Brexit at Glasto?

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think there is a majority for Norway (possibly the only thing there is a majority for) - even gove was floating it a while ago (it appeals to ERG, though they may not admit it, over May's deal because it avoids you falling into the backstop, so they live to fight another day) - so you just sell it as 'Norway for now' - appeals to remain tories and some leavers. 

If it fails to gain traction then the only other options are general election (whick I wouldn't be surprised if May ends up going for) or May's deal plus referendum. 

The ERG objection to the backstop is that it might permanently tie us into a customs union with the EU. Norway permanently ties us in to membership of the EU single market (so presumably customs union too) and also requires we adopt freedom of movement. And pay for it.

I'm in favour of the Norway+++ model, where we get to stay in the single market, but also have influence over that market, and adopt freedom of movement but with the ability to deport anyone remaining in the country after 3 months if they don't have suitable employment, and pay towards the EU but only half as much as everyone else.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As i've already pointed out, I fully accept holding out as a strategy.

But holding out cannot be the strategy when the vote is happening anyway. Whatever they do, they influence what is really playing out.

Is the vote happening though? It's a vote on amendment to something else, not a PV motion on its own. I can see both sides here.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I merely assume that it would be more rational than the first vote, because the circumstances would make that happen.

Leave wouldn't be able to promise everything to everyone as they did the first time, because what was on offer (no-deal, May's deal, whatever) would already be defined.

You've become quite optimistic Neil? they'll be pumping out the same old shit and the people will lap it up!

[frostypaw]

Can I just say it's nice to see this conversation going on with people who are aware that Labour has an agreed plan they're following. I have spent an inordinate amount of time referring people to it as they've repeatedly OMG'ded at each step.

Not that I entirely agree with it, but the shock-nonsense just ruins sensible discussion.

The nature and necessity of the "backstop" still eludes too many. I think it needs a new name "anti-terror threat obviously legally required fudge factor" - doesn't quite trip off the tongue and sound like the EU are forcing it on us tho ?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I could be wrong but the backstop is only activated if a new deal can't be agreed upon.

that's correct.

 

Quote

As the EU would prefer Norway over the backstop, an agreement to that effect is much more likely to be successful thus avoiding the backstop being activated.

again, that's correct.

So tell me (again, as you did just above) why the ERG would back a scenario that guaranteed they got nothing of what they want, with even less chance than they'd have from May's deal?

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by eFestivals

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The ERG objection to the backstop is that it might permanently tie us into a customs union with the EU. Norway permanently ties us in to membership of the EU single market (so presumably customs union too) and also requires we adopt freedom of movement. And pay for it.

 

If they strike a Norway+ deal, then the backstop never gets activated, so likely the Norway deal would have a normal (albeit protracted) unilateral exit mechanism (like triggering article 50), which is what might make it more appealing to a few of the brexiteers (like Gove) 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, frostypaw said:

Can I just say it's nice to see this conversation going on with people who are aware that Labour has an agreed plan they're following. I have spent an inordinate amount of time referring people to it as they've repeatedly OMG'ded at each step.

Not that I entirely agree with it, but the shock-nonsense just ruins sensible discussion.

The nature and necessity of the "backstop" still eludes too many. I think it needs a new name "anti-terror threat obviously legally required fudge factor" - doesn't quite trip off the tongue and sound like the EU are forcing it on us tho ?

It's somewhat ironic if you look back at when the "negotiations" started. Literally the only thing everyone agreed on, and one of the first things agreed (along with rights of existing residents) was that under no circumstances should we have a hard border in Ireland. Everyone patted themselves on the back at the time that they'd been able to find common ground. Then a couple of months out it becomes the sticking point of the entire thing.

You're right on the naming but it's simpler than that "I'm against the backstop" means "I think a hard border in Ireland should be kept on the table". That's literally what it means. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

You've become quite optimistic Neil? they'll be pumping out the same old shit and the people will lap it up!

I'm sure they'll try to pump out the same shit and that many will lap it up. After all, there's plenty who aren't having their minds changed in any circumstances anyway.

But that doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore reality, and it also means journos and the like are able to keep hauling them back to reality and challenge the porkies.

It won't be the same as last time. It might not be hugely better but it will be better by the very nature of voting in favour of something rather than against.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

If they strike a Norway+ deal, then the backstop never gets activated, so likely the Norway deal would have a normal (albeit protracted) unilateral exit mechanism (like triggering article 50), which is what might make it more appealing to a few of the brexiteers (like Gove) 

But any such exit mechanism would create a hard border in Northern Ireland when enacted. So you'd have to account for that in the exit mechanism. Presumably via some sort of back stop.

Edited March 14, 2019 by DeanoL

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's correct.

 

again, that's correct.

So tell me (again, as you did just above) why the ERG would back a scenario that guaranteed they got nothing of what they want, with even less chance than they'd have from May's deal?

 

Because it would have a unilateral exit mechanism (at least I'm presuming Norway does) - they're whole problem with May's deal is the backstop locking them in and stopping their wider agenda 

[Mr.Tease]

7 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Can I just say it's nice to see this conversation going on with people who are aware that Labour has an agreed plan they're following. 

?

And I'm participating in it from Cambodia as I'm in the midst of a trip through Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand but seem to have found the allure of the brexit news too intoxicating to resist! ?

[zahidf]

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

Because it would have a unilateral exit mechanism (at least I'm presuming Norway does) - they're whole problem with May's deal is the backstop locking them in and stopping their wider agenda 

but it introduces new problems, of a customs union and FoM and EU rules and ECJ oversight that the ERG will never accept.

Plus there wouldn't be an exit mechanism any different to now, they'd merely be greater likelihood of agreement and so that exit - but an exit to all the things the ERG don't want. For the ERG May's deal is hugely better.

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But any such exit mechanism would create a hard border in Northern Ireland when enacted. So you'd have to account for that in the exit mechanism. Presumably via some sort of back stop.

Backstop was a precondition for negotiations on a future relationship, not sure you can justify one if you've actually agreed the future relationship. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Backstop was a precondition for negotiations on a future relationship, not sure you can justify one if you've actually agreed the future relationship. 

We cannot agree the future relationship until after leaving the EU.

And we leave the EU with an withdrawal agreement, a withdrawal agreement that will always contain the backstop.

Because if there wasn't the backstop, we could turn round after leaving and say we want a different relationship where a border goes up in Ireland.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Backstop was a precondition for negotiations on a future relationship, not sure you can justify one if you've actually agreed the future relationship. 

But all it does is kick the problem down the road.

The point of the backstop is to guarantee that there will be no border in Ireland, and to ensure that neither side tries to use that as a negotiating ploy.

If we agree now on a Norway model, especially "Norway for now" then you don't need a backstop as such, because you already have a customs union so no reason to guarantee one. 

But equally if we ever leave that model, then the issue of the NI border comes up again. It's not the backstop actually tying us to a closer relationship in Europe. It's not wanting to have a land border in Ireland. Backstop is just an expression of that intent. 

So yeah, you could have a way of leaving that Norway arrangement, but that would have the same issues as the current agreement.

[Mr.Tease]

For those optimistic about how people might vote in a referendum :

https://www.twitter.com/YouGov/status/1106188992339419136

Yep, people oppose even extending article 50 despite it literally being the only way you get any deal other than no deal, or even time to prep a no deal. That kind of willful ignorance is what you'd  be up against in a second referendum. 

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If we agree now on a Norway model, especially "Norway for now" then you don't need a backstop as such, because you already have a customs union so no reason to guarantee one. 

that's not technically possible.

Talks on future trade arrangements cannot happen until after we've left the EU, as a matter of EU law.

We leave the EU on a withdrawal agreement, and that WA *has to* include a backstop because we could change our mind on the future relationship after we've left the EU.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

Sounds like a complete Fuck up

We might not agree with the strategy, but it makes sense - they don't think the time is (yet) right to try for a second referendum, so rather than simply lose the vote, they want to de-legitimise it by abstaining, with the hope of having a proper go at it later.

Whether that's a good approach, I'm fucked if I know.

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

For those optimistic about how people might vote in a referendum :

https://www.twitter.com/YouGov/status/1106188992339419136

Yep, people oppose even extending article 50 despite it literally being the only way you get any deal other than no deal, or even time to prep a no deal. That kind of willful ignorance is what you'd  be up against in a second referendum. 

 

 

People want brexit to go away. Right now they think it goes away by doing something now.

And just because they might want something to happen now doesn't get to mean they'll vote against if given another vote. People are able to look at these things separately, and polling suggests that they do.

[Scott129]

Has the People's Vote campaign actually succeeded in changing the opinion of anyone who voted leave last time? It seems to all they've succeeded in doing is making remainers angrier about the result. Remain may well win a second ref because of demographic change but it certainly wouldn't be the emphatic win required to put this whole thing to a bed. 

I'm torn on what option I want, I just know I don't want to be talking about brexit for the nxt 3 years.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Has the People's Vote campaign actually succeeded in changing the opinion of anyone who voted leave last time? It seems to all they've succeeded in doing is making remainers angrier about the result. Remain may well win a second ref because of demographic change but it certainly wouldn't be the emphatic win required to put this whole thing to a bed. 

actually, it might be more emphatic than you're thinking. 

When polling has asked questions on specific leave options (rather than a generic undefined 'leave') versus remain, remain has tended to win with 60%+ of the vote.

There might be a majority of leavers, but there  doesn't appear to be a majority who will accept the same version of leave in preference to remaining.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I'm torn on what option I want, I just know I don't want to be talking about brexit for the nxt 3 years.

anything apart from remaining is guaranteed to have brexit dominating the news for the next 3+ years.

[Scott129]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

actually, it might be more emphatic than you're thinking. 

When polling has asked questions on specific leave options (rather than a generic undefined 'leave') versus remain, remain has tended to win with 60%+ of the vote.

There might be a majority of leavers, but there  doesn't appear to be a majority who will accept the same version of leave in preference to remaining.

 

anything apart from remaining is guaranteed to have brexit dominating the news for the next 3+ years.

Is that partly because of a split in the leave vote right now though? E.g. "I wouldn't vote for Mays deal because I want no deal" but if one leave option v remain was on the ballott they would vote for the leave option. 

I personally feel it'd be very tight again but probably the other way and we would have years of talk of betrayal and disillusioned voters. Whereas if we say left but stayed in a permanent customs union, yes you would have the extremist still kicking off (5-10% maybe) but most would accept that as a compromise I think personally. 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that's not technically possible.

Talks on future trade arrangements cannot happen until after we've left the EU, as a matter of EU law.

We leave the EU on a withdrawal agreement, and that WA *has to* include a backstop because we could change our mind on the future relationship after we've left the EU.

Does that actually apply if we choose an off the shelf model like Norway?

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Scott129 said:

Has the People's Vote campaign actually succeeded in changing the opinion of anyone who voted leave last time? It seems to all they've succeeded in doing is making remainers angrier about the result. Remain may well win a second ref because of demographic change but it certainly wouldn't be the emphatic win required to put this whole thing to a bed. 

I'm torn on what option I want, I just know I don't want to be talking about brexit for the nxt 3 years.

That’s never been their intent. They just want to win the vote first.

Polling is quite weird on this too. A lot of remainers are saying they would vote leave to pollsters as they simply think the original result should be respected, and there shouldn’t be another referendum. If there actually was another referendum, that would be quite different (as it would be as “legit” as the first).

 

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Is that partly because of a split in the leave vote right now though? E.g. "I wouldn't vote for Mays deal because I want no deal" but if one leave option v remain was on the ballott they would vote for the leave option. 

supposedly not. Even the likes of Boris has said he'd rather remain than have May's deal; in those brexiters own terms it's a reasoned decision.

 

27 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I personally feel it'd be very tight again but probably the other way and we would have years of talk of betrayal and disillusioned voters. Whereas if we say left but stayed in a permanent customs union, yes you would have the extremist still kicking off (5-10% maybe) but most would accept that as a compromise I think personally. 

Whatever we do there's going to be talk of betrayal and disillusioned voters, so we shouldn't let these ideas intrude too much. There's no perfect outcome that can put everything back where it was, and whatever the outcome some people are going to be deeply unhappy.

But quiet realistically, it cannot really be a betrayal if the public decides that it doesn't want to brexit after all, because it will the public's updated decision.

And we need that updated decision because what the first vote was wanting wasn't clear, and neither was it clear what leaving might really look like.

It can't be a bad thing to make a more-informed and more-certain decision, even if that decision goes the way I don't want it to.