Color me Brexit confused.

The Byzantine goings-on in the British parliament seem to be an instance in which the sidebars over-rule the main text.

The people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU. The Tories were in power then as well as now. They began hammering out an agreement with the EU, detailing the specifics of the leaving process. It took a couple of years to do this. The EU has said that the agreement is 'take it or leave without it'. The current Prime Minister has stated that the nation will leave the EU by October 31st of this year.

It seems to this overseas observer that there's little left to gnaw from the bones. Parliament will accept the agreement or it will not accept it. The 31st of October will see the end to the debate.

Meanwhile, there's article after article about this or that possibility.

What am I missing?

October 31st wasn't the original deadline. I doubt it will stand. Too many people are too spooked by what would happen if they jump without a parachute.

Torus34 said:

The Byzantine goings-on in the British parliament seem to be an instance in which the sidebars over-rule the main text.

The people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU. The Tories were in power then as well as now. They began hammering out an agreement with the EU, detailing the specifics of the leaving process. It took a couple of years to do this. The EU has said that the agreement is 'take it or leave without it'. The current Prime Minister has stated that the nation will leave the EU by October 31st of this year.

It seems to this overseas observer that there's little left to gnaw from the bones. Parliament will accept the agreement or it will not accept it. The 31st of October will see the end to the debate.

Meanwhile, there's article after article about this or that possibility.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Tours34:

You're not really missing anything except perhaps your faith in an October 31st date which to me does not seem so certain. This is a complex internal UK struggle between nations, political factions, very powerful financial and commercial interests, xenophobes or nationalists vs. globalists and most importantly foolish and ambitious politicians from many political parties. If the people making the decisions right in the middle of the crisis don't necessarily fully understand what the hell is going on, then it is no surprise that a fellow from Staten Island would be confused by the Brexit issue and political theatre going on around it. Don't get me wrong; this is serious stuff which could lead to the break-up of the U.K. and a moribund UK economy for the next decade or two, but it is befuddling nonetheless.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Tours34:

You're not really missing anything except perhaps your faith in an October 31st date which to me does not seem so certain. This is a complex internal UK struggle between nations, political factions, very powerful financial and commercial interests, xenophobes or nationalists vs. globalists and most importantly foolish and ambitious politicians from many political parties. If the people making the decisions right in the middle of the crisis don't necessarily fully understand what the hell is going on, then it is no surprise that a fellow from Staten Island would be confused by the Brexit issue and political theatre going on around it. Don't get me wrong; this is serious stuff which could lead to the break-up of the U.K. and a moribund UK economy for the next decade or two, but it is befuddling nonetheless.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Hi, and thank you. The impression I got, rightly or wrongly, was that for the last couple of years, some of the Tories were far more interested in getting rid of Mrs. Theresa May as Prime Minister than in dealing with the Brexit situation. Always nice to hear from someone north of the border. We visit Canada from time to time, usually via cruise ship up the coast from NYC. Hope Halifax and the surrounding area weathered the storm. Love Quebec City.

While I'm at it, I've the impression that Canadians view us Yanks as teenagers who, hopefully, might grow up OK, given time. ;-)

Regards.

Torus34 said:

~ What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Nearly everything and that's not being patronising.

The referendum was an advisory referendum however it gave strong intent to politicians. The vote was carried out in 2015 and I personally believe a large number of Brexiteers would vote the same again now that facts have become known.

Many others however have realised the carnage that will be committed on the UK economy, that it will lead to the break-up of the UK and worst of all - cause huge problems at the Northen Irish border that were brushed under the carpet during the referendum.

The EU did offer a deal separately - otherwise known as a Canada+++deal but it still keeps the Irish border solution that has upset many Brexiteers.

If you really want to see what the problem is - look at the impact of a hard Brexit on WTO standards on both the South and Northern parts of Ireland, as well as the rest of the UK.

The other complication is that you have the socialist reason for Brexit (so called Red-Leavers) who voted to protect local jobs and industry and you have the pensioners Brexit who dream of old Empire and 1950's Britain and then you have the hedge-fund section of the Conservative party who want to leave before EU rules on Taxes come into effect and they also see that they can make billions betting against the UK economy and the fortunes of the "Red-Leavers" and the pensioners.

I'm not too sure why people are just plain ass lying about the nature of the referendum. That is, how it was presented leading up to the vote.

Cameron said and I quote, "It is time for the British people to have their say, ...It is time to settle this European question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be your decision."

Jun16 was the referendum and conveniently Nov16 was the court's decision that any referendum can only be advisory. After the fact. People leading up to that had thought it was mandatory, that's why 72% of the vote turned out.

It's disingenuous to say the least that you have a vote presented as a final say on the direction of your country and then after the vote you say, well, thanks for your opinion, we'll take it under advisement.

ChezC3 said:

I'm not too sure why people are just plain ass lying about the nature of the referendum. That is, how it was presented leading up to the vote.

Cameron said and I quote, "It is time for the British people to have their say, ...It is time to settle this European question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be your decision."

Jun16 was the referendum and conveniently Nov16 was the court's decision that any referendum can only be advisory. After the fact. People leading up to that had thought it was mandatory, that's why 72% of the vote turned out.

It's disingenuous to say the least that you have a vote presented as a final say on the direction of your country and then after the vote you say, well, thanks for your opinion, we'll take it under advisement.

Click to expand...

No referendum in the UK is binding. Only Parliament is sovereign and all that jazz.

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk

PeteEU said:

No referendum in the UK is binding. Only Parliament is sovereign and all that jazz.

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thank you for repeating what I wrote already. That has been established. A little too late.

PeteEU said:

No referendum in the UK is binding. Only Parliament is sovereign and all that jazz.

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Article 50 and all that jazz....

Infinite Chaos said:

Nearly everything and that's not being patronising.

The referendum was an advisory referendum however it gave strong intent to politicians. The vote was carried out in 2015 and I personally believe a large number of Brexiteers would vote the same again now that facts have become known.

Many others however have realised the carnage that will be committed on the UK economy, that it will lead to the break-up of the UK and worst of all - cause huge problems at the Northen Irish border that were brushed under the carpet during the referendum.

The EU did offer a deal separately - otherwise known as a Canada+++deal but it still keeps the Irish border solution that has upset many Brexiteers.

If you really want to see what the problem is - look at the impact of a hard Brexit on WTO standards on both the South and Northern parts of Ireland, as well as the rest of the UK.

The other complication is that you have the socialist reason for Brexit (so called Red-Leavers) who voted to protect local jobs and industry and you have the pensioners Brexit who dream of old Empire and 1950's Britain and then you have the hedge-fund section of the Conservative party who want to leave before EU rules on Taxes come into effect and they also see that they can make billions betting against the UK economy and the fortunes of the "Red-Leavers" and the pensioners.

Click to expand...

Hi! Thank's very much for the information. The single most eye-opening bit for me was that the original vote which began this whole political circus wasn't binding! I had missed that entirely. That single clue explains much. Again, thank you.

Regards.

Torus34 said:

Hi! Thank's very much for the information. The single most eye-opening bit for me was that the original vote which began this whole political circus wasn't binding! I had missed that entirely. That single clue explains much. Again, thank you.

Regards.

Click to expand...

Whereas the referendum was technically not binding (any UK referendum is non-binding by default), the government nevertheless promised to honor it and then did. By invoking the EU's article 50 to leave and, prior to that, getting the act thru parliament that would enable that move.

As such Brexiteers' reminders that leaving has been passed into law is correct.

Just as a FYI.

Chagos said:

~any UK referendum is non-binding by default~

Click to expand...

And that's what so many are bleating about. We are not a direct democracy and never have been. I'd also argue however that any referendum even somewhere like Switzerland could be overturned just as any serious Govt wishing to leave could simply revoke the 1972 Act that joined us to the EU.

ChezC3 said:

I'm not too sure why people are just plain ass lying about the nature of the referendum. That is, how it was presented leading up to the vote.

Cameron said and I quote, "It is time for the British people to have their say, ...It is time to settle this European question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be your decision."

Jun16 was the referendum and conveniently Nov16 was the court's decision that any referendum can only be advisory. After the fact. People leading up to that had thought it was mandatory, that's why 72% of the vote turned out.

It's disingenuous to say the least that you have a vote presented as a final say on the direction of your country and then after the vote you say, well, thanks for your opinion, we'll take it under advisement.

Click to expand...

Searchable legal record of the Referendum act - feel free to point out where the referendum is presented as mandatory or binding.

European Union Referendum Act 2015

The only people plain ass lying are those who wished it to be binding. Even Farage accepted the referendum was advisory.

Infinite Chaos said:

And that's what so many are bleating about. We are not a direct democracy and never have been. I'd also argue however that any referendum even somewhere like Switzerland could be overturned just as any serious Govt wishing to leave could simply revoke the 1972 Act that joined us to the EU.



Searchable legal record of the Referendum act - feel free to point out where the referendum is presented as mandatory or binding.

European Union Referendum Act 2015

The only people plain ass lying are those who wished it to be binding. Even Farage accepted the referendum was advisory.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why Cameron immediately resigned and efforts began straight away to begin removing the UK from the EU...

AND

that's why it had to go to the courts in November16 to be ruled on...

Because everyone knew, it was all just for show...

:roll:

ChezC3 said:

Yes, and that's why Cameron immediately resigned and efforts began straight away to begin removing the UK from the EU...

Click to expand...

Article 50 was triggered 9 months after the referendum..

ChezC3 said:

AND

that's why it had to go to the courts in November16 to be ruled on...

Because everyone knew, it was all just for show...

:roll:

Click to expand...

No need to be a baby about it, the politicians who pushed for it suddenly realised they had the problem of the Northern Irish border to contend with. Even today, there's talk of BoJo shafting the Northern Irish with a Northern Ireland only border. The DUP even had a meeting with BoJo today about it and came out laughing and smiling because BoJo promised them it wouldn't happen but some of us know how much his promises are worth.

All very well arguing for something moronic, the problem comes when you have to actually make it work. Otherwise why even have an official meeting about such a thing you couldn't possibly consider...

Infinite Chaos said:

Article 50 was triggered 9 months after the referendum..



No need to be a baby about it, the politicians who pushed for it suddenly realised they had the problem of the Northern Irish border to contend with. Even today, there's talk of BoJo shafting the Northern Irish with a Northern Ireland only border. The DUP even had a meeting with BoJo today about it and came out laughing and smiling because BoJo promised them it wouldn't happen but some of us know how much his promises are worth.

All very well arguing for something moronic, the problem comes when you have to actually make it work. Otherwise why even have an official meeting about such a thing you couldn't possibly consider...

Click to expand...

Yes, but the wheels started immediately....don't start pettifogging...

I'm not the one goo goo ga ga-ing... I don't even necessarily thing that the UK being out of the EU is necessarily good business, but it is what the people wanted, it is what was promised, whether or not you want to get into picking nits, or splitting hairs, or carry on over minor technicalities, and the process was carried out. All this is a product of Cameron's hubris. He didn't think that the vote would go the way it did otherwise he'd have never allowed it. I don't care what anyone says, any one with a brain in their head, who knows anything about politics knows you're not going to put something like this to a vote if you aren't 100% sure of your position. Well, he was 110% sure and he got ****ed right in the ass.

So, no Northern Ireland wasn't really considered nor were countless things because no one thought that the vote was going to go the way it did.

As I have always said, the UK needed to, I would say needs to but they've screwed the pooch just too terribly, the UK needed to use Brexit as a bargaining chip to restructure the entire EU.

I'm not opposed to a EU in principle, to the contrary I'm quite for it, which is why all of this BS nazi this, alt right, trumpanzee, facsist, populist is so very funny to me. I'm opposed to the EU as it is currently organized. Change the organization structure to one I find suitable and watch me write them a EU Anthem...

As it is, what we're going to see is a huge mess continue until the malaise and disenfranchisement becomes so overpowering that they just end up remaining. But that still will not take away the black mark that the UK has given themselves as it regards how they view democracy. Time will heal, a week or two will go by and all will be forgotten, and everyone can get back to watching Midsomer Murders, Peaky Blinders, and Derry Girls and enjoying a nice cuppa...

Infinite Chaos said:

And that's what so many are bleating about. We are not a direct democracy and never have been. I'd also argue however that any referendum even somewhere like Switzerland could be overturned just as any serious Govt wishing to leave could simply revoke the 1972 Act that joined us to the EU---------------------~

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't remember the exact number (of instances) but referendums to give Swiss women the right to vote ended negatively for the women various times until a positive result in the early 70s.

IOW they voted time and time again (guys and gals alike) until they finally got it right.

Torus34 said:

The Byzantine goings-on in the British parliament seem to be an instance in which the sidebars over-rule the main text.

The people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU. The Tories were in power then as well as now. They began hammering out an agreement with the EU, detailing the specifics of the leaving process. It took a couple of years to do this. The EU has said that the agreement is 'take it or leave without it'. The current Prime Minister has stated that the nation will leave the EU by October 31st of this year.

It seems to this overseas observer that there's little left to gnaw from the bones. Parliament will accept the agreement or it will not accept it. The 31st of October will see the end to the debate.

Meanwhile, there's article after article about this or that possibility.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

First it was a non-binding referendum in which 2 of the countries of the UK, Northern Ireland and Scotland vote to remain and England and Wales vote to leave.

Secondly, as it was only a non-binding referendum, there was still the issue of more than 48% of the people voting to remain. Now the problem became that there are MP's from remain districts, where the number of remain voters is very high, suddenly had to agree to a Brexit. Now in principle some of them would have to hold their noses and do what the leaders of their parties had suggested/said (we will respect the vote) but when the issue became leaving without a deal, that became one step too far for those MP's who already were remainers. Leaving with a deal fine, but leaving with no deal, HELL NO.

Then there are the Good Friday accords, a deal between the UK, the Irish government and the parties of the Northern Ireland conflict. That meant that the closing of the border would be a real hot topic issue. Ireland was not going to agree to a hard border, it violated several agreements from the Good Friday and other accords. The EU wanted the problems solved and stated that as long as no proper agreement had been made to solve that issue, there would have to be a backstop. Northern Ireland and Ireland would still have no closed border and the border would then be between the Irish Island and the UK proper. That made the Irish happy, the republicans in Northern Ireland happy and the EU satisfied that there would not be a renewed problem in Northern Ireland and that the peace treaties were respected.

But the Loyalists in Northern Ireland were not happy with a back stop, they did not want there to be a risk that there would be a long term border between the UK and Northern Ireland. So they voted with Theresa May and the issue of the backstop was never even attempted to get solved and Boris was the same.

So you have the issues with some leavers not willing to have a no-deal Brexit, hard line Brexiteers in the Tory party who were dead set on leaving with no deal if needed and the 48.11% of people already not wanting to leave.

MP's (members of parliament) live on a first past the post system. You don't have to get 50% of the vote to get elected, you just need one more than your opponents. Because usually there are loads of opponents. These MP's are career politicians mostly and after the Brexit vote, there was a General election in the UK.

continued second post

continuation first post:

Now Theresa May thought she could increase her MP count by holding an election just 2 years after the previous one. At that election the Tories had 330 Members of parliament. Which was enough for her party to rule outright with no coalition needed. But she hed that snap election and lost 13 seats setting her back to 317, not enough to rule outright. So she cut a deal with the Northern Irish loyalists I mentioned above to make sure that the NI would go how the Loyalist DUP wanted it to go (NO BACKSTOP). With the support of the 10 DUP voters she could push trough Brexit.

So she made a deal but part of parliament did not like the deal. So she lost time and time again. Except weakening her own position by losing time after time and by losing the election. The parties who either were remain or leave BUT only with a deal suddenly found themselves with much more seats and power. Theresa said she would leave, hoping that some in her party or the opposition would vote for her leaving deal with the EU. She lost that vote again. And then came Boris, bull in the China shop Boris. He promised that deal or no deal next month he would take the UK out of the EU. Now the problems really were coming to a head because while the majority of his party wanted a brexit no matter what, that left the part of his own party who was either from remain districts (making them loose their jobs most likely) or thought that a no-deal Brexit would be that devastating to the UK that they could not agree with it. Now the opposition was wrestling Brexit control out of Boris's hands because they want to make sure there would not be a no deal Brexit and Boris threatened that all those of his own party who would vote against him would be kicked out of the party. The first one defected during his Brexit speech, at the vote more than 20 others had voted with the opposition. His no-deal Brexit plan was not acceptable and they voted in a law that would force him to ask for an extension to the Brexit date so that further talks could be had. And then Boris prorogued Parliament.

In other words he sent them home for 5 weeks, officially so that he could work on his budget, in reality to keep the opposition from doing exactly what it did and that is where we are now.

@Peter King:

Many thanks for taking time to provide such detailed information. I'm now, thanks to you and others, much better informed, but not necessarily any closer to being able to see a logical, successful conclusion to the mess. It appears that, in some strange way, the entanglements of all manner of concepts in the Brexit maps onto other unsolvable problems as the Israel/Palestinian situation and the disposition of the prisoners at Gitmo.

Another possible insight is that democratic parliaments/congresses, with no other restraint on their actions but the Supreme Court and, where it exists, a presidential veto, can push the limits of their power and ability to reverse their own decisions and thereby render themselves inoperative.

Regards, and again, thank you.

Torus34 said:

The Byzantine goings-on in the British parliament seem to be an instance in which the sidebars over-rule the main text.

The people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU. The Tories were in power then as well as now. They began hammering out an agreement with the EU, detailing the specifics of the leaving process. It took a couple of years to do this. The EU has said that the agreement is 'take it or leave without it'. The current Prime Minister has stated that the nation will leave the EU by October 31st of this year.

It seems to this overseas observer that there's little left to gnaw from the bones. Parliament will accept the agreement or it will not accept it. The 31st of October will see the end to the debate.

Meanwhile, there's article after article about this or that possibility.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

The people in Scotland and Wales voted stay.

Torus34 said:

The Byzantine goings-on in the British parliament seem to be an instance in which the sidebars over-rule the main text.

The people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU. The Tories were in power then as well as now. They began hammering out an agreement with the EU, detailing the specifics of the leaving process. It took a couple of years to do this. The EU has said that the agreement is 'take it or leave without it'. The current Prime Minister has stated that the nation will leave the EU by October 31st of this year.

It seems to this overseas observer that there's little left to gnaw from the bones. Parliament will accept the agreement or it will not accept it. The 31st of October will see the end to the debate.

Meanwhile, there's article after article about this or that possibility.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Most of it, including all the consequences.

Support for Brexit existed almost entirely in rural areas and in the industrial midlands. Here, opportunistic politicians and crackpot appealed to xenophobia in the working classes to sell retreat from the world, just as they do in the United States.

We are talking about severing trade relations with the UK’s largest trading partner, without any established rules for trade, no customs regulations or infrastructure, no regulation, no standards, and no way for the bankers to know how to value business transactions.

Ironically, Britain became a center for auto production in the EU after the UK joined the EU. Now plants are closing amidst the economic uncertainly created by the Brexit fiasco.

Scotland has already come perilously close to seceeding from the UK over this. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales want to stay in the EU.

The UK economy is already contracting because of the chaos.

And into that mix comes Boris Johnson. But I don’t expect him to last till October 31st.

ChezC3 said:

Yes, but the wheels started immediately....don't start pettifogging... ~

Click to expand...

Um, they didn't. It took a court case against the Govt in 2017 by Gina Miller to force the Govt to seek approval before starting the process.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

The rest of your fluff is therefore not worthy of further discussion.

Infinite Chaos said:

Um, they didn't. It took a court case against the Govt in 2017 by Gina Miller to force the Govt to seek approval before starting the process.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

The rest of your fluff is therefore not worthy of further discussion.

Click to expand...

Within 6 months which for all intents and purposes is immediately. Like I said, Pettifogger.

ChezC3 said:

Within 6 months which for all intents and purposes is immediately. Like I said, Pettifogger.

Click to expand...

6 months is the same as "immediately?"

I'd ask for your English comprehension classes costs back if I were you.