Ok so this means...that there should be an election? This is exactly what should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Why?
One is as others have said. Election now would make a no-deal crashout more likely.
The other is that it was also deliberately timed to reduce participation in a largely non-tory demographic.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/general-election-date-aim...
Boris is now forced to ask Brussels for an extension due to parliament taking over the brexit process. Only then a general election can happen.
The government has a minority of something like -40. This cannot function for long.
Plus do we want election after election fought on a single issue? It's torn the Tories apart, Labour isnt far behind, the Lib Dems aren't exactly endorsing a nuanced set of policies.
We're going to have a 2nd referendum at some point, personally I'd like it to come before an election so parliament can get back to some kind of normalcy, which I don't think will be helped by a parliament full of MPs selected purely on the basis of their views on one issue.
Just to note, when I was a child (actually almost until I was an adult) people were killing each other in Ireland, the UK and Northern Ireland every single week.
We all got together, and that's been over for almost twenty years, because we pretended there was/wasn't a border so the pro-UK people could pretend it was there, and the pro-Ireland people could pretend it wasn't.
Somewhat crazily, this actually worked. Unfortunately, Brexit (especially a hard one) necessitates a border. If there is a border in Northern Ireland, there will be violence, along with lots and lots of small businesses going to the wall, along with British troops back in Ireland and smuggling.
It's basically a disaster, and while the British people have the right to leave the EU, and rule the waves again, te Irish people also have a right to not start violence in Northern Ireland again.
Hence the backstop - it's not an attempt to trap the UK in the EU (although we are very, very sorry you're leaving), it's an attempt to prevent the return of violence on the island of Ireland.
Except that the UK and Ireland have both said they won’t build a hard border Under any circumstances , so who exactly is going to be installing this hard border?
> If there is a border in Northern Ireland,
There already is one (soft)
> along with British troops back in Ireland
There are British troops based in Northern Ireland right now just as there are elsewhere in the UK
> it's not an attempt to trap the UK in the EU
It just happens to have that effect, by being basically thr only treaty that it is impossible to unilaterally leave.
> it’s an attempt to prevent the return of violence on the island of Ireland.
It’s a political tool to ensure the UK doesn’t thrive outside the EU, given the sorry state of the rest of the Eurozone that would make the EU look bad.
Unfortunately EU negotiators have been far more effective than British negotiators hence why we have a deal that is unacceptable to anyone (On either side) in the British Parliament it is so bad.
They are both lying for political purposes. Unless the UK stay in the CM/SU, there will be a customs border. The EU will require one from the Irish side, and the UK will require one in order to get any trade deals.
> If there is a border in Northern Ireland,
>There already is one (soft)
Have you been there lately? I pass the border a bunch when we travel north, and the only way I notice is the different signs and Google maps switching to miles instead of kilometers. > along with British troops back in Ireland
>There are British troops based in Northern Ireland right now just as there are elsewhere in the UK
Fair enough, however there were a lot more back during the Troubles.
> it's not an attempt to trap the UK in the EU
>It just happens to have that effect, by being basically thr only treaty that it is impossible to unilaterally leave.
Like, it's impossible to leave unless the UK maintains the Good Friday Agreement, which essentially requires a mostly soft border. The border was a frequent target of republican terrorists and is likely to become so again, hence why you have US members of Congress saying that no trade deal with the UK is possible unless the GFA is maintained (are they also trying to trap the UK in the EU?).
> it’s an attempt to prevent the return of violence on the island of Ireland.
>It’s a political tool to ensure the UK doesn’t thrive outside the EU, given the sorry state of the rest of the Eurozone that would make the EU look bad.
I'm not sure if there is anything I can say to change your mind on this, but I strongly disagree with your assessment here.
>Unfortunately EU negotiators have been far more effective than British negotiators hence why we have a deal that is unacceptable to anyone (On either side) in the British Parliament it is so bad.
The British government have literally done everything wrong here. They had no idea what they wanted, check. They set ridiculous red lines and had to walk them back, check. I completely agree that the UK negotiators have done a poor job, but it's been because there is no consensus even within Goevrnment as to what the UK should do (if anyone's interested in this, I strongly recommend checking out the speeches of Ivan Rogers).
There will be a customs border, but that doesn't mean there has to be infrastructure on the border. Again, the idea of a hard border is a red herring, as nobody is going to build one.
> Have you been there lately? I pass the border a bunch when we travel north, and the only way I notice is the different signs and Google maps switching to miles instead of kilometers.
Sure, and there are already differences as you just pointed out.
> Fair enough, however there were a lot more back during the Troubles.
Sure, no body wants to go back to that.
> Like, it's impossible to leave unless the UK maintains the Good Friday Agreement, which essentially requires a mostly soft border. The border was a frequent target of republican terrorists and is likely to become so again, hence why you have US members of Congress saying that no trade deal with the UK is possible unless the GFA is maintained (are they also trying to trap the UK in the EU?).
Yes the UK has said it will maintain the Good Friday Agreement, but that doesn't mean we should have to stay in the single market/customs union.
> I'm not sure if there is anything I can say to change your mind on this, but I strongly disagree with your assessment here.
Which bit? The EU clearly doesn't want Brexit to be a success otherwise it might encourage other countries that are less than delighted with they EU, to leave. Far better if they can point to the UK and go "look how much better it was before they tried to leave". The Eurozone economically is in a bit of a sorry state, not sure what there is to disagree with there. Ok it is slightly better than a few years ago in some parts of the south, but not much.
> The British government have literally done everything wrong here.
Well, I certainly can agree with you there. No doubt the EU has shown remarkable unity, and the UK has shown disunity and disorganisation.
Ah here, that's more alive than ever right now!
If we had voted to remain and there was a movement attempting to force us to leave I would be manning the barricades in support of remain, despite the fact I voted leave and believe we should leave. And that's because the principle of freedom supercedes what I may or may not like. That's democracy: sometimes you lose, and you moan a bit, and then accept it and get on with things.
In the end, democracy is the only thing that the little man has to defend himself and fighting to keep us in the EU is taking even that little thing away. Why bother voting ever again when if the result is inconvenient for the powers that be, they will simply declare democracy invalid?
No you wouldn't.
The referendum was chaotic, with multiple leave campaigns, and people were constantly lied to about what the outcome would look like. If the debate had been much clearer about what the cost would be, especially of no deal, then it might have been acceptable. But the whole reason it's fallen apart is competing versions of "fantasy Brexit" that can't be delivered.
As a separate issue, the windows of both sides on 'acceptable' Brexits have been diverging quickly, partly because everyone is now sick of it and partly because the hardcore on both sides are taking the opportunity to seize control of the narrative. As a consequence, anything short of WTO terms is now "BRINO" (which would actually describe the kind of Norway-plus exit fantasised by some on the Remain side after the defeat) and contrariwise anything short of revocation without a referendum is a betrayal of truth and justice.
Never mind. It's not like we wanted a functioning polity after this is resolved, in any case...
Because Labour may not do well at all. Certainly it is very doubtful that they would get an outright majority.
They are split on Brexit (London very pro-Remain, most Northern traditional Labour seats pro-Brexit) and they have been hijacked by effectively communists. This means is has been very hard for them to gather broad support.
This is very visible in the polls where they only get lukewarm numbers.
Well Labour and other party members abstained from a proposal from the prime minster to hold an election and it required 2/3 of MPs, but that never happened.
Labour is trying to get in power, first and foremost.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) they are currently so left wing that they are scaring most moderates away.
The economist M.Blyth has said that best: Jeremy doesnt want an election , he wants to watch the tories tear down themselves to pieces.
Stay or Leave
If (Leave ==true)
With deal or With no deal
That way we get to make a proper decision,with what we have now and didn't have before the referendum, a much more informed electorate.
The link you provided shows the largest group (44%) oppose leaving with No Deal.
which is what matters if brexit is still the majority position.
That's a subtle distinction, but it's hugely important to Labour's political decision-making.
Even Corbyn is a life-long Brexiter.
This is the very reason Labour is struggling to set out a clear policy on this issue: It is impossible to satisfy their supporters in London and their supporters in the North at the same time but they need to in order to hope to win a general election.
A very telling example: Bolsover. 71% voted leave. MP is the infamous hard left Labour Dennis Skinner (MP there since 1970!), who is a Brexiter.
It's not so much that Labour is finding it difficult to satisfy their supporters in different parts of the country (though that's a small sub-game), it's that MPs in leave seats fear that not leaving will turn over large chunks of the anti-system vote to the Brexit party.
Both Bolsover and Skinner are hardcore leavers, though, that much is true. That doesn't change that the Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, Labour voters are majority remain, and the majority of the leave vote was in Conservative parts of the south, not Labour parts of the North.
Better odds on IndyRef2 and re-unification of the Irish than that.