, and it is a Republic of Ireland problem to work out how to deal with their import and travel standards.

I really despise the notion that because some people will resort to violence that a nation cannot implement peaceful border crossing policy. But that issue kinda gets set aside because the UK isn't demanding that policy.

What that video suggests, is that because of a terrorist organization, and because the Republic of Ireland wants to remain, and because the EU wants customs, the UK has no right to leave. That's flat-out nonsense.

Edit: Changed Northern Ireland to Republic of Ireland because I botched that. Seems so easy to do when it's just an internet post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The UK is not asking for a border here, it's not the one with stringent standards, who requires inspection, who cares about people crossing. At least, not based on my understanding of the situation. It is The Republic of Ireland (via the EU) that has these requirements, and it is a Republic of Ireland problem to work out how to deal with their import and travel standards.

The same is true in either direction. Leader of the House (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has already stated that paperwork checks will be required at the border for security. The UK already operates customs facilities at its port borders, at the moment there's no "back door" via Ireland for non-EU countries, their ports customs procedures are the same as ours. However, after Brexit there will be countries who the UK charges a tariff to who the EU don't. Without a customs border goods could come into RoI tariff free and be driven across the border to the UK. Technology doesn't seem to be a solution, even at the most technologically-adept borders a lorry has to wait around 20 minutes to clear inspection.

What that video suggests, is that because of a terrorist organization, and because the Republic of Ireland wants to remain, and because the EU wants customs, the UK has no right to leave. That's flat-out nonsense.

Northern Ireland wants to remain too, that's how the country voted. The people of Northern Ireland (and Scotland) are having their votes outweighed by the votes of England and Wales. The terrorist organisations are feared because they are hard to find and seemingly impossible to stop - and goodness knows Britain and Ireland have tried to put them down for many years. You have to remember that support for sectarianism exists amongst many members of the general public in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Watched it. Lots of appeals to emotion on that one.

I take your point but it's hard to watch any account of the troubles that isn't emotional. It wasn't a few bombs in some far-off land where only the army were posted, it was on every street corner, it could be under every car. I'm sure I've told this story here before but as a child I remember going out with friends whose parents (in military employment) checked under their cars with a mirror before letting us near them. That's how prevalent the risk was. Many of the victims of the attacks weren't serving soldiers or police, they were ordinary people out-and-about doing whatever ordinary people do.

Eire remains on a knife-edge and only the GFA keeps it balanced there.

 

[Danoff]

The same is true in either direction. Leader of the House (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has already stated that paperwork checks will be required at the border for security. The UK already operates customs facilities at its port borders, at the moment there's no "back door" via Ireland for non-EU countries, their ports customs procedures are the same as ours. However, after Brexit there will be countries who the UK charges a tariff to who the EU don't. Without a customs border goods could come into RoI tariff free and be driven across the border to the UK. Technology doesn't seem to be a solution, even at the most technologically-adept borders a lorry has to wait around 20 minutes to clear inspection.

I'd think that the UK could overlook Northern Ireland Tariff free goods for a bit. One could probably catch them leaving Northern Ireland without angering the terrorists.

Northern Ireland wants to remain too, that's how the country voted.

Does Northern Ireland want to join the Republic of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland doesn't want them or something? Because I'm getting the impression that Northern Ireland doesn't want to join RoI, but did want to remain the EU, which is not something they can have both of.

Or... actually... I'm not sure what even that's not possible. That the UK could enable part of their territory to remain in the EU.

Edit: Oooooh time for another vote!

The people of Northern Ireland (and Scotland) are having their votes outweighed by the votes of England and Wales. The terrorist organisations are feared because they are hard to find and seemingly impossible to stop - and goodness knows Britain and Ireland have tried to put them down for many years. You have to remember that support for sectarianism exists amongst many members of the general public in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

I understand why terrorists are feared.

I'm still struggling to see why this is in the lap of the UK instead of the EU/RoI.

 

[Famine]

Does Northern Ireland want to join the Republic of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland doesn't want them or something?

In essence, kinda-yes-but-sorta-mainly-no.

Northern Ireland is basically two countries. It has a population that considers itself Irish (also known as Separatists/Republicans) and a population that considers itself British (also known as Loyalists/Unionists) - this can be broadly split down religious lines too, with Catholicism on the Irish side and Protestantism (Anglicanism) on the British. Northern Ireland doesn't want to leave the UK and join Ireland, but a lot of people (though some way short of a majority) in it would - it's pretty much been that way since 1922, but it's only since 1998 that Irish Northern Irish could call themselves Irish and have an Irish passport while still living in Northern Ireland; previously they were British and had British passports.

 

[Danoff]

In essence, kinda-yes-but-sorta-mainly-no.

Northern Ireland is basically two countries. It has a population that considers itself Irish (also known as Separatists/Republicans) and a population that considers itself British (also known as Loyalists/Unionists) - this can be broadly split down religious lines too, with Catholicism on the Irish side and Protestantism (Anglicanism) on the British. Northern Ireland doesn't want to leave the UK and join Ireland, but a lot of people (though some way short of a majority) in it would - it's pretty much been that way since 1922, but it's only since 1998 that Irish Northern Irish could call themselves Irish and have an Irish passport while still living in Northern Ireland; previously they were British and had British passports.

My understanding is that for Northern Ireland to join RoI the majority in both... uh... countries... have to favor it. It sounds like maybe neither one does right now. So Northern Ireland wants to be part of the UK and part of the EU. That's not a good scenario. I wonder if it's possible though. The Brexit referendum said:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

That doesn't say with certainty that no sub-portion of the UK is barred from remaining in EU. If Northern Ireland somehow voted on the issue, I imagine they'd vote "remain". And then the UK could withdraw as an entity and allow that portion to remain. This is probably impossible for lots of technical reasons.

Edit: Seems like this might be necessary for Scotland too, as the UK could I guess lose Scotland if they're not allowed to remain.

So why is the UK on the hook for enforcing EU customs and travel requirements? Why not let the EU or EU member state (RoI) handle their own border?

 

[BobK]

I think @Danoff is making an excellent point here. If it's the EU that insists on a hard border, then let the EU do it.

 

[Famine]

My understanding is that for Northern Ireland to join RoI the majority in both... uh... countries... have to favor it. It sounds like maybe neither one does right now.

I'm not sure what the Republic's position on it would be, but the North would be very much against it.


This is a grossly simplified history but basically most of Ireland voted for nationalist parties shortly after WW1, and they declared independence from the UK. There was an acrimonious war between Irish militias and the British troops (lots of civilian killings), then Ireland became independent... except for the six counties in the North. They didn't vote for nationalist parties before the war, and became Northern Ireland - there were a lot of British settlers in those counties, along with the Irish, and they wanted to stay British.

Then the Northern Irish government set about de-Irishing Northern Ireland - no Irish language anywhere, lots of celebrations of Protestantism*. Our good friend Gerry Mandering reared his ugly head, with lines redrawn to group Loyalists to minimise their political influence. That reignited tensions from 40 years earlier (not that they needed much reignition) and again put Irish militias against British troops.

We sort-of solved that with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. That basically said that Irish people in Northern Ireland can be Irish if they want to be. However, it's still majority British and it's incredibly unlikely that there'd be a sentiment to leave the union and join Ireland 97 years late.

So Northern Ireland wants to be part of the UK and part of the EU. That's not a good scenario. I wonder if it's possible though. The Brexit referendum said:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

That doesn't say with certainty that no sub-portion of the UK is barred from remaining in EU. If Northern Ireland somehow voted on the issue, I imagine they'd vote "remain". And then the UK could withdraw as an entity and allow that portion to remain. This is probably impossible for lots of technical reasons.

Edit: Seems like this might be necessary for Scotland too, as the UK could I guess lose Scotland if they're not allowed to remain.

While a secession for Northern Ireland - which is intensely unlikely given the Unionist sentiment ingrained in it - would solve a part of the problem, it would shift it the other way.

Essentially with that right to determine British/Irishness in mind, there's no travel restrictions between the North and Ireland or the North and Great Britain - although I'm not sure that the GFA specifically states there has to be frictionless travel in perpetuity (I doubt anyone saw this situation coming), it's an accepted consequence of it.

Putting a border in between Northern Ireland and Ireland would at the least risk the GFA. Avoiding it by moving Northern Ireland out of the UK simply moves the border to between Northern Ireland and the UK, which still risks the GFA, it just pisses off a different set of people, and more of them.

So why is the UK on the hook for enforcing EU customs and travel requirements? Why not let the EU or EU member state (RoI) handle their own border?

It's a good question, and one I've mentioned before in this thread.

Ultimately the position is that the EU will insist on a hard border to protect its customs union and workforce (as is its prerogative), but the EU didn't sign the GFA. Essentially as it's the United Kingdom's change of laws that created the situation that necessitates the border, the UK would be in breach even if it just ignored the border altogether - although I imagine that wouldn't play well with either the EU (which would likely take the UK to international courts over it) or with the TaKe CoNtRoL oF oUr BoRdErS Brexit voters.


It is worth noting - simply for my own amusement - that there has in fact been a temporary hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland at least twice since the Good Friday Agreement came into force. They covered the 2001 and 2007 foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks.



*Oh yes, there's a religious sectarianism aspect to it too; generally Irish Republican = Catholic and British Unionist/Loyalist = Protestant (Anglican).

 

[eran0004]

I think @Danoff is making an excellent point here. If it's the EU that insists on a hard border, then let the EU do it.

UK is also insisting on hard borders, that’s what leaving the customs union means. They just want to find a way to leave the customs union without getting a hard border to Ireland.

That way has not been found yet and it’s essentially that piece of the puzzle that is missing in order to get the whole Brexit deal working.

 

[Liquid]

The Republic of Ireland doesn't want Northern Ireland because it's a bankrupt dumpster fire but that's another argument altogether.

 

[Touring Mars]

My understanding is that for Northern Ireland to join RoI the majority in both... uh... countries... have to favor it. It sounds like maybe neither one does right now. So Northern Ireland wants to be part of the UK and part of the EU. That's not a good scenario. I wonder if it's possible though. The Brexit referendum said:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

That doesn't say with certainty that no sub-portion of the UK is barred from remaining in EU. If Northern Ireland somehow voted on the issue, I imagine they'd vote "remain". And then the UK could withdraw as an entity and allow that portion to remain. This is probably impossible for lots of technical reasons.

Northern Ireland did vote to Remain in the EU, but it is leaving because it is part of the UK.

The original 'backstop' idea, as floated by the EU, was for NI to remain inside the Customs Unions/Single Market while the rest of the UK left, but this is idea has been repeatedly rejected by the UK Government, not least because its Parliamentary majority relied upon the support of the DUP (hardliner Northern Irish 'Unionists' who are adamant that NI should be treated no differently to the UK as a whole.

But... something interesting is happening... the UK Government no longer has a majority... even with the DUP's support. A possible, if unlikely, consequence of that is that the Prime Minister/Government may now decide that the DUP's support is no longer all that important (indeed, as a matter of plain fact, it isn't any more) and thus they may now decide that the original backstop idea - of cutting NI loose - may be the only feasible way for the rest of the UK (OK, well, England...) to leave the EU.

It would solve things pretty nicely - the people of Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU, and no-one (not even the extremists on both sides of the border) want a hard border in Ireland. It would also cancel any threat of the whole of the UK being permanently trapped inside the EU's legal orbit.

Johnson, if pushed (and let's face it, he is being pushed hard now), may decide that the 'NI-only' backstop is the only way to avoid the dreaded 'All-UK backstop' that has been rejected by Parliament three times already. The DUP would go absolutely ape-faeces ballistic, but, in the height of irony, that solution would leave Northern Ireland in a ridiculously strong position of being inside the UK single market and the EU single market, which (ironically) would make the Scottish Nationalists go nuts because NI would have a massive economic advantage over the rest of the UK...

There are rumblings in today's papers about this very possibility...

Edit: Seems like this might be necessary for Scotland too, as the UK could I guess lose Scotland if they're not allowed to remain.

Paradoxically, a special deal for NI would only increase the chances of Scottish independence, for the reason stated above. Scotland could (rightly) argue that if NI can stay inside the Single Market after Brexit, then Scotland can (and should) too. But, while in Ireland that would prevent a hard border (between NI and ROI), for Scotland it would probably mean erecting one (between Scotland and England), as the EU would require any border between it's Single Market area and a non-Single Market area. It is doubtful that either the EU or the UK would accept such an arrangement. As such, Scotland will likely face the tough choice between rejoining the EU as an independent country (in order to maintain tariff-free trade with the EU) or staying in the UK (in order to maintain tariff-free trade with the rest of the UK... which accounts for 4x more trade than the EU).

So why is the UK on the hook for enforcing EU customs and travel requirements? Why not let the EU or EU member state (RoI) handle their own border?

Technically we're not, but the UK requires a trade deal with the EU and the EU will not play ball unless the UK does what it wants us to do.

 

[TenEightyOne]

the Prime Minister/Government may now decide that the DUP's support is no longer all that important

I'm not sure what happens in that case - the Queen's permission is for a government run by the Conservative and DUP Coalition Party. If Johnson decides to go against the DUP's strongly-held wish that NI is in as much **** as the rest of the UK and they immediately leave the coalition, doesn't that collapse the government?

 

[Liquid]

the DUP's strongly-held wish that NI is in as much **** as the rest of the UK

They can update their archaic and barbaric abortion and language laws then.

Having your own legal system alone is a pretty big indicator that you're not in line with the "rest of the UK". Scotland has its own legal system but at least it's not pretending that it wants to be identical to the rest of the UK.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not sure what happens in that case - the Queen's permission is for a government run by the Conservative and DUP Coalition Party. If Johnson decides to go against the DUP's strongly-held wish that NI is in as much **** as the rest of the UK and they immediately leave the coalition, doesn't that collapse the government?

Yes, I guess it would - though the Government has already collapsed, and Johnson is actively seeking to dissolve it and replace it with a hard Brexiteer government that, ideally, doesn't require the DUP's support. Ironically, the DUP are voting with Johnson to try to make this happen, quite possibly unaware that they are on the brink of being thrown under the bus.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, I guess it would - though the Government has already collapsed

Yes and no, it still carries the request to govern, however weak their grip on reality/parliament. If the DUP packed up their rusty Transit and officially buggered off then I think the permission to govern would no longer be valid?

 

[Danoff]

Putting a border in between Northern Ireland and Ireland would at the least risk the GFA. Avoiding it by moving Northern Ireland out of the UK simply moves the border to between Northern Ireland and the UK, which still risks the GFA, it just pisses off a different set of people, and more of them.

Interesting. I hadn't expected that.

It's a good question, and one I've mentioned before in this thread.

Ultimately the position is that the EU will insist on a hard border to protect its customs union and workforce (as is its prerogative), but the EU didn't sign the GFA. Essentially as it's the United Kingdom's change of laws that created the situation that necessitates the border, the UK would be in breach even if it just ignored the border altogether - although I imagine that wouldn't play well with either the EU (which would likely take the UK to international courts over it) or with the TaKe CoNtRoL oF oUr BoRdErS Brexit voters.

Yea, I don't see how the UK is in breach of anything just by withdrawing from the EU, and it definitely seems like RoI's responsibility to handle border control since it's an EU demand for that country. Did the UK agree to set up customs checkpoints at every border if it withdraws from the EU? Because that seems... unlikely... to me. Without that in place, I'm not sure what the UK would be in breech of.

The DUP would go absolutely ape-faeces ballistic, but, in the height of irony, that solution would leave Northern Ireland in a ridiculously strong position of being inside the UK single market and the EU single market,

Yea, seems like a great win for NI (and kinda for the UK too actually).

which (ironically) would make the Scottish Nationalists go nuts because NI would have a massive economic advantage over the rest of the UK...

Seems like they'd need the deal too.

But, while in Ireland that would prevent a hard border (between NI and ROI), for Scotland it would probably mean erecting one (between Scotland and England), as the EU would require any border between it's Single Market area and a non-Single Market area. It is doubtful that either the EU or the UK would accept such an arrangement.

Except that you get one in the case of independence too. Either way there's a border with the EU, it's just that in one case Scotland gets the special EU/UK market bonus along with NI.

Technically we're not, but the UK requires a trade deal with the EU and the EU will not play ball unless the UK does what it wants us to do.

I think the UK should accept that the EU is not playing ball and will not until they take the UK seriously. Hard brexit, don't control the NI border, see what happens. (probably Scotland goes, but, that seems hard to stop).

Edit:

BTW, with regard to a lack of border control into the UK via NI, I think that the UK can still catch folks bypassing regulations even without customs. I guess the concern is not security so much, because right now the UK is trusting RoI to handle that on that border as it is. That part doesn't change. Anyone coming into RoI can get into the UK today, so if that's the case after a hard brexit with no NI border, nothing has changed.

In terms of taxes, the US has some experience with different taxes in different areas where there is no customs control. Oregon, for example, has no state sales tax. California does. So if you buy a product in Oregon you can get it 10% cheaper than California. The two states share a border and, though I did say some inspection happens, ironically it does not happen to catch sales tax cheats.

Companies don't cheat the system because they want to maintain a business operation license and not be taken to court by states and bankrupted. Individuals also have trouble pulling off the cheat because you'll get caught one way or another. I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, it definitely does, but it's marginalized, despite a 10% price difference and no customs.

Edit 2:

I guess technically the CA state sales tax is 7.25%, but for all residents of LA for example (I don't know about SF, but that seems likely too), it's 10%.

 

[Liquid]

Yea, seems like a great win for NI

It does seem like one but Loyalists in Northern Ireland would rather shoot themselves in the foot and be a bankrupt joke that cannot govern itself rather than be at a prosperous economic and financial advantage alongside the Republic with which it must share the island.

They'll be very, very cross if that is what happens. Just... because. It hurts to ask why.

 

[Touring Mars]

Except that you get one in the case of independence too. Either way there's a border with the EU, it's just that in one case Scotland gets the special EU/UK market bonus along with NI.

But this is where it gets complicated for the Scottish nationalists, because they have committed to 'no hard border' between England and Scotland - but, this doesn't sit well with their own demand of staying in the EU Single Market. The SNP (Scottish nationalists) argue that leaving the Single Market will cost Scotland up to 100,000 jobs - but they don't say how many more jobs could be lost by staying in the EU Single Market at the expense of leaving the UK's domestic market, which accounts for some 61% of all Scottish trade and on which over 500,000 jobs directly depend.

Ironically, there's a danger here that if the Brexiteers get their way and the Irish border issue is ultimately resolved using 'alternative arrangements' (mainly technological solutions to dispense with the need for a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), then the SNP will seize upon this as a credible plan for avoiding a hard border between Scotland and England. This would rob the anti-independence campaign of a key argument - the prospect of border controls between Scotland and England. But, a physical border would be the least of our worries - the real danger (to the economy and to jobs in Scotland) would be the imposition of tariffs on Scottish-UK trade, which would be entirely out of our control (as Scotland's trade policy would be entirely dictated by Brussels). Given the prospect of a stalemate between the EU and the UK, and hence no trade deal, the chances of Scotland having to trade with the rest of the UK with punitive EU tariffs would probably cripple the Scottish economy...

 

[Danoff]

Ironically, there's a danger here that if the Brexiteers get their way and the Irish border issue is ultimately resolved using 'alternative arrangements' (mainly technological solutions to dispense with the need for a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), then the SNP will seize upon this as a credible plan for avoiding a hard border between Scotland and England. This would rob the anti-independence campaign of a key argument - the prospect of border controls between Scotland and England. But, a physical border would be the least of our worries - the real danger (to the economy and to jobs in Scotland) would be the imposition of tariffs on Scottish-UK trade, which would be entirely out of our control (as Scotland's trade policy would be entirely dictated by Brussels). Given the prospect of a stalemate between the EU and the UK, and hence no trade deal, the chances of Scotland having to trade with the rest of the UK with punitive EU tariffs would probably cripple the Scottish economy...

Seems like that's the main anti-independence argument. It seems like Scotland is in a position to essentially barter remaining in the UK for being able to remain in the EU as well. Boon for the economy and all, and hopefully some sort of "alternative arrangement" can handle the border smoothly enough.

Honestly, I still don't get all the apprehension over having a "hard border". It can be done quite painlessly. Hong Kong and China are quite at odds with one another, and yet passports, customs, even screening for illness, was done in a matter of minutes at a hard border checkpoint. In fact, Hong Kong drives on the other side of the road and it still was no biggie to move between them. Granted I had commissioned a taxi that was pre-licensed to be in both places to take me across. I don't know how hard that is to do for your own car.

 

[PocketZeven]

I know its said multiple times, but it is the best proof on how a referendum on issues like these is a bad idea. The mass are uninformed and vote out of emotion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I know its said multiple times, but it is the best proof on how a referendum on issues like these is a bad idea. The mass are uninformed and vote out of emotion.

I disagreed with the majority in the referendum but it was a legal vote. Not that I think that means much now, we know much more than we did and we've been trusted to vote on the government twice in the three years since the EU Referendum, I think the question should be returned to the people.

What's more (sorry @Touring Mars), I still think the options should be Remain, Leave - Deal, Leave - No Deal with both Leave votes counting (obviously) to an overall Leave mandate. As it is the preferred path of the Prime Minister simply has no mandate as he promised on many occasions that No Deal was not an option.

 

[Touring Mars]

What's more (sorry @Touring Mars), I still think the options should be Remain, Leave - Deal, Leave - No Deal with both Leave votes counting (obviously) to an overall Leave mandate. As it is the preferred path of the Prime Minister simply has no mandate as he promised on many occasions that No Deal was not an option.

If there was a three-way split question, how would you decide the winner?

Example:

Remain - 48%
Leave with WA deal - 22%
Leave with no deal - 30%

It would be easy to see how Remain could claim that as a win; but, would it be Remain 48% - Leave 52%, therefore Leave wins (again), and then 'No Deal' is more favoured that the WA, so we'd go with No Deal? Arguably, 30% popular support is not enough to call it a resounding 'mandate', but it seems fairer than splitting the Leave vote while not splitting the Remain vote.

I think a fairer option is a straight referendum on how to leave - sign the WA or leave with No Deal... and then legislate to force Parliament to implement the result.

 

[Danoff]

Just checked Costco (upscale walmart) this weekend. Non-frozen chicken breast, no-antibiotics, no-steroids is $3/lb. That's not "air chilled" and it's not necessarily "vegetarian fed" and it's not necessarily "cage free".

 

[PocketZeven]

If there was a three-way split question, how would you decide the winner?

Example:

Remain - 48%
Leave with WA deal - 22%
Leave with no deal - 30%

It would be easy to see how Remain could claim that as a win; but, would it be Remain 48% - Leave 52%, therefore Leave wins (again), and then 'No Deal' is more favoured that the WA, so we'd go with No Deal? Arguably, 30% popular support is not enough to call it a resounding 'mandate', but it seems fairer than splitting the Leave vote while not splitting the Remain vote.

I think a fairer option is a straight referendum on how to leave - sign the WA or leave with No Deal... and then legislate to force Parliament to implement the result.

Referendums are a bad idea. Uninformed people make bad choices and stupid people make stupid choices. Only the elected people in the house should have voted for it. Thats how the system should work.

edit: fixed spelling

 

[TenEightyOne]

Referendums are a bad idea. Uninformed people make bad choices and stupid people make stupid choices. Only the elected people in the house should have voted for it.

You can't trust the people to return representatives but not trust them with any other decision, even if you don't like the outcome.

 

[PzR Slim]

Rudd quits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49623737

 

[Novalee]

Rudd quits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49623737

yes the house of cards might fall now . lots on tension i bet .