UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

I think it's because lyers know they have to be more beguiling. Political lying is usually meant as a seduction, as opposed to cover-up lying. Very different approaches. Trump converts any cover-up lying into political lying, working as a hypnotist.

Az wrote:Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.

That's what's still puzzling me about Brexit. Surely there are more than a few wealthy powerful Brits whose fortunes have benefited from free trade with the EU?

{{ Quite the opposite Dave- the Tory plan is too turn the UK into an even bigger financial centre freed of the all those pesky laws of the EU. Or to put it another way we will be a money-laundering, tax haven with a no questions asked policy.
Its already begun with Boris proposing 100 new 'free ports'- these are basically places where folk can bring stuff in, pass it off, ship it out and minimum to no questions asked and cheap or even no tariffs.

There is reason to think that a factor in Tory thinking on the Brexit side is that the EU were about to bring in new anti-tax avoidance rules. There are those in the Tory party who think that would open up Britain to allegations of not being entirely opaque when it comes to things like all the Russian money sloshing around London or tied up in UK property, and would impact on a sector they want to be even more free and less opaque. And from which, purely coincidentally they, their families and all their friends benefit from. }}

So basically the British Isles would become the new Bahama's, only with crappy weather and midges? Now there's an economic model! {{{}}}

{{ Brexit update! Well I call it an update as you might be forgiven for thinking with Boris's new government and talk of action that at least whilst things were political bravado in public, behind the scenes talks would be afoot between UK govenrment and EU negotiators to solve this dilemma.
Ha! No chance. Boris new government have met with the EU for negotiators on a new deal exactly zero times so far.

Why?
Well Boris you see took the position that Westminster has rejected Mays deal and so therefore that deal was dead, so the EU had better come up with a new deal the UK can accept- the ball is in the EU court Boris said. Its up to them to change their position not us.

Naturally the EU summed this up as being back where we were at the start 3 years ago. The deal is dead says the UK, but it has not offered any alternative plans to the deal, further Boris ministers have told the EU that they will not be held to any agreements made under the former leadership of May. In short nothing that happened in negotiations for the last three years still counts. Its all to this point been a massive waste of time and money.
As a result the EU negotiators have concluded (rightly so) that there is nothing to come to the table with the UK to talk about, the UK has no deal to offer, no plan to get a deal through parliament, and no concrete plans for how to solve the border issue without the backstop. The EU say right now there is simply nothing to negotiate. So that's what happening, nothing.
The clock ticks on to October 31st and nothing is happening at all between the two sides.

So what next? - well the do or die date that seems popular is the end of this month, when there is G7 conference. Its reckoned if there is still this stalemate by then, then No-deal Brexit is all but an inevitability if Boris stays determined to leave on oct 31st- which he now really has too as he has staked his entire reputation on that very public and repeated assertion.  


edit add-  Boris has replied to the EU. Not with anything that makes sense but its a reply at least!

'The government has rejected claims it is unwilling to negotiate with the EU and wants talks to fail to allow a no-deal Brexit....A No 10 spokesperson said: "The prime minister wants to meet EU leaders and negotiate a new deal - one that abolishes the anti-democratic backstop.
We will throw ourselves into the negotiations with the greatest energy and the spirit of friendship and we hope the EU will rethink its current refusal to make any changes to the withdrawal agreement."

Or in essence more of the same, its not up to us to come up with anew deal, its up to you to change the existing one as Boris wants, even though doing so would compromise the integrity of the single market, which is itself integral to the functioning of the EU.

The UK government has unequivocally said today that "the EU must change its stance" to which the EU has replied, it was willing to hold talks in the coming weeks by phone or in person, "should the UK wish to clarify its position in more detail".

Or in short Boris hasn't proposed any alternatives to the current plan for them to actually negotiate on.

Oh and for the record in case you are wondering where the backstop came from, this plan the Brexiteers say is a sneaky, underhanded means by which the EU can keep the UK enthralled to the EU in perpetuity? Yeah you guessed it, it was proposed by the Tories in the negotiations under May, its  a Tory idea the UK insisted on having, to resolve the NI issue, then agreed to by EU, then we turned round and accused them of using it  to keep us in a trap and it has to go!    

another quick addition, a quote form a senior EU spokesperson I thought worth noting-

"It was clear UK does not have another plan. No intention to negotiate, which would require a plan,"}}}}

What?

This will be the biggest fight that parliament has ever seen, its on a knife edge and it could go either way.

I can see Boris' approach fitting into libertarian reasoning, though he's never come off to me as libertarian. Not that I've made a study of the man.

https://www.facebook.com/janeygodleyfanpage/videos/904962679839289/

{{ Brexit update. And its all about the Backstop again.

I should probably in brief outline what that is again and why its a problem, or not.
Basically when the UK leaves the EU Northern Ireland will be in a different trading block (UK) to the rest of Ireland (EU).
Once Britain starts making its own trade deals outside the EU block, and altering import/export rules, standards in food or animal welfare, any number of things that would diverge from the EU version, then some sort of border will be required to monitor it all going back and forth between the two.

Problem being Ireland's rather violent past and the symbolic nature of a border dividing Ireland, likely to become a focal point for dissent and future violence.

Now both sides, the EU and the UK are opposed to the creation of a border for this reason. Understandably southern Ireland is particularly keen to avoid one and the potential trouble such a physical border would bring.

The solution was the backstop.
In the event the UK and EU cannot agree terms of a new trade deal between them, the backstop would come into effect until such time as a deal could be resolved. And what it does is it keeps the UK blocks standards the same as the EU's (or as current) so that a physical border with checks is not required until a deal can be made that safeguards transactions without a physical border.

The problem for Brexiteers here is that in their paranoia they envisage the backstop as a cunning EU plan to keep the UK locked effectively in the EU forever (it's worth noting here that the backstop was in fact something May's Tory government created not the EU, the EU just agreed to it and signed up on it as part of the withdrawal deal), but not only locked into the EU but therefore having to meet its standards across the board limiting the sort of shady deals the Tories plan to do with other nations outside the EU.
Why would it be forever? Well your Mogg's of the world and his like think the EU will deliberately negotiate a new trade deal in bad faith, making it impossible to come to a deal, and so trapping the UK in the backstop forever (and no, I'm not making this up!)

Now solutions up to this point proposed in terms of how to negotiate this have been to renegotiate the backstop putting some sort of sunset clause into so it can't run forever and allowing the UK to exit it any time of it's choosing and go to WTO rules instead.

That was the case until today.
Today our PM Boris announced that the EU doesn't need to renegotiate the terms of the backstop- because it needs to go. The whole idea. The entire backstop and all therein.

A position everyone, including him knows is impossible for the EU to agree to with no alternative offered in its place. And one to which if they did agree would not only undermine the single market and travel area, but also utterly betray southern Ireland, one of their own members who are adamant a backstop must be in the deal to protect from the threat of a physical border in Ireland.

In short Boris is demanding the EU make a concession he knows they can't whilst simultaneously offering no alternative plan or solution to the problem the backstop addresses.
As Boris knows the EU cannot sign up to that presumably his plan is to get a NO Deal Brexit then claim it was all the nasty EU's fault when it happens.
At least I assume that's what he is doing as no other rational explanation would seem to present itself at this point. }}

{{ Thoughts of May's, and now former, Chancellor, Hammond on this topic-

"The pivot from demanding changes to the backstop to demanding its total removal is a pivot from a tough negotiating stance to a wrecking one.
The unelected people who pull the strings of this government know that this is a demand the EU cannot, and will not, accede to."
Mr Hammond also warned that a no-deal Brexit would "break up the UK", saying the reality would be "a diminished and inward-looking little England".
It was a "travesty of the truth", he said, to pretend that Leave voters backed a no-deal Brexit in the 2016 referendum.
"Most people in this country want to see us leave in a smooth and orderly fashion that will not disrupt lives, cost jobs or diminish living standards, whether they voted Leave or Remain in 2016," he said. "Parliament faithfully reflects the view of that majority and it will make its voice heard." -BBC

That last bit is a real threat for Boris. It would seem from the rumblings that Hammond is effectively the head of a cross party group of MP's (a sizeable group) determined to prevent a No Deal (remember there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, Boris is trying to force this through against the will of Parliament). }}

{{ Boris is doubling down on his blame game.
Now he is accusing anyone in Parliament who opposes Brexit as 'collaborating with the EU'.
His argument goes if there are people in Parliament trying to block No Deal Brexit then the EU will not compromise and make No Deal more likely.

'Mr Johnson said he wanted to leave with a deal but "we need our European friends to compromise".

Only yesterday he was saying the backstop must go entirely, that would not be them compromising it would be them throwing the entire Withdrawal Agreement out the window with no replacement in sight.

"There's a terrible kind of collaboration as it were, going on between people who think they can block Brexit in Parliament and our European friends," he added. "The more they think there's a chance that Brexit can be blocked in Parliament, the more adamant they are in sticking to their position."

No negotiations are likely to take place until sometime in September anyway, for two reasons- firstly Boris is offering nothing to negotiate on, just a list of unmeetable demands. And Secondly Downing Street expects Parliament to table a motion to block a No Deal when a NI debate is scheduled to take place, the EU will probably see no point doing anything until that is decided. And that will put us just 6 weeks from Boris's 'Do or Die' Brexit date of Oct 31st. }}

That repulsive toad is using the language of war to inflame the brexit fanatics, he is using trump tactics and gutter press tactics. This is getting dangerous.

{{ Yup, agreed Figg. And add to that a dash of his Churchill biographies I feel, only where Churchill had a legitimate enemy Boris is having to invent one. The EU is not Hitler!

The US just dealt him another bad blow however, another Brexit catch-22.
Just the other day the US was saying it was ready to strike a trade deal as soon as we left, that it could be done sector by sector not all at once so it could get going almost immediately, and that it was all good. But the Trump caveat on that is we have to be out the EU single market zone so we can strike deals with the US on goods (like chlorinated chicken) currently banned in the EU.

Today the Democrats, who control the House, say they will not pass any trade deal with the UK if there is any threat to the NI peace deal. Effectively ruling out a No Deal exit, any sort of physical border and effectively supporting the idea of the backstop. Which would mean staying aligned with EU markets for now.

So if we keep the backstop the Republicans wont deal.
And if we leave without one the Democrats wont pass the deal. }}

To paraphrase our President, "Who knew it could be so complicated?!?"

good work Nancy

So which is better, a head of state who's smart but plays like he's dumb, or a head of state who's dumb but think he's smart? Because it looks like you've got the former while we've got the latter, and I think you've gotten the better deal.

{{ Things are crystallizing on the Corbyn front. he has a plan!
His plan is to get a vote of no-confidence in the govenrment, form an interim government that's cross party which he would lead, ask the EU for an extension to article 50 and then hold a general election, followed by another referendum on Leaving.

The main issue the people he needs help with in this plan have (opponents of No Deal on all sides and the Remainers of course), particularity delivering the no confidence vote is with the referendum bit. The Remainer faction in particular want it before another general election, not after (as if the Tories win it won't happen).

However it does tie together Labours actions in Scotland as outlined on the Freedom thread. As well as announcing this plan today Corbyn also choose the same day to make his first public statement since the apparent policy shift on a 2nd Scottish independence referendum-

"It's not up to parliament to block it but it's up to parliament to make a point about whether it's a good idea or not. I do not think it's a good idea"

This of course completely undermines not only the position of Scottish Labour, which is to oppose another referendum and for Westminster to refuse the granting of one, but also the UK Labour manifesto as it currently stands.
But it will get him no doubt the necessary SNP votes he needs to have any hope of winining a no-confidence vote. }}

I think he is demanding that he should be leader of any national unity government, nobody wants him as PM so it all hangs on the amount of stubborn determination he has left to insist on it. If he does its curtains. The SNP wont accept it, the Lib Dems would not accept it, the Tory rebels would never in a million years allow it, so the only hope is choosing someone neutral who everyone can stomach, probably Cooper, Starmer or Grieve. That could be a good caretaker government with purpose.

{{ Yeah Corbyns insisting he will lead the interim govenrment, the Lib Dems have already said thats a non-starter but as everything Corbyn has done since the start is to try to get himself in power and to force an election I dont think he is going to change tact now.
Even this latest plan betrays is favourableness towards another election over another referendum, even risking a 2nd referendum by kicking it down the road till after any election rather than before (as it presumes the Tories would lose, and Im not so sure about that right now with Corbyn as the alternative).

If Corbyn was actually thinking for the good of the country he would act as facilitator for negotiations on an interim government, elect a neutral figure to lead it and for it to last only long enough to request a further delay to Article 50 in order to hold the 2nd confirmatory referendum, then once the result is clear dissolve it and then hold the general election to pick a government to carry out whatever the 2nd referendum result is. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ If Corbyn was actually thinking for the good of the country ..... }}

I think maybe there's another Catch-22 going on here too. The people most qualified to lead rarely choose to.  
Over here, I know some really good legislators and congressmen who truly have the good of the country and their constituents at heart, and exactly none of them have ever tried for a leadership position above the level of committee chairman.  They know the committee level is where they can personally be most effective.
They're exactly the people I'd most like to see in party leadership, and yet they always seem to leave those roles for the egotists.

Corbyn will lead to a no deal brexit and Johnson winning the next election. He is the weak link in the whole ludicrous edifice, I think that it will be his inertia and ambition which will destroy any chance to remain. He wants brexit and he wants to be king so that he can fulfil his dreams, he wont give up now. His supporters are pushing the fact that he is legitimately leader of the Opposition, yes he is, but that doesn't make him the best or right person to lead a caretaker neutral government.

Somebody leaked Cummings masterplan to the Huff post, its all looking like the Soviet INFEKTION disinformation campaign. quelle surprise. He is looking more like Wormtongue every day.

Can't find the Huffpost article you're talking about Figg. Is there a link?