RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: No deal consistently polled higher. The poll results I were looking at didn’t have any other Brexit options. 36% was of the country as a whole, both vs no deal and vs Remain.

36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

But only when there was no third option. So vs no deal it would get the Remain voter and vs Remain it would get the no deal voter. When up against both no deal and Remain it polled 17% at best and almost always behind no deal.

Wasn't that as much a case of marketing though? I mean, No Deal is horrendous, but as you've noted it's got some popularity because people like Rees-Mogg, Farage, and Johnson have sold it as being both brilliant and the only true Brexit.

Not that May's deal has anything much to recommend it either, but I don't think it's lack of popularity is based on a detailed and forensic assessment of its strengths and weaknesses by the populace at large.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

But only when there was no third option. So vs no deal it would get the Remain voter and vs Remain it would get the no deal voter. When up against both no deal and Remain it polled 17% at best and almost always behind no deal.

Wasn't that as much a case of marketing though? I mean, No Deal is horrendous, but as you've noted it's got some popularity because people like Rees-Mogg, Farage, and Johnson have sold it as being both brilliant and the only true Brexit.

Not that May's deal has anything much to recommend it either, but I don't think it's lack of popularity is based on a detailed and forensic assessment of its strengths and weaknesses by the populace at large.

Puja

Don’t know but that’s not really my point. My point was that you can’t package up any old Brexit deal and please/dupe Leavers.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

That would be about the least safe assumption ever made. Given that plenty voted for the promised Norway+ and plenty voted "fuck you Cameron"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49598118

"Boris Johnson has said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than ask the EU to delay Brexit beyond 31 October."

Because that's going to give his opponents faith that he'd abide by the law when the current bill passes!

After that, no way can labour or the SNP accept a GE before the summit. They'll need to see the extension request put in, not be vetoed, and if accepted, ratified by ourselves before they can risk that.

If BJ refuses, then he's breaking the law, and that seems reasonabky straight forward; which leaves him resigning as his only viable option if they don't take the election bait.
Who takes over then? Leadsom? Or a new vote of the 160,000? Or are we into GNU territory?

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

That would be about the least safe assumption ever made. Given that plenty voted for the promised Norway+ and plenty voted "fuck you Cameron"

Neither of which are leave in nothing but name.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

That would be about the least safe assumption ever made. Given that plenty voted for the promised Norway+ and plenty voted "fuck you Cameron"

Neither of which are leave in nothing but name.

You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

Nobody is saying we will not have access to the Single Market. Norway, Norway, Norway.

The above being strong talking points of many, though not all, of the vote Leave campaign. The rest was foreigners are bad, brown ones and muslims especially so, some nonsense about fishing rights which even if accurate is sod all vs financial services, and a load of bollocks on how much we spend on the EU whilst ignoring the benefits rather outweigh the actual and fictitious costs

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: That would be about the least safe assumption ever made. Given that plenty voted for the promised Norway+ and plenty voted "fuck you Cameron"

Neither of which are leave in nothing but name.

You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

No. My point was you can’t dress any old deal up as Brexit and just expect it to please the Brexiteers. SofM suggested you could dupe Leavers just by telling them we’d left when still being in the SM, CU and all the various EU programmes whilst not having a seat at the table. This was part of my argument that I think that highly, highly unlikely. It was a discussion running concurrently to the post I replied to.
If you think people walked into the polling booth and voted leave hoping they’d stay in all the mechanisms, bodies and markets whilst losing their seat at the table then fine. I’m pretty certain they didn’t.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: No deal consistently polled higher. The poll results I were looking at didn’t have any other Brexit options. 36% was of the country as a whole, both vs no deal and vs Remain.

36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

But only when there was no third option. So vs no deal it would get the Remain voter and vs Remain it would get the no deal voter. When up against both no deal and Remain it polled 17% at best and almost always behind no deal.

Okay... we are working on patchy information at best, but if it was 17%, then that equates to something like 34% of the leavers, ie in this hugely rough back of an envelope calculation, a third of them.
I was saying "You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy." In the case of the WA, a third of them would be happy with that particular version of Brexit. "Plenty" doesn't seem like a bad word to use.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Neither of which are leave in nothing but name.

You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

No. My point was you can’t dress any old deal up as Brexit and just expect it to please the Brexiteers. SofM suggested you could dupe Leavers just by telling them we’d left when still being in the SM, CU and all the various EU programmes whilst not having a seat at the table. This was part of my argument that I think that highly, highly unlikely. It was a discussion running concurrently to the post I replied to.
If you think people walked into the polling booth and voted leave hoping they’d stay in all the mechanisms, bodies and markets whilst losing their seat at the table then fine. I’m pretty certain they didn’t.

I'm not saying dupe them. I think plenty of them would be happy-ish with any kind of Brexit (a lot of them can't even articulate the differences between different versions anyway). And happy-ish is a perfectly good compromise outcome.

Seriously, the Brexiteers I know are just saying "where's my Brexit?" That the offer on the table has moved from the WA to No Deal appears to make no difference to them. (Yeah, I know it's just anecdote, but what the hell )

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

But only when there was no third option. So vs no deal it would get the Remain voter and vs Remain it would get the no deal voter. When up against both no deal and Remain it polled 17% at best and almost always behind no deal.

Okay... we are working on patchy information at best, but if it was 17%, then that equates to something like 34% of the leavers, ie in this hugely rough back of an envelope calculation, a third of them.
I was saying "You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy." In the case of the WA, a third of them would be happy with that particular version of Brexit. "Plenty" doesn't seem like a bad word to use.

I know this is Rugby Rebels but I’m not getting into an argument over the meaning of plenty
I don’t think the softest of soft Brexits would satisfy Leavers, you do. Unless one of us decides to study for a doctorate on the subject I doubt we’ll find out the truth!

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

No. My point was you can’t dress any old deal up as Brexit and just expect it to please the Brexiteers. SofM suggested you could dupe Leavers just by telling them we’d left when still being in the SM, CU and all the various EU programmes whilst not having a seat at the table. This was part of my argument that I think that highly, highly unlikely. It was a discussion running concurrently to the post I replied to.
If you think people walked into the polling booth and voted leave hoping they’d stay in all the mechanisms, bodies and markets whilst losing their seat at the table then fine. I’m pretty certain they didn’t.

I'm not saying dupe them. I think plenty of them would be happy-ish with any kind of Brexit (a lot of them can't even articulate the differences between different versions anyway). And happy-ish is a perfectly good compromise outcome.

Seriously, the Brexiteers I know are just saying "where's my Brexit?" That the offer on the table has moved from the WA to No Deal appears to make no difference to them. (Yeah, I know it's just anecdote, but what the hell )

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you said. As previous, I doubt it would work and, personally, I think it’s the worst possible outcome. As Puja says, a lot hang off every word uttered by Farage, Baker, JRM etc and would therefore never be happy with Brino just because one of the ‘Spartans’ (what a fecking ridiculous title that is) told them it wasn’t good enough.

I think it's the other way around, there are plenty of lazy, racist simpletons and they're delighted to have someone pander to their absurd views, it doesn't matter to them if it's Farage, JRM and Baker or some other bunch of pricks

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Neither of which are leave in nothing but name.

You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

No. My point was you can’t dress any old deal up as Brexit and just expect it to please the Brexiteers. SofM suggested you could dupe Leavers just by telling them we’d left when still being in the SM, CU and all the various EU programmes whilst not having a seat at the table. This was part of my argument that I think that highly, highly unlikely. It was a discussion running concurrently to the post I replied to.
If you think people walked into the polling booth and voted leave hoping they’d stay in all the mechanisms, bodies and markets whilst losing their seat at the table then fine. I’m pretty certain they didn’t.

We've had this discussion several times over the last few years. You've been wrong each time. It's not even a matter of opinion.
People campaigned for Norway +.
People voted for Norway +.
Those people would be happy with Norway +.

If you want to rephrase Norway + as BRINO when it suits you, but instantly not BRINO in the very next post, then feel free. It's called discussing in bad faith.
You may be certain that the above facts are wrong. But you'd be wrong about it.

"Leavers" is a broad church, covering literally everything from "I don't want to leave, but fuck off Cameron" through "Norway+", various other "soft" Brexits right through "No Deal is better than any deal". It is literally impossible to please all of those people, and utterly foolish to try.

I see no reason to believe that a deal that brought along the 48% who don't want brexit, the X% who voted as a protest and Y% who want fhe much promised and much discussed "Norway +" would probably gain a majority, even now, but especially before the 3 years of entrenchment and division.
You dont, because you seem to believe that no-one voted for the things they said they voted for, and were promised that their vote would produce. Which makes you disingenuous at best.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: You were quoting someone talking about a Norway style deal.
Gives the impression that that's your own equivalence

No. My point was you can’t dress any old deal up as Brexit and just expect it to please the Brexiteers. SofM suggested you could dupe Leavers just by telling them we’d left when still being in the SM, CU and all the various EU programmes whilst not having a seat at the table. This was part of my argument that I think that highly, highly unlikely. It was a discussion running concurrently to the post I replied to.
If you think people walked into the polling booth and voted leave hoping they’d stay in all the mechanisms, bodies and markets whilst losing their seat at the table then fine. I’m pretty certain they didn’t.

We've had this discussion several times over the last few years. You've been wrong each time. It's not even a matter of opinion.
People campaigned for Norway +.
People voted for Norway +.
Those people would be happy with Norway +.

If you want to rephrase Norway + as BRINO when it suits you, but instantly not BRINO in the very next post, then feel free. It's called discussing in bad faith.
You may be certain that the above facts are wrong. But you'd be wrong about it.

"Leavers" is a broad church, covering literally everything from "I don't want to leave, but fuck off Cameron" through "Norway+", various other "soft" Brexits right through "No Deal is better than any deal". It is literally impossible to please all of those people, and utterly foolish to try.

I see no reason to believe that a deal that brought along the 48% who don't want brexit, the X% who voted as a protest and Y% who want fhe much promised and much discussed "Norway +" would probably gain a majority, even now, but especially before the 3 years of entrenchment and division.
You dont, because you seem to believe that no-one voted for the things they said they voted for, and were promised that their vote would produce. Which makes you disingenuous at best.

Kudos for having such certainty, which seems misplaced for someone who didn’t realise that FTAs don’t have to involve complete regulatory alignment. You seem to have completely missed the point of my discussion with SofM which had run previous to my post you seem fixated on. At no point have I equated Norway to brino. Note that SofM said ‘Norway style’ not Norway+, ie you’ve introduced Norway+ to the discussion. In fact, in a previous post I’d suggested Boles as a cross party leader due, in part, to his suggestion of Common Market 2.0 which is based on the Norway model. So, I’m actually agreeing with you in part which must conflicting for you as I’m always wrong.
To repeat, SofM suggested we could stay in the CU, SM and all the EU institutions but technically leave the EU and Leavers would be happy. That is not Norway. Norway aren’t in the CU, CAP, CFP or ECJ.
I’ll leave this now as it’s pointless.

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

There is also the idea that he could discharge the requirement of this bill by asking for an extension and then (in full irony mode) use the UK’s veto to stop the EU granting the extension.

canta_brian wrote:

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

There is also the idea that he could discharge the requirement of this bill by asking for an extension and then (in full irony mode) use the UK’s veto to stop the EU granting the extension.

I thought that the suggestion that UK could veto the extension had already been shot down?

Stones of granite wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

There is also the idea that he could discharge the requirement of this bill by asking for an extension and then (in full irony mode) use the UK’s veto to stop the EU granting the extension.

I thought that the suggestion that UK could veto the extension had already been shot down?

Has it? I must have missed that. That is good then.

canta_brian wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
There is also the idea that he could discharge the requirement of this bill by asking for an extension and then (in full irony mode) use the UK’s veto to stop the EU granting the extension.

I thought that the suggestion that UK could veto the extension had already been shot down?

Has it? I must have missed that. That is good then.

Me too, but shouldn't think BoJo has even thought of it.

We will be having this same debate in two years, as country slowly disappears down the plughole. Even though I am a staunch remainer, I was siding on the 'we need to get on and leave smoothly' camp, so we could sort the worsening domestic situation out; now, fck knows, Given that parliament imo will never get on side with any sort of compromise, and likely demand oversight on the transition period discussions and vote on everything (should we even get a modified WA with more in the declaration and backstop commitments that work) if we even get there, we could be paralysed for years with minority govts in and out alongside three independence referendums, or more (think Cambridge and London could declare UDI and join the EU ), I'm thinking bollox, revoke A50 and have an election. Problem is that the Brexit party would then win about 40% of the vote.

I've clearly gone mad.

Mellsblue wrote:I know this is Rugby Rebels but I’m not getting into an argument over the meaning of plenty
I don’t think the softest of soft Brexits would satisfy Leavers, you do. Unless one of us decides to study for a doctorate on the subject I doubt we’ll find out the truth!

Damn, I thought we could have got at least a couple more pages out of that.

A soft Brexit won't satisfy all leavers but it might well satisfy enough of them.

Hopefully, the media having noticed and published (and us spreading) this means that it won't happen; but...

Anyone protesting today - stay safe.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 95161.html

Brexit: Far-right groups threaten to riot at London protests as Boris Johnson warned over language
‘It’s time to f*** s*** up,’ extremists threaten after parliament moves to block no-deal Brexit

Also, someone made this, not an original comparison, but well put together.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I know this is Rugby Rebels but I’m not getting into an argument over the meaning of plenty
I don’t think the softest of soft Brexits would satisfy Leavers, you do. Unless one of us decides to study for a doctorate on the subject I doubt we’ll find out the truth!

Damn, I thought we could have got at least a couple more pages out of that.

A soft Brexit won't satisfy all leavers but it might well satisfy enough of them.

I’m up for giving it a go!!

I’m sure it will. I think something along the lines of Common Market 2.0 would be acceptable. It is pretty much what the official Leave campaign stood on and gets you out of most of the mechanisms and institutions that piss people off, ie the ones I listed when showing WT I didn’t think Norway = brino. My disagreement with you was that you couldn’t leave the EU but stay in the CU, SM, CAP, CFP etc etc and please most/enough/plenty Leavers. Another good thing about Common Market 2.0 is that it keeps freedom of movement which is the thing that seems to have emotionally affected people the most. Stom is rightly worried about it and it’s causing my mother in law (and therefore my wife and therefore me), and all the other expats she knows in France, a lot of stress.

Before anyone picks me up on the fact that I’ve argued there should be no need for compromise. I still believe that if you lose a vote (which I did) then you lose, and I still believe that Canada++ would be closest to what Leave campaigned on. Admittedly, there is ambiguity on whether that included staying in the SM depending on who you listened to!! However, if Canada++ isn’t acceptable, and it may have now been ruled out unilaterally and seemingly out of nowhere by Macron, and freedom of movement is, rightly, such a big concern then I think Common Market 2.0 should tick enough of the boxes for Leavers. Plus, as mentioned above, there were those such as Hannan who said that Brexit didn’t mean leaving the SM. Though, a lot of Leavers think he’s an idiot and thoroughly wrong on every other point he makes!

Al that must gives us at least enough for another page

canta_brian wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
There is also the idea that he could discharge the requirement of this bill by asking for an extension and then (in full irony mode) use the UK’s veto to stop the EU granting the extension.

I thought that the suggestion that UK could veto the extension had already been shot down?

Has it? I must have missed that. That is good then.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I thought that the suggestion that UK could veto the extension had already been shot down?

Has it? I must have missed that. That is good then.

Thank you - makes perfect sense, but you never know with these things