Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[redsquirrel]

Tory-owned YouGov gives theTories a 7-point lead in their latest poll, while Survation has an entirely different result

I'm not sure that it is owned by a Tory anymore. But regardless the implication that YouGov are biased is nonsense, it's shown Con leads and Lab leads. Whether the Con lead it's currently predicting is correct or not is not down to some conscious Tory bias.

Are these the same Polls that said
Clinton would win
more people would vote to remain in EU vote
Corbyn would be in No 10

Wrong, partly wrong and wrong.

 

[Raheem]

Are these the same Polls that said
Clinton would win
more people would vote to remain in EU vote
Corbyn would be in No 10

Do you sometimes have dreams about reading poll data?

 

[The39thStep]

Apparantly there's another au pair shortage . Aside from these positions not being eligible for the minimum wage or holidays , record low unemployment in the Eastern European economies , large expansion in au pairs in China , recent high publicity murder of an au pair in London , The Guardians put it down to Brexit .

 

[gosub]

Apparantly there's another au pair shortage . Aside from these positions not being eligible for the minimum wage or holidays , record low unemployment in the Eastern European economies , large expansion in au pairs in China , recent high publicity murder of an au pair in London , The Guardians put it down to Brexit .

My mistake... It is end of days

 

[billbond]

Do you sometimes have dreams about reading poll data?

No
Never been a dreamer tbh unlike some

 

[Pickman's model]

No
Never been a dreamer tbh unlike some

You should consult a doctor then

 

[billbond]

You should consult a doctor then

Have not seen one for over two decades
Doctors are for wimps, some say

 

[Pickman's model]

Have not seen one for over two decades
Doctors are for wimps, some say

yeh in that case surprised you're not a constant presence in your gp's surgery

On Monday you should check you're still registered with a doctor

 

[billbond]

yeh in that case surprised you're not a constant presence in your gp's surgery

On Monday you should check you're still registered with a doctor

Actually you have a point now i think about it
I will take that on board, good advice
I moved 9 years ago and have not changed my Doctor.
Only typing this now has made me think i need to act, which i will.
I salute you

 

[agricola]

If anyone still has any tiny violins left after the events of this week:

Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who bankrolled Nigel Farage’s campaign to quit the EU, had multiple meetings with Russian embassy officials in the run-up to the Brexit referendum, documents seen by the Observer suggest.

Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.

The communications suggest:

• Multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
  
• Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
  
• An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
  
• A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
  
• Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.

Banks and Wigmore – who was also present at many of the meetings – were due to appear before the select committee for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday to answer questions about Leave.EU’s role in the European referendum.

from here (and also in the Sunday Times, apparently)

 

[Badgers]

 

[Badgers]

 

[redsquirrel]

...

And? What point are you making? You think he's lying? You think the Russians stole the election? What?

 

[Badgers]

And? What point are you making? You think he's lying? You think the Russians stole the election? What?

Just that I think he is a cunt

 

[The39thStep]

Farmer pays for migrant workers’ flights to Britain Farmer pays for migrant workers’ flights to Britain
Cheaper than paying the going rate to recruit workers in the UK or relocating abroad to take advanatge of cheap labour

 

[DotCommunist]

earlier some in the thread were taking time out of bemoaning how thick the general public are to express suprise at fortress europe's camps, but here's a piece from Malik in todays observer which talks about where the camps are located now.

The Sunday Essay: how we all colluded in Fortress Europe | Kenan Malik

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

How does a farm relocate abroad?

 

[Pickman's model]

How does a farm relocate abroad?

Move the border

 

[Badgers]

Move the border

The fishing industry will suffer

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Move the border

Tbf if we simply move the UK border to Russia in the east and the Med in the south I reckon we
could crack this whole Brexit business in one stylish move.

 

[not-bono-ever]

The fishing industry will suffer

the hanseatic league was based on herring- maybe this is the way forward.

 

[Riklet]

To Brexit and Beyond | Novara Media

Recent Novara radio show dedicated to Brexit, well worth a listen, as is their Quitaly episode about Brexit, the far right and failure of the left.

I cant stand this argument that no one knew what they were voting for, what kind of Brexit was never discussed etc. Just embarrassing.

 

[Pickman's model]

To Brexit and Beyond | Novara Media

Recent Novara radio show dedicated to Brexit, well worth a listen, as is their Quitaly episode about Brexit, the far right and failure of the left.

I cant stand this argument that no one knew what they were voting for, what kind of Brexit was never discussed etc. Just embarrassing.

No one voted for the shower of shit brexit we're getting, that's for sure

Unless you can point me toward someone who voted for a brexit negotiated by the numptiest numpties in all of numptyland

 

[Puddy_Tat]

the hanseatic league was based on herring- maybe this is the way forward.

vote ukipper

 

[ska invita]

No one voted for the shower of shit brexit we're getting, that's for sure

Unless you can point me toward someone who voted for a brexit negotiated by the numptiest numpties in all of numptyland

I don't go along with this incompetence line... How do you imagine "negotiations" having gone better?

 

[philosophical]

If people knew what they were voting for, as in control of the borders, how come none of them have told us their workable solution to the border on the island of Ireland?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I don't go along with this incompetence line... How do you imagine "negotiations" having gone better?

coming out of the corner fighting and making exaggerated (public) proclamations at the off didn't exactly set the stage for a subsequent constructive dialogue - entirely avoidable and displaying a complete lack of tact and diplomacy.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't go along with this incompetence line... How do you imagine "negotiations" having gone better?

*putting a constitutional hat on*

before we get to the negotiations, let's consider the constitution of the house of commons. the paper-thin majority theresa may enjoys has been supplied by probably the most reactionary party in parliament. the brexit majority was itself fairly narrow - hardly a resounding declaration for sundering all ties with europe. if i'd been theresa may i would have convened a constitutional conference to establish a negotiating position and vision for the future involving the labour party, lib dems, snp etc in the process, for the purposes of i) incorporating them into the decision-making process and easing its passage through parliament; ii) gaining the benefits of other people's ideas and outnumbering 'the bastards' within her own party, iii) this being a statesmanlike act which would hopefully lead on to g.e. success. it would be a clear example of putting country before party.

i wouldn't have put britain's most prominent liar in charge of foreign relations. i wouldn't have put david davis in charge of the negotiations. i would have found someone with the right qualifications, who had been involved in negotiations before, ennobled them and drawn on their expertise. i would have put article 50 through parliament after summoning the convention i mentioned, trumpeting it as an example of the westminster parliament exercising sovereignty, something we'd see a lot more of in future.

what we have is a brexit where the government doesn't have a negotiating position, where they've been repeatedly humiliated by the eu negotiators, where they've been embarrassed by repeated defeats in the lords, and where the tory party still has great divisions over europe which this entire pitiful exercise, if was intended to achieve anything, was expected to put to bed.

the narrowness of the brexit vote should have allowed a range of now-discarded options to be tabled, e.g. membership of efta, retaining membership of the eea or customs union etc. there was the possibility of arranging things so that the membership of the european union lapsed but that at least part of the hostile environment we're now familiar with was avoided. what we have is a position in which many of the worst aspects of this country have profited from the brexit process and many of the best have been sidelined. the way in which may has said 'no no no' has at every turn stoked support not for the conservative party but for reactionary racist and radical right groups: it is impossible to me to think that the current furore about stephen yaxley-lennon could have occurred without the atmosphere may has played such a role in creating.

if may was in any way competent she wouldn't have discarded so early options which could have played a role in healing differences over brexit, where the european union was itself left but ties to some of its programmes e.g. cultural and educational ones remained. she wouldn't have put some of britain's most mediocre minds in charge of our relationships with the eu and foreign powers. she wouldn't have created such great divisions within parliament, but worked to minimise them.

but then of course if she'd done anything competent that would have been out of keeping with her past career.

 

[philosophical]

*putting a constitutional hat on*

before we get to the negotiations, let's consider the constitution of the house of commons. the paper-thin majority theresa may enjoys has been supplied by probably the most reactionary party in parliament. the brexit majority was itself fairly narrow - hardly a resounding declaration for sundering all ties with europe. if i'd been theresa may i would have convened a constitutional conference to establish a negotiating position and vision for the future involving the labour party, lib dems, snp etc in the process, for the purposes of i) incorporating them into the decision-making process and easing its passage through parliament; ii) gaining the benefits of other people's ideas and outnumbering 'the bastards' within her own party, iii) this being a statesmanlike act which would hopefully lead on to g.e. success. it would be a clear example of putting country before party.

i wouldn't have put britain's most prominent liar in charge of foreign relations. i wouldn't have put david davis in charge of the negotiations. i would have found someone with the right qualifications, who had been involved in negotiations before, ennobled them and drawn on their expertise. i would have put article 50 through parliament after summoning the convention i mentioned, trumpeting it as an example of the westminster parliament exercising sovereignty, something we'd see a lot more of in future.

what we have is a brexit where the government doesn't have a negotiating position, where they've been repeatedly humilitated by the eu negotiators, where they've been embarrassed by repeated defeats in the lords, and where the tory party still has great divisions over europe which this entire pitiful exercise, if was intended to achieve anything, was expected to put to bed.

the narrowness of the brexit vote should have allowed a range of now-discarded options to be tabled, e.g. membership of efta, retaining membership of the eea or customs union etc. there was the possibility of arranging things so that the membership of the european union lapsed but that at least part of the hostile environment we're now familiar with was avoided. what we have is a position in which many of the worst aspects of this country have profited from the brexit process and many of the best have been sidelined. the way in which may has said 'no no no' has at every turn stoked support not for the conservative party but for reactionary racist and radical right groups: it is impossible to me to think that the current furore about stephen yaxley-lennon could have occurred without the atmosphere may has played such a role in creating.

if may was in any way competent she wouldn't have discarded so early options which could have played a role in healing differences over brexit, where the european union was itself left but ties to some of its programmes e.g. cultural and educational ones remained. she wouldn't have put some of britain's most mediocre minds in charge of our relationships with the eu and foreign powers. she wouldn't have created such great divisions within parliament, but worked to minimise them.

but then of course if she'd done anything competent that would have been out of keeping with her past career.

You and I disagree about nearly everything, but I want to say this is a very good post indeed.

 

[ska invita]

*putting a constitutional hat on*

before we get to the negotiations, let's consider the constitution of the house of commons. the paper-thin majority theresa may enjoys has been supplied by probably the most reactionary party in parliament. the brexit majority was itself fairly narrow - hardly a resounding declaration for sundering all ties with europe. if i'd been theresa may i would have convened a constitutional conference to establish a negotiating position and vision for the future involving the labour party, lib dems, snp etc in the process, for the purposes of i) incorporating them into the decision-making process and easing its passage through parliament; ii) gaining the benefits of other people's ideas and outnumbering 'the bastards' within her own party, iii) this being a statesmanlike act which would hopefully lead on to g.e. success. it would be a clear example of putting country before party.

i wouldn't have put britain's most prominent liar in charge of foreign relations. i wouldn't have put david davis in charge of the negotiations. i would have found someone with the right qualifications, who had been involved in negotiations before, ennobled them and drawn on their expertise. i would have put article 50 through parliament after summoning the convention i mentioned, trumpeting it as an example of the westminster parliament exercising sovereignty, something we'd see a lot more of in future.

what we have is a brexit where the government doesn't have a negotiating position, where they've been repeatedly humilitated by the eu negotiators, where they've been embarrassed by repeated defeats in the lords, and where the tory party still has great divisions over europe which this entire pitiful exercise, if was intended to achieve anything, was expected to put to bed.

the narrowness of the brexit vote should have allowed a range of now-discarded options to be tabled, e.g. membership of efta, retaining membership of the eea or customs union etc. there was the possibility of arranging things so that the membership of the european union lapsed but that at least part of the hostile environment we're now familiar with was avoided. what we have is a position in which many of the worst aspects of this country have profited from the brexit process and many of the best have been sidelined. the way in which may has said 'no no no' has at every turn stoked support not for the conservative party but for reactionary racist and radical right groups: it is impossible to me to think that the current furore about stephen yaxley-lennon could have occurred without the atmosphere may has played such a role in creating.

if may was in any way competent she wouldn't have discarded so early options which could have played a role in healing differences over brexit, where the european union was itself left but ties to some of its programmes e.g. cultural and educational ones remained. she wouldn't have put some of britain's most mediocre minds in charge of our relationships with the eu and foreign powers. she wouldn't have created such great divisions within parliament, but worked to minimise them.

but then of course if she'd done anything competent that would have been out of keeping with her past career.

your account misses the key and central sticking point of brexit, which i dont think you've addressed and which the government is addressing: to a majority of people vote Leave meant above all end of free movement, it meant control of borders - it means points based immigration. It was at the heart of the campaign and public perception. The tories recognise that and are attempting to at least pretend that that is what they want to happen. To not do so would be a betrayal to Tory voters and vast majority of Leavers in general.

A cross-party whatnot that you suggest would've quickly resulted in a retain free-movement agreement position. Cue civil war/betrayal of the people. Even Labour are on the same page as the Tories on that. That was always going be hanging over the negotiations and is the ultimate stumbling block.